Cognition, Communication, and Romantic Relationships 9780805835779, 0805835776, 9781410600486, 1410600483

Table of contents :
Content: Contents: Overview. The Modern-Day Pursuit of Intimacy and Relational Memory Structures. Schemata, Scenes, and Scripts for Romantic Relationships. Memorable Messages, Prototypes, and Relational Memory. Emotion and Cognition About Relationships. Generating and Maintaining Relationships Through Imagined Interactions. Development of Relationships: Stage Theories Versus Relational Memory Theory. Memory Structures for Developing Relationships. Memory Structures for Decaying Relationships. Semantics of Breakups: Claims of Omission and Commission. Future Research on Relational Memory Structures.

Citation preview

James M. Honeycutt * James G. Cantrill

C O G N IT IO N , C O M M U N IC A T IO N , A N D R O M A N T IC R E L A T IO N S H IP S

L E A ’S S c rie s in P e rso n al R e la tio n sh ip s ________ Steve Duck, Series Editor________ B en n ett • Tim e and Intim acy: A N ew M odel for Personal R elationsh ips C h ristop h er • To D an ce the D an ce: A Sym bolic In teraction al E xploration o f Prem arital Sexuality H o n cy cutt/C an trill • C ogn ition , C om m u n ication , and R om antic R elationsh ips M iller/A lberts/H ech t/T rost/K rizek • A d o lescen t R elationsh ips and D rug U se

C O G N IT IO N , C O M M U N IC A T IO N , A N D R O M A N T IC R E L A T IO N S H IP S

Jam es M . H oneycutt Louisiana State University

Jam es G . C antrill Northern Michigan University

I ) Routledge Taylor & Francis Croup NEW YORK AND LONDON

A n i n s t r u c t o r ’s m a n u a l for this tex t is a v a ila b le to all a d o p t e r s . To o b ta in a copy, p le a s e c o n t a c t the p ub lish e r at 1 ■ '800 -926-6579 or w w w .erlbaum .co m

C o p y r ig h t €> 2 001 by L a w r e n c e E rlb au m A s s o c i a t e s , Inc. A ll rights r e se rv ed . N o part o f this b ook m a y be r e p r o d u c e d in any form, by p h o t o s t a t , m icrofilm , retrieval sy stem , or an y oth e r m e a n s , w ith o u t prio r w ritte n p e r m issio n o f the publisher.

First p u b lish e d by L a w r e n c e E rlb a u m A s s o c i a t e s , Inc., Publishers 10 In d u strial A v e n u e M ahwah, N J 07430 T h i s e d ition p u b lish e d by R o u t le d g e 711 T h ird A v e n u e , N e w York, N Y 10017 27 C h u rc h R o a d , H o v e , E ast S u s s e x , E ast S u s s e x , B N 3 2 F A R o u tle d g e is an im p rin t o f th e T ay lor &. F ran c is G r o u p , an in fo rm a b u sin e ss

C o v e r d e sign by K a th ry n H o u g h t a l in g L ac e y Library o f C o n g r e s s C a talo g in g -in -P u b lic a tio n D a ta

H o n e y c u tt , J a m e s M. C o g n it i o n , c o m m u n i c a t i o n , an d r o m a n t ic re la tio n sh ip s / J a m e s M . H o n e y c u t t , J a m e s G . C an trill. p. c m . — ( L E A ’s series o n p e r so n a l re la tio n sh ip s) In c lu d e s b ib lio g rap h ic al re fe re n c e s (p.) a n d index. I S B N 0 - 8 0 5 8 - 3 5 7 7 - 6 (pb k . : alk . pa pe r) 1. In tim a c y (P sychology) 2. I n te r p e rs o n a l R e la t io n s . 3. L o v e . 4- In te r p e r ­ s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n . 5. C o g n it i o n . I. C a n t rill, J a m e s G . ( J a m e s G e r a r d ) , 1955-11. Title. III. S e rie s. B F 5 7 5 .I 5 H 6 6 1 5 8 .2 — dc21

2000 00-039383 CIP

T h is book is ded icated to the m em ory o f Jo h n B o o n e H o n ey cu tt. H is legacy a c ts a s a gu id e th at positiv ely influen ces expectation s a b o u t the m e an in g of c o m m u n icatio n , com m itm en t, love, an d in tim acy in close, en d u rin g p e rso n a l re latio n sh ip s.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents In Brief

O v e rv ie w

C h ap te r 1

T h e M o d e rn -D ay P u rsu it o f In tim acy an d R e la tio n a l M em o ry S tru c tu re s

1

C h ap te r 2

S c h e m a ta , S c e n e s, an d S c rip ts for R o m a n tic R e latio n sh ip s

9

C h ap te r 3

M em o rab le M e ssa g e s, P ro to ty p es, an d R e la tio n a l M em ory

36

C h ap te r 4

E m o tio n an d C o g n itio n A b o u t R e la tio n sh ip s

45

C h ap te r 5

G e n e ra tin g an d M a in ta in in g R e latio n sh ip s T h ro u g h Im agin ed In te rac tio n s

62

C h ap te r 6

D e v e lo p m e n t o f R e latio n sh ip s: S ta g e T h e o r ie s V ersus R e la tio n a l M em ory T h e o ry

82

C h ap te r 7

M em ory S tru c tu re s for D e v e lo p in g R e latio n sh ip s

102

C h ap te r 8

M em ory S tru c tu re s for D eca y in g R e la tio n sh ip s

134 vii

C hapter 9

S e m a n tic s ofB reak u p s: C laim s o f O m issio n and C o m m issio n

156

C h a p te r 10

Future R e sea rc h on R e latio n a l M em ory S tru c tu re s

166

R eferen ces

179

A u th o r In dex

193

S u b je ct In dex

197

Contents

S e rie s E d ito r ’s Fo rew o rd

xvii

P re fa c e

xix

C h a p te r 1

C h a p te r 2

T h e M o dern-D ay Pursuit o f Intim acy and R elatio n al M em ory Stru ctu res

1

S y m b o li c I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e in R e la t i o n s h i p s

5

A B rief In troduction to R elatio n al M em ory Stru ctu res

6

Sum m ary

7

D iscussion Q u estio n s

8

A p plicatio ns

8

S c h e m a t a , S c e n e s , an d S c r i p t s for R o m a n t i c R e la t i o n s h i p s

9

A C om p arison o f M em ory W ith the O rgan ization o f a C om p u ter

10

C onstructivism

12

Sch em ata

14

C hapter 3

Relational S c h e m a ta

14

Scenes

17

Scripts

18

M i n d l e s s n e s s V er su s M i n d f u l n e s s

20

Initial I n te r a c ti o n S c r i p t s

22

S c r i p t s for D a t i n g

24

S e x u a l Scripts

28

C u l t u r a l S c r i p t s a n d P e r f o r m a n c e s for S e x

29

In te r a c ti v e S c r i p t s

31

Sum m ary

34

D iscussion Q u e stio n s

34

A pp lications

35

M e m o r a b l e M e s s a g e s , P ro to ty p e s, a n d R e l a t i o n a l M em ory

36

M em orable M essages as a Type o f R elationsh ip Script

36

Prototypes

38

R e l a t i o n a l P ro to ty p e s

39

Prototypes o f Love

40

P ro to ty p e s a n d C h a n g i n g R e l a t i o n s h i p s

41

M em ory as a R econ stru ctive Proccss

41

A p p licatio n s o f R elation al M em ory Structure Theory

42

Sum m ary

43

D iscussion Q u estio n s

44

A p p licatio n s

44

CONTENTS

C h a p te r 4

xi

E m otion and C o gn ition A b o u t Relationships

45

C haracteristics o f H ap p in ess

45

R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f A f f e c t A c c o r d i n g to C o g n i t i v e

46

T h e o ries o f Em otion D i f fe r e n c e s A m o n g E m o t i o n s , M o o d , an d A f f e c t

47

S i m ila r itie s a n d D if fe re n c e s A m o n g L o v e , H a t e ,

50

A n ge r, a n d J e a lo u s y P ro to ty p e s o f A n g e r in R e l a t i o n s h i p s

54

Types o f A n g e r

54

S c r i p t s for A n g e r

55

E m o t i o n a l S c r i p t s for R e la t i o n s h i p s

56

C o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d the S e n t i m e n t - O v e r r i d e

57

Hypothesis

C h a p te r 5

Sum m ary

60

D iscussion Q u e stio n s

61

A pplications

61

G e n e r a t i n g a n d M a i n t a i n i n g R e la t i o n s h i p s T h r o u g h Im a g i n e d I n te r a c ti o n s Im a g i n e d I n t e r a c t i o n s a n d the C r e a t i o n o f

62

63

R e la t i o n s h i p s Im a g i n e d In t e r a c t i o n s W ith E x -P a rtn e r s

66

Im a g i n e d In t e r a c t i o n s a n d S o c i a l I s o la tio n :

66

P a r a so c i a l R e la t i o n s h i p s A f f e c t a n d Im a g i n e d In t e r a c t i o n s

69

U s e o f I m a g i n e d I n t e r a c t i o n s in L in k in g T o g e t h e r

71

Prior C o n v e r s a t i o n s G e n d e r D i f fe r e n c e s in Im a g i n e d I n t e r a c t i o n s a n d

73

M em ory Im a g i n e d I n te r a c ti o n T o p ic s W ith in M a r r i a g e

76

Im a g i n e d In t e r a c t i o n s A m o n g E n g a g e d

78

a n d M a r r ie d C o u p l e s

C hapter 6

Sum m ary

80

D iscussion Q u e stio n s

81

A pplications

81

D e v e l o p m e n t of R e l a t i o n s h i p s : S t a g e T h e o r i e s V er su s Relational M em ory Theory D e v e lo p m e n ta l M odels o f R elationships

82

83

P h y sio lo g ica l M o d e l

83

A C om m u nication M odel

85

C ontributions o f D e v elo p m en tal M odels

86

Lim itation s o f D e v elo p m en tal M odels

88

R e l a t i o n a l D i a le c t i c M o d e l s C ri ti c i s m s o f R e l a t i o n a l D i a le c t i c M o d e l s So c ial C ogn ition : T h e M em ory -Stru ctu re

92 95 96

A pproach G e n d e r D i f fe r e n c e s in I n ti m a te R e l a t i o n s h i p

97

Scripts

C hapter 7

Sum m ary

100

D iscussion Q u e stio n s

101

A pplications

101

M e m o r y S t r u c t u r e s for D e v e l o p i n g R e la t i o n s h i p s

102

R e d u n d a n c y a n d the C o m p l e x i t y o f E s c a la t i n g

103

M em ory Structures C o n t e n t o f E s c a la t i n g M e m o r y S t r u c t u r e s

106

P re d ic tin g M u ltip le R e l a t i o n s h i p s : T h e U n m a s k i n g

110

o f D o n J u a n or C a s a n o v a , a n d R o m e o D i f fe r e n c e s in Ty picality a n d N e c e s s i t y o f E s c a la t i n g A c t i o n s

112

CONTENTS

x lli

U n d e rly in g D im e n sio n s o f R e la tio n a l

114

D e v e lo p m e n t T y p icality V ersus N e c e ssity in P re d ic tin g

115

B eliefs A b o u t R e la tio n sh ip D e v e lo p m e n t T y p icality R a tin g s

116

N e c e ssity R a tin g s

116

U n d e rly in g S ta g e s a n d th e P r o to ty p ic a l E sc a la tin g

117

M em o ry S tr u c tu re C a r d - S o r t in g E x p e rim e n t

118

Q - S o r t P ro c e d u re

120

S to r y - S e g m e n ta tio n A n a ly sis

121

M e ss a g e s U se d to E sc a la te In tim acy

122

G e n d e r D iffe re n c e s in G e n e r a tin g a n d P ro c e ssin g

126

E sc a la tin g M em o ry S tr u c tu r e s

C h a p te r 8

S u m m a ry

132

D isc u ssio n Q u e s tio n s

132

A p p lic a tio n s

133

M e m o ry S tr u c tu r e s for D e c a y in g R e la tio n sh ip s C o n t e n t o f D e - E s c a la tin g M em o ry S tr u c tu r e s D e - E s c a la tin g A c tio n s C o m p a r e d to O th e r

134 135 138

M o d e ls o f R e la tio n sh ip D e c lin e In fe re n c e s A s s o c ia t e d W ith R e la tio n sh ip

140

D ecay D iffe re n c e s in T y p icality a n d N e c e ssity o f

142

D e - E s c a la tin g A c tio n s U n d e rly in g D im e n sio n s o f R e la tio n sh ip

142

D e c lin e P re d ic tin g B e lie fs a b o u t R e la tio n a l D e c a y

143

T y p icality R a tin g s

143

N e c e ssity R a tin g s

144

U n d e r l y i n g S t a g e s a n d th e P r o t o t y p i c a l

145

D e -E scalatin g M em ory Structure C ard -So rtin g E xperim ent

145

Q - S o r t Procedure

147

Sto ry -S e g m e n tatio n A n a ly sis

148

G e n d e r D i f f e r e n c e s in G e n e r a t i n g a n d P r o c e s s i n g

151

D e -E scalatin g M em ory Structures A t t r i b u t i n g th e D e s i r e to E n d

151

or R e d e f i n e th e R e l a t i o n s h i p

C hapter 9

Sum m ary

153

D iscu ssion Q u estio n s

153

A pplications

154

S e m a n tic s of B reak u p s: C laim s o f O m issio n an d C o m m issio n Linguistic C o d e s o f O m issio n and C o m m is sio n

156

157

S e m a n tic C o d in g o f A c tio n s

157

Attributional E xp lan atio n

157

I m p lic it B e n e f i t - o f - t h e - D o u b t E x p l a n a t i o n

158

Ru les-B ased E xp lan atio n

161

G e n d e r D i f f e r e n c e s in C l a i m s o f O m i s s i o n s

163

and C om m ission s

C h a p te r 10

Sum m ary

164

D iscu ssion Q u estio n s

164

A pp lications

165

Future R e se a r c h o n R e la tio n a l M e m o ry Stru c tu r e s

166

G e n d e r D ifferen ces and Im agining R e latio n sh ip s

167

R e latio n al Stories, M e m o ry S tru ctu res,

168

a n d a R e l a t i o n a l W o r ld v i e w

CONTENTS

xv

E ffcc t o f M e m o r y S t r u c t u r e s on R e l a t i o n a l

169

M essages F o r m in g C y b e r - R e la t i o n s h i p s o n the In te r n e t

171

A t t a c h m e n t S ty les a n d R e l a t i o n a l M e m o r y

172

Structures C u r r e n t R e la t i o n a l Q u a l i t y an d M e m o r y

172

R e si li e n c e o f R e l a t i o n a l M e m o r y S t r u c t u r e s :

173

Sta bility V er su s C h a n g e K e e p i n g C o n f li c t A l i v e T h r o u g h Im a g i n e d

175

I n te r a c ti o n s Sum m ary

175

D iscussion Q u e stio n s

175

A pplications

177

R eferences

179

A u th o r In dex

193

S u b je c t In dex

197

This page intentionally left blank

Series Editors Foreword

This series from Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates (LEA ) is intended to review the progress in the academ ic work on relationships with respect of a broad array of issues and to do so in a m anner that is accessible and illustrates its practical value. T h e LEA series also includes books intended to pass on the accum ulated scholarship to the next generation o f students and to those who deal with rela­ tionship issues in the broader world beyond the academy. T h e series thus com ­ prises not only m onographs and other academ ic resources exemplifying the multidisciplinary nature o f this area, but also textbooks suitable for use in the growing number o f courses on relationships. A s it grows, the series will provide a comprehensive and current survey of theory and research in personal relationships through the careful analysis of the problems encountered, and solved, in research, and it will also consider the sys­ tematic application of that work in a practical context. T h ese resources are in­ tended to be not only com prehensive assessm ents of progress on particular topics, but also significant influences on the future directions and developm ent of the study of personal relationships. A lthough each volume will be focused and centered, authors will place the particular topics in the broader context of other research on relationships in a range of disciplinary traditions. T h e series will thus not only offer incisive and forward-looking reviews, but also dem on­ strate the broader theoretical im plications o f relationships for the range o f disci­ plines from which the research originates. Series volum es will include original studies, review o f relevant theory and research, and new theories oriented to ­ ward the understanding of personal relationships, both in themselves and x vii

xvlii

FOREW ORD

within the context o f broader theories of family process, social psychology, and com m unication. Reflecting the diverse com position of personal-relationship study, readers in numerous disciplines— social psychology, com m unication, so­ ciology, family studies, developm ental psychology, clinical psychology, person­ ality, counseling, women’s studies, and gerontology— will find valuable and insightful perspectives in the series. A part from the academ ic scholars who research the dynamics and processes of relationships, there are many other people whose work takes them up against the operation of relationships in the real world: officers, teachers, therapists, lawyers, drug and alcohol counselors, marital counselors, and those who take care o f elderly people. For these professionals, a number of issues routinely arise concerning the ways in which relationships affect the people whom they serve, such as the role o f loneliness in illness and the ways to circum vent it, the com ­ plex im pact o f family and peer relationships on a person recovering from drug-dependency, the role of playground unpopularity on a child’s learning, the relational side o f chronic illness, the m anagem ent of conflict in marriage, the es­ tablishment o f good rapport between physicians and seriously ill patients, the support of bereaved people, and the correction of violent styles of behavior in dating or marriage. Each o f these problems dem onstrates the far-reaching influ­ ences o f relationship processes on other aspects of life that are presently theo­ rized to be independent of relationship considerations. The present volume is devoted to the exploration of the ways in which the em otions and behaviors in the developm ent o f relationships are strongly con ­ nected to memory, com m unication, and social understandings. Because rela­ tionship developm ent is dependent on social expectations as much as on the true developm ent of em otions and behaviors, this book carefully analyses the ways in which individuals absorb and react to social understandings about the nature of relationship growth. Such expectations come from common beliefs about the appropriateness of behaviors at particular points in relationships and are embedded in many psychological forms and structures shared not only by the partners themselves, but by others to whom they portray their relationship. Information about such beliefs com es also from the media, from observing oth ­ ers, and from previous experiences. The book carefully analyses the sources and the consequences of such beliefs, along with their structures and forms. The text thus offers a new set o f insights into the issues of relationship developm ent and offers some well-grounded advice on ways to understand the experiences of couples as they develop relationships. Practitioners, therapists, ministers, and others who deal with relationship preparation, relationship developm ent, and avoidance o f relationship problems will find this book as interesting as the re­ searchers and scholars at whom it is primarily aimed. — Steve Duck University of Iowa

Preface

People have expectation s for w hat con stitutes appropriate behavior in different types o f relationships. A m em orable event from a close relationship may be pleasant, such as sharing a fun activity with a partner, or the event may be painful, such as discovering that a prospective partn er is com pletely different in per­ son from w hat was expected after a long correspondence by e-m ail. E xpectation s for the rise and fall o f relationships are based, in part, on m em o­ ries o f prior relationships, on w hat people have learned from observing others, and from inform ation in books, m ovies, television, or other m edia. Prior experi­ en ces affect an individual’s expectation s about w hat is likely to occur in new re­ lationships. A range o f em pirical studies confirm s the com m on belief that intim ate relationships go through distinct stages o f developm en t (D uck, 1986; H oneycutt, 1993; Knapp &. Vangelisti, 1996; Surra, 1990). Stage m odels o f re­ lational developm en t have received a great deal o f research em phasis over the past 20 years, even though these m odels have been criticized for a num ber o f lim itations in describing relational developm ent. A t its heart, this book presents a cognitive approach to the developm en t of rom antic relationships and addresses many o f the criticism s leveled against stage m odels by em phasizing the role o f cognitive expectation s about how rela­ tionships develop. T h ese expectation s originate in peop le’s m em ories regarding relationships, som e based on direct experience and others gained indirectly through reading rom ance novels, w atching m ovies, soap operas, or hearing about other people's experiences. O f course, m em ory is not the only thing that com es into play w hen re­ search ers explore the lan d scap e o f rom an ce. R esearch has revealed system atic gen der differences regarding how people think about rom ance and relation ­ x ix

XX

PREFACE

sh ip s. In particular, w om en ten d to recall m ore specific in fo rm ation a b o u t re ­ latio n al e v e n ts in their m arriages th an m en do (R o ss &. H o lm berg, 199 2 ). In d eed , w hen tellin g sto rie s a b o u t e v e n ts in their re latio n sh ip s, m en often look to their fem ale p artn ers to fill in gap s. T h e se kin ds o f d ifferen ces are d is­ cu sse d th ro u gh o u t the b ook . G e n d e r differen ces n otw ith stan din g, in dividual c o n ce p tio n s ab ou t the d e ­ velop m en t o f ro m an tic relation sh ips are rooted in memory. T h e se m em ories ab out relation sh ips, despite their dy n am ic q u alities, are n ot random even ts. In ­ d ividuals think ab o u t relation sh ips d evelopin g in an orderly sequ en ce th at m ir­ rors the b asic p atte rn s foun d in o th er p e o p le ’s reports o f their ow n experien ces. Still, individuals report th at their person al relation sh ips are som ehow m ore un ique than o th er p e o p le ’s typical ro m an ces. H ow ever, research reveals that the presu m ed special traits o f their ro m an tic trysts underlie the com m on ality foun d in shared m em ory stru ctu res (H o n ey cu tt, 1993; H o n ey cu tt, C an trill, &. G reen e, 1989; H o n ey cu tt, C an trill &. A llen , 1992; H o n ey cu tt, C an trill, Kelly, & L am b k in , 1998). S tu d ie s dem o n stratin g a fu n d am en tal agreem en t am on g the e x p e ctatio n s that ch aracterize developin g ro m an ces allow the creation o f a cogn itive m odel portraying the prototypical b eh aviors th at ch aracterize ro m an tic relation sh ips. T h is m od el reveals how’ m em ory is h ierarch ically organized, how it is related to p e o p le ’s love-stru ck goals, an d how people system atically recall discourse a sso ­ ciated with p articu lar scen es or e v e n ts in the d ev elo p m en t o f ro m an ce. T h e re­ call o f these relation al ev en ts c re a te s an ticip atio n s th at allow people to categorize b eh avior into m ean ingful catego ries (e.g., d ecidin g if a prolon ged gaze co m m u n icates in tim acy or m erely in terest in the topic o f c o n v e rsa tio n ), to d ecide w hat type o f relation sh ip they are experien cin g, an d to an ticip ate where it may be h ead ed . To use a n av ig atio n al m etaphor, relatio n al m em ory structures serve as a gyroscope th at gu id es people through relation al sp ace b e cau se m e m ­ ory provides m en tal m aps or road signs for steerin g their on goin g experien ces. Yet som e people are b etter relation al n avigators th an others b ecau se o f their su cce sse s in prior relation sh ips, p ersev eran ce, self-con fiden ce, an d m otivatio n . A s a result o f their experien ces, people m ay believe th at they are exp erts at creatin g quality relation sh ips. Yet it can be argued th at o ne o f the w orst kinds o f ad vice is b ased on personal experien ce becau se th at experien ce m ay n ot apply to oth ers. In deed, m any television talk show s presen t individuals w ith re la­ tion al problem s who are then satirized for en tertain m en t w ithout serious th e r­ ap y o r u n d e r s t a n d in g t a k in g p la c e . O n th e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r a p is ts , co m m u n icatio n sch olars, an d relation sh ip research ers h ave broad exposure to the exp erien ces o f oth ers through their work an d the stu d ies they co n d u ct on po p u latio n s o f the rom an tically inclin ed. In fact, a relian ce on p erso n al e x p e ri­ en ce as a source o f in form ation is know n in the cogn itive literatu re as an av ail­ ability bias. Ju st as it is easier for individuals to retrieve in stan ce s o f their own action s, as opp osed to recallin g stu d ies or reports o f oth er p e o p le ’s experien ces,

xxi

PREFACE

so too do people generally rely on w hat they know about rom ance rather than taking a broader view (Tversky &. K ah nem an , 1974). T h u s, people often find that their relational expertise is based on personal limited experiences that are not shared by others. W h at has worked for one person often does not generalize to other individuals, despite this belief. A second cognitive bias that contributes to the myth o f every person being a relationship expert is the vividness bias. Personal inform ation that is vivid and stands out is seen as having more value than im personal inform ation, such as statistics. For exam ple, talk shows often have individuals discussing how their relationships broke up so that the talk-show form at becom es the contem porary version o f a public therapy session for viewers and participants. Yet there are few shows about couples who m aintain their relationships despite adversity or co u ­ ples whose relationships flow along without m uch fanfare. Sen satio n al cases represent vivid inform ation that is easily accessed, and w hat could be more vivid to som eone than his or her own failed relationship? T h e vividn ess bias is revealed in the n um erous self-help books and m aga­ zines that offer advice on how to find the right person and keep the re latio n ­ sh ip go in g. Yet if th is ad v ice is u se fu l, why d o e s a d v ice o ften seem c on tradictory (e.g., Be assertive o f your own views, and Be supportive o f your m ate)? T h e answ er may be due to d ialectic opp osition in the form o f c o n tra­ dictory n eeds. M ontgom ery (1993) defined dialectic opposition as the sim u l­ tan eou s presence o f two relation al forces th at are in terd ep en d en t and negate each other; each force defines the oth er while actin g at cross-purposes. R e la­ tionships are inherently con cern ed with b alan cin g n eeds for autonom y with c on n ection , predictability with novelty, and open n ess with closedn ess. B axter and Sim on (1993) d iscu ssed the dialectic m om en ts in which one need d om i­ n ates its an tith esis. For exam ple, novelty may be desired over predictability if the relationship is seen as boring. R om an tic efforts by o n e ’s partn er that in ­ volve surprise and spon tan eity alleviate the boredom during these m om ents. Yet for those who take a cogn itive ap proach to un derstan din g relationships, the questio n arises as to how these vivid periods are con figured in the mind and the exten t to w hich such m em ories influence the on going un derstan din g o f current relation sh ips, begin nin g with courtsh ip. O R G A N IZ A T IO N O F T H E B O O K T h e focus o f this book is an un derstan din g o f the role o f memory, co m m u n ica­ tion, and social cognition in the developm en t o f rom an tic relation ships and the description o f that developm en t in term s o f stages o f d evelopm en t. C h a p ­ ter 1 preview s a m odel o f relationship e xp e ctatio n s and com m un ication . C h ap te r 2 presen ts a variety o f c o n ce p ts dealing with social cogn ition and in­ form ation processin g o f relation sh ips. R elatio n al sch e m ata, prototypes, and scripts are d iscu ssed. R esearch on the m iscon stru al o f scripts is presented in

x x ii

PREFACE

the form o f a d a te rape sc e n a rio in w hich the m an ’s scrip t for the d a te is d iffer­ en t from the w o m an ’s. C h ap te r 3 p resen ts the co n ce p t o f m em ory stru ctu res, d istin gu ish in g b e ­ tw een recalled scen es an d scripts in relation sh ips. R elatio n al m em ory stru c ­ tures help individuals in terpret b eh avior th at is ob served in relation sh ips. T h e se stru ctu res provide a sen se o f trajectory ab ou t the directio n in w hich rela­ tionsh ips m ay d evelop, such as sim ply being a casu a l a c q u ain ta n c e or evolvin g into long-term friendship, platon ic, ro m an tic, or collegial relation sh ips. C h ap te r 4 discu sses the relation sh ip betw een em otio n, co m m u n icatio n , and cogn itio n. M o o d s an d em otio n s affect the way people process in form ation. For exam p le, people h ave prototypes for an ger an d jealousy. T h e sen tim en t-override h ypoth esis posits th at curren t em o tio n al sta te s affect the way people p e r­ ceive curren t b eh aviors. T h u s, am on g unhappily m arried couples, the history o f n egative in teraction affects the way th at m essages are in terp reted so that m es­ sages th at arc design ed to be happy or delivered w ith a n e u tral affect are often seen as n egative by partners. C h a p te r 5 review s stu d ie s d e alin g w ith a p art o f d ay d ream in g calle d im agined interactions. In d iv id u als im agin e talk in g w ith re la tio n al p artn ers in a v a ri­ ety o f situ a tio n s, d isc u ssin g a v ariety o f to p ic s. S o m e tim e s p eop le recall p le a sa n t c o n v e rsa tio n s w ith th eir p artn ers, w h ereas o th e r tim es they relive old argu m en ts th at en ergize them as they fan tasize ab o u t the n e x t tim e they e n c o u n te r their p artn ers an d vigorously tell them how u p se t they are. V arious fu n ctio n s are served by self-talk . A m ajo r fu n ctio n is k eepin g re la tio n sh ip s alive in p e o p le ’s m ind w hen their re la tio n al p a rtn er is n ot close by. “A b se n c e m akes the h ea rt grow fo n d er.” Yet in d iv id u als o fte n reh earse im agin ed e n ­ c o u n te rs with their p artn ers, p ick in g up a c o n flict w here it left off. T h e them es o f their c o n v e rsa tio n s an d re la tio n sh ip s are m an ife ste d in p e o p le ’s self-talk w ith re la tio n al partn ers. C h ap te r 6 review s an d critiq u es m odels of d e v e lo p m en tal relation sh ips. For exam p le, dev elo p m en tal m odels h ave been criticized for the arb itrarin ess o f m ovem en t through the stage m ovem en t. W hy do som e individuals m ove ra p ­ idly or slowly through the stages? A cogn itive ap p ro ach to relation al d e v e lo p ­ m en t a d d resses this criticism by assum in g th at e x p e ctatio n s arc a prim e facto r in determ in in g the rate and directio n o f m ovem en t. C h ap te rs 7 an d 8 presen t a series o f stud ies d ealin g with e x p e c tatio n s about the rise and dem ise o f relation sh ips, respectively. C h ap te r 7 exam in es stu d ies o f gen eratin g an d p rocessin g b eh aviors th at are ex p e cted to occu r in a d evelopin g ro m an ce. C o m m u n ic a tio n strategies for en h an cin g intim acy are discu ssed . C h ap te r 8 reports on in dividual differen ces in e xplain in g the breakdow n o f rela­ tion sh ips, as well as the c o n te n t an d orderin g o f b eh aviors th at sym bolize re la­ tional decay. T h e link betw een cogn itiv e p rocessin g o f relation sh ip decay and em otio n s is explored. C h ap te r 9 d iscu sses gen der differen ces in claim s o f com m issio n (statem en ts o f w hat is h app en in g in a relation sh ip) and claim s o f om ission (state m e n ts o f

PREFACE

xxiii

w hat is not happen in g). T h ese linguistic codes are revealed when men and wom en provide accoun ts o f the decline o f relationships. W omen tend to use more com m issions (the relationship breaking up because o f what was h appen ­ ing) than om issions (topics for the relationship breaking up because o f w hat was not happening). C h apter 10 con cludes and briefly discusses topics for further research using a cognitive approach to com m unication and relational developm ent. T h ese are Internet relationships, gender differences in rules for com m un ication and conflict-resolution in relationships, the use o f relational narratives, and the corre­ spon den ce betw een attach m en t styles for relational bonding and the con ten t o f relational memory structures. ACKN O W LEDGM ENTS We wish to acknow ledge our students in our relational com m unication classes for their vibrant and energetic opinions on relationship developm ent. We have had lively discussions about gender sim ilarities and differences in atten din g to relationship processes. Indeed, it is an intriguing topic.

This page intentionally left blank

1

The Modern-Day Pursuit of Intimacy and Relational Memory Structures

Courtship can be thought o f as a social ritual through which the developm ent of romance manifests itself. A t some point, it involves a sorting process for finding appropriate m ates, a kind of filtering to determine basic compatibility (Duck, 1977). In this regard, the stim ulus-value-role theory of M urstein (1987) sug­ gested that courtship begins as a simple exchange o f information involving ini­ tial impressions o f physical attributes followed by an interpretation of individual values, attitudes, and beliefs about a variety of topics that are of interest to each. O nce a similarity is noted, the individuals are categorized and assigned to po­ tential roles such as business acquaintance, tennis partner, colleague who likes the history of Russian com posers, or potential lover. Further com m unication and ritualized behavior provide additional information about the partners’ abil­ ities to function in additional roles in preparation for potential roles as m ates or parents. Th e concept of interpersonal intimacy in its current form began evolving in 19th century A m erica and Europe, with the developm ent o f industrial society. More recently, in the computerized information society, the emphasis has been shifted more to the individual as a reaction to the impersonalization of factory and business life (Gadlin, 1977). This trend has continued and accelerated as 1

2

CHAPTER 1

the world approach es the 21st century because the majority o f people now live in urban environm ents. In urban society, individuals often gain their primary identity and psychosocial support from personal relationships rather than from their roles in the community. M ore recently, individuals have developed relationships in cyberspace through the use o f com puter web groups for singles and divorcees, chat lines, and correspondence with others through e-m ail. B ecau se o f the com puter revo­ lution, individuals can now work more easily at home via their com puters. W orking out o f the hom e is a return to the pattern in colonial times when the business was the hom e, in the form o f farm s and shops attached to living qu ar­ ters. T h e proliferation o f com puters decreases face-to-face interaction as websites are accessed to find individuals with sim ilar interests. O nly time will tell if courtship develops through com puter con tact, as it has evolved in face-to-face com m un ication . It is certain, however, that such relationships are poor substitutes for having the ability to reach out and touch som eone. C ourtsh ip developed to prom ote successful m ating. In earlier agrarian soci­ eties, a large family was essential to provide farm labor. Consequently, m ates were chosen with great care for their poten tial as partners and parents, and were assessed and tested for their com patibility through the ritualized stages o f cou rt­ ship. A ccording to evolutionary psychologists, these rituals o f courtship arc learned, defined, and expressed in the con text o f society and culture because o f biological drives for procreation. For exam ple, Fisher (1994) discussed how bio­ chem ical processes contribute to the developm ent o f rom ance. H um an brain chem istry creates a heightened sense o f excitem en t that people often describe as falling in love or infatuation . Fisher further suggested that the brain physiol­ ogy and chem istry associated with bonding evolved as part o f the hum an pri­ m ordial m atin g system . H er research in various cultures reveals that in societies allowing divorce the m ost com m on length o f m arriage is 4 years. T h is length o f time conform s to the traditional period betw een successive hum an births. Fisher proposed that this 4-year cycle is a pattern that evolved as a reproductive strategy to successfully raise a helpless infant. In addition to hum an brain physiology, part o f the reason for failed relation ­ ships is that the stability o f contem porary relationships is contingent on positive em otions as the glue for relationship bonding and the reason for a relationship to continue. C om m itm en t to a relationship depends on the ebb and flow o f lev­ els of intimacy. However, such has not always been the case in the U nited States. D uring the colonial period in the 18th century, intim acy was, at best, the result o f the form al relationship rather than the cause o f the rom antic bond or m arriage (G adlin, 1977). Individuals were adm onished to love their spouse even though physical assaults were com m on. O nly later did affection becam e both the cause and cem ent o f m arriage. In the 20th century, affection was eroticized, although seen as fleeting and un ­ stable. Steph en (1994) discussed how people think o f m arriage as a status that

T H E M O D ER N -D A Y P U R SU IT

3

symbolizes m utual affection. A ffection is necessary for m arriage, whereas its erosion is a sufficient reason for divorce. However, Lewis and Span ier (1982) explored tem porary high-quality (i.e., high-affection), low-stability m arriages that ended in divorce and cited exam ples o f dual-career couples who, after h av ­ ing to relocate in different cities in order to pursue each partn er’s career, ev en ­ tually term inated their relationships. Is som ething more than simple affection necessary here? A ccordin g to Steph en (1994), som e other possible causes o f divorce are liv­ ing in a pluralistic society that is saturated with diverse inform ation, lifestyle choices, political interests, and religious values. A s a result o f pluralism , people con struct their realities from diverse sets o f resources. A n individual’s sense of uniqueness com es from a wide selection and prioritization o f inform ational sources because the inform ation is so diverse and open to contradictory inter­ pretation. For exam ple, the qualities that attract two individuals som etim es b e­ com e com plaints if the relationship starts to sour (Fclm lce, 1995). “A t first, I thought he was carefree and laid-back. Now, he is indecisive and irresponsible.” Th is process in which individuals change their evalu ation s o f each other after a time, as opposed to persevering in their initial im pressions, is known as cogn i­ tive accom m odation. Box 1.1 contains sam ple cognitive beliefs about the qu ali­ ties that first attract couples to each other that could be restructured later into n egative attributions. Today, each in dividual’s sense o f uniqueness perm eates his or her views o f the characteristics o f an ideal relationship. R esearch by W ish, D eutsch, and Kaplan (1976) revealed that individuals distinguish com m unication behaviors (e. g., cooperative versus com petitive) am ong relatively few dim ensions that are used to distinguish alm ost all types o f relationships (e.g., personal enem ies, husb an d-w ife). In addition, people make different distinctions in their own rela­ tion sh ip s th an in typical or o th er p e o p le ’s relatio n sh ip s. For e xam ple, cooperation is more im portant for evalu atin g typical relationships than for eval­ uating their own relationships. In evaluatin g their own relationships, individu­ als m ention fewer hostile relations (e.g., o n e ’s relationship with a lover is m entioned more often than on e's relationship with a bitter enem y). H ostile re­ lations (e.g., business rivals, political opponents, guard-prisoncr, supcrvisorem ployee, and in terview er-applicant) are perceived as characterizing other peop le’s relationships. In essence, people select highly positive relational attrib­ utes to con struct seemingly ideal life spaces in which they live, learn, and love. People’s con struction s o f reality are based on experiences, which also affect their beliefs about the developm ent and decline o f rom antic relationships. Indi­ viduals vary in their expectation s o f how relationships should develop due to the variety o f inform ational sources that form the foundation for their e x p e c ta­ tions. In this regard, Stain es and Libby (1986) discussed predictive rom antic ex­ pectations, which are beliefs about behaviors that are expected to occur in a rom antic role regardless o f o n e ’s desires. T h u s, a person who has been spurned

4

CHAPTER I B o x 1.1 C o g n it i v e R e f r a m in g : S a m p le A t t r a c t io n s in C o u p l e s T h a t L a t e r E v o lv e d in to R e l a t io n s h ip C o m p la in t s

Initial A ttribute o f A ttraction 1.

D irect; intelligent

Evolved C om plaint U nfairly critical; given to o u t­ bursts

2.

Easy going; laid-back

Self-ab so rb ed and in dulgen t

3.

In d ep en d en t; stron g

H as to h ave ow n way; selfish

4.

Self-con fid en t

D o e sn ’t respect my w ishes and w ithholds

5.

Pruden t, wise, an d practical

C alm d em ean o r drives m e nuts

6.

M ascu lin e; strong

A b u siv e; we fight

7.

Fem in in e; warm

H ysterical; we fight

8.

G oo d listen er

D o e sn ’t h ave ow n opinion

9.

E xcitin g an d likes to talk

R estless an d d o e sn ’t let me relax

10. I am the cen ter o f his/her world

D esp icably insecure

11. O p en -m in d ed and accep tin g

D o e sn ’t giv e w ith o u t b e in g ask ed; no initiation

12. T h e re ’s a mystery about him/her

N o true in tim acy; n ot c o m ­ pletely there

before may be m ore likely to e x p e ct this to h ap p en in future relation sh ips th an is som eon e w ho has not been rejected. S tain e s and Libby (1 986) also d iscussed idealistic ro m an tic e xp e ctatio n s. T h e se are beliefs reflectin g an in dividu al's desires o f w hat sh ould ideally h appen in the role o f a lover or spouse. Perhaps not surprisingly, w om en report m ore d is­ crep an cies betw een prescriptive and predictive e x p e c tatio n s th an m en do. A com m on co m p lain t is th at w ives prefer their h u sban d s to do m ore h ouseh old c lean in g even th ough they don 't ex p e ct th at it will h app en . C onsequently, w om en often report low er levels o f m arital h app in ess than their h usban ds (G o ttm an , 1994; Price &. M cKenry, 1988). N o n e th e le ss, even in an age of too-often -failed e x p e c tatio n s, w om en an d m en m eet, fall in love, and sonic

T H E M O D ER N -D A Y P U R SU IT

5

even live happily ever after. Why? Sym bolic interdependence provides an a n ­ swer to this question.

S Y M B O L I C I N T E R D E P E N D E N C E IN R E L A T I O N S H I P S Long-term relationships provide continuity and confirm ation for idiosyncratic beliefs and protection from doubt, loneliness, and ambiguity. Steph en (1994) discussed the idea o f individuals sharing con ception s o f relationships in term s o f symbolic interdependence. T h is is a type o f m ental sharing in which individuals share sim ilar beliefs about the world; relational partners react to events in sim i­ lar ways and derive similar con clusions from inform ation. In symbolic interd e­ pendence in couples, Steph en (1994) wrote, T h e y c o m e to a p p re c ia te th eir u n iq u e b o n d o f sh ared k n o w led ge, p e rh ap s se n sin g th at no alte rn a tiv e relatio n sh ip ca n p ro vid e as m u ch p o te n tia l for co n firm a tio n an d u n d e r ­ stan d in g . T h e p ro ce ss o f relatio n sh ip c o m m u n ic a tio n h as grad u a lly tran sfo rm e d both p artn e rs. It is n o t th a t ego h as fo u n d an alte r w ho ca n p e n e tra te the self, b u t th a t both ego an d alter h av e refash io n ed th e m se lv e s (an d in d e ed the rest o f th eir w orld) th ro u g h the d ialo g u e o f th eir re la tio n sh ip u n til they are p o sse sse d o f a type o f s e lf c o n ­ siste n t w ith the relatio n sh ip w orld view. T h e co u p le c re a te s an in terp retiv e fram ew o rk an d a t the sam e tim e rein terp rets th e m se lv e s w ith in it. N e e d le ss to say, p ersisten tly d e ­ v ia n t in te rp re ta tio n s will be regard ed a s p ro b le m a tic an d effo rt is likely to be ex p e n d e d in sm o o th in g d isc re p a n c ie s, (p. 197)

Th ese discrepan cies can be seen as relational conflicts about behaviors, a tti­ tudes, and appropriate perform ance o f rom antic roles. If the sm oothing does not resolve the discrepancies, the relationship may dissolve. M ore importantly, the sm oothing strategies go into memory and act as a repository o f inform ation that may be opened for subsequent relationships. T h u s, happy long-term rela­ tionships are en han ced when individuals have a shared social reality and rela­ tionship worldview. T h e partners share sim ilar e xp ectatio n s ab out what con stitutes relationship developm en t and those qualities that characterize a satisfying relationship. T h e sharing o f expectation s reflects evolving stories that individuals construct as they com m un icate with each other. So , it would seem as if the secret to relational bliss is pounded out on the fa­ miliar anvil o f com m unication. Yet the mere sharing o f expectation s and predic­ tions is not enough; the intim ate con versation s betw een rom antic partners do not get lodged in memory in som e pure form. R ather the discourse m ust becom e em bedded in som e form o f preexisting m ental structure that allows people to separate out irrelevant data, mill the appropriate associations betw een actions and intents, and forge a stable, shared relational worldview. T h u s, relational sch em ata serve as memory structures that organize relevant inform ation and, ultimately, test the tensile o f any rom ance.

CHAPTER 1

6

A B R IE F IN T R O D U C T IO N T O R E L A T IO N A L M EM ORY ST R U C T U R E S D uck (1986) suggested that relationships should be regarded as chan gin g m en­ tal and behavioral creation s o f individuals. T h e time spent alone analyzing fu­ ture e n c o u n te rs reflects an in d iv id u al’s use o f re la tio n al sc h e m a ta to un derstand and differentiate am ong different types o f relationships such as dis­ tinguishing a casual datin g relationship from an exclusive rom ance. Baldwin (1992) reviewed studies indicating that people develop cognitive structures representing regular patterns o f in teraction. A relational schem a includes an image in which people imagine seeing them selves with som eone else. Individuals have knowledge structures based on memory and experiences that create expectation s about what is likely to occur during the course o f their lives in different types o f relationships. Relationship memory structures are hi­ erarchically ordered on the basis o f recall o f particular scenes (e.g., m eeting an individual for the first time at a specific place) and scripts for behavior em b ed­ ded within various scenes. Even though relationships are in con stan t motion, relationship memory structures provide a perceptual an ch or with which in di­ viduals can determ ine where they are in a relationship. M em ories about relationships may be functional or dysfunctional. For e x am ­ ple, Sw ann (1987) reviewed research indicating that individuals chose rela­ tional partners who verified their self-concepts even if their self-concept at the time was negative. Individuals who had high self-esteem preferred their rela­ tional partners to view them favorably, w hereas individuals with low self-esteem preferred their relational partners to view them in relatively unfavorable terms. A n in dividual’s preference for relational partners with either positive or n ega­ tive views o f the individual was associated with the actual appraisal o f their friends. H ence, if an individual viewed him or herself som ew hat negatively, a re­ lational partner who perceived the individual similarly was liked more than a re­ lational partner who did not. Sw ann (1987) suggested “ that people translate their desire for congruent relationship partners into actual selection o f p art­ n ers” (p. 1040). R elationships are constantly m oving entities rather than static events. Peo­ ple tell stories or give accoun ts about their relationships that help provide order to events. U n derstanding is the result o f an active, cooperative enterprise o f the people in relationships. Problem s in a relationship arc understood as stories that individuals have agreed to tell. R elationships represent the ju xtaposition betw een individual needs and dyadic goals. A cognitive approach to the study o f relationships exam ines how individuals m entally create their relationships. T h e behavioral study o f rela­ tionships has a long, rich legacy. For exam ple, com m un ication patterns betw een happy and unhappy couples have been exam ined. However, an exclusive focus on the behavioral patterns o f couples ignores the fusion betw een the individual

T H E M O D ER N -D A Y P U R SU IT

7

and the relationship. T h e m ental creation o f a relationship may sustain or c o n ­ strain individuals in everyday m undane living, depending on the con ten t o f re­ lational expectation s. R elational expectation s reflect peop le’s past experiences in relationships. C ogn itive researchers refer to expectation s as know ledge structures. Various types o f knowledge structures are discussed in chapter 2. For exam ple, if an indi­ vidual has experienced a lot o f deception in prior relationships, then he or she could have a relation ship-deception schem a consisting o f expectation s that in intim ate relationships, vows are often broken. He or she may believe that his or her p artn er’s words may not be taken at face value and that caution is wise b e­ fore venturing far into self-disclosure. T h e individual may even be wary o f peo­ ple who seem gregarious. C ognitive researchers believe that people’s com plex personal m em ories (scripts) create the bias people read into one an o th er’s signals. R esearch indi­ cates that the m ost influential scripts are those initially developed in early ch ild­ hood through interaction with parents, particularly with the primary caregiver, which traditionally has been the m other (A insw orth, 1989; Bowlby, 1982; Carnelley &. Janoff-Bulm an, 1992). A ddition al influences on peop le’s relation ­ ship scripts develop from other life experiences and the m edia. A n d the role and influence o f scripts plays out in everyday interaction in a relationship. For e x am ­ ple, when partners interact, they often think about what they are going to say in the form o f im agined interaction s (IIs), m entally processing w hat has been said, and sorting through memory to com pare and contrast new inform ation with earlier experience (H oneycutt, 1995). A s relationships develop, people's inter­ nal responses create not only their views o f them selves, but their views o f the partner and the ways in which they think about them selves in relation to the other person. In short, relationships are the com bined products and producers o f both cognitive activity and behavior. SUM M ARY

Individuals think about relationships based on experiences, observations, and cultural im ages. People experience relationships either through personal e x p e ­ rience, vicarious experience, or a com bination o f direct and indirect en cou n ­ ters. A s a con sequen ce o f these experiences, many people feel that they arc experts on relationships. Yet, it can be argued that many people are experts at failed relationships. A n analogy is the coach in g profession, in which a coach with a losing record is not necessarily seen as an expert on coaching, but as an expert on defeat. T h e divorce rate is higher for rem arried individuals than for individuals in their first m arriages. M em ories o f relational events create expectation s for relationships that are hierarchically organized on the basis o f scenes and recalled m essages within those scenes. T h u s, relationships exist in peop le’s m inds, as well as in the o b ­

CHAPTER 1

8

servable com m unication betw een any two individuals. T h e role o f cognition in categorizing rom antic relationships h as been ignored in the scholarly literature, not receiving m uch em pirical research attention , w hereas behavioral studies for classifying relationships are more popular (cf. D uck, 1993). T h e cognition o f ro­ m ance is exam ined in this book in term s o f relational memory structures d e ­ rived from experience. D IS C U S S IO N Q U E S T IO N S 1.1 Discuss the idea of individuals as experts at failed relationships. Define what is m eant by a failed relationship. W hat lessons do people learn from failed relationships? People hear stories about individuals being in one bad rela­ tionship after another. How many individuals do you know who have gone through a series of failed relationships that seem to have similar characteris­ tics? Did their expectations change after each relationship ended? 1.2 D iscuss the proposition that successful relationships are m ore likely w hen individuals have a joint, relationship worldview and shared c o n ­ ception s o f relationships. How similar m ust the in dividuals’ e x p ecta­ tions for the developm en t o f relationships be in order to enhance the quality o f the relationship? A P P L IC A T IO N S 1.1 Think o f couples you know who seem to be well m atched and those who are not well m atched at all. Interview the partners in these couples about how they met, what made the other person stand out, what hobbies or in­ terests they share, the problem s they deal with in the relationship, how they com m unicate, and what they expected from the relationship. Ask them their views about what characterizes a rom antic relationship. You may interview them individually and contrast the partners’ reports. Write a brief report in which you contrast the couples in terms o f relationship happiness, compatibility o f beliefs about relationship values, and anything that is especially m emorable about these couples. 1.2 W ith a close friend, try an experim ent in w hich each o f you individually thinks o f two couples whom you both know. O ne couple should be very happy and com patible; the other couple should be the opposite. D ecide which couple is in each category individually; do both o f you agree on the classifications? W h at m ade you classify the couples in the way you did? How sim ilar or different are your perceptions o f these couples co m ­ pared to your friend's?

2 Schemata, Scenes, and Scripts for Romantic Relationships

O ne way o f exploring the m ental creation o f relationships is to look at how indi­ viduals categorize information about behavior in their relationships. T h e model of relational expectations, presented at the end of chapter 1, reflects how such information about relationships is stored in and retrieved from memory. Inte­ gral to this process is the way in which people pigeon-hole what they observe in their daily lives. In this chapter, various types of categorization schem es, known to cognitive researchers as schem ata, scenes, scripts, and prototypes, are repre­ sented. A s noted earlier, D uck (1986) believed that relationships should be regarded not as fixed states of being that are evaluated clinically, but as changing mental and behavioral expectations that involve a good deal of subjectivity. O ne teen­ age person, for exam ple, may expect a developing rom ance to include instances of hugging or holding hands in public, whereas another, based on her or his ex­ perience, may not anticipate such public displays of affection. O ne way to think about the expectations encom passed in developing romance is to analyze the com ponents of memory and its organization. Memory provides a frame of refer­ ence for experiences; it also creates expectations for relationships. Memory com ponents are called knoivledge structures, which are defined as coherent and organized clusters of information that are based on experience 9

CHAPTER 2

10

(Fletcher & Fitness, 1993). Know ledge structures are classified into two types; declarative and procedural know ledge. Declarative knowledge is open to c o n ­ scious inspection, as when an individual chooses his or her words with great care so as not to, say, let a date know that he or she disapproves o f a hair style (e.g., “T h a t cut certainly accen ts your facial fe atu re s!”). Baldwin (1992) defined pro­ cedural knowledge as descriptions about objects or people. Alternatively, proce­ dural know ledge reflects the routines that people use to pursue personal goals, such as attracting a rom antic partner or m aking sense out o f w hat is being said. T h is know ledge is au to m atically activ ate d and op e rate s sub con sciously (Sim pson, G an gcstad, &. Lcrm a, 1990). For exam ple, eyebrow flashes, smiling, body positioning, and can tin g the head are subcon scious behaviors that indi­ cate social engagem ent that are used by individuals to draw atten tion to them ­ selves and present them selves as stim ulating, com petent, or socially skilled (Sim pson et al., 1990). Memory, stored in knowledge structures, assists in guiding peop le’s beliefs and thoughts about, as well as their behavior in, relationships. M iller and Read (1991) discussed how knowledge structures reflect the ways in which the mind organizes memory as these structures em phasize various qualities o f perception, kinds o f con ten t, and m odes o f m ental processing. R egardless o f kind or quality, knowledge structures categorize the behavior and observations people experi­ ence every day. R esearchers have developed classifications and m odels o f memory, extrap o­ lated from observed behavior, dialogue, and reports that appear to reflect the function and organization o f the sense- m aking process. In their com prehensive review o f the research on social cognition and interpersonal relationships, Fletcher and Fitness (1993) pointed to the interface betw een personal experi­ ence and socially shared knowledge structures. Stereotypes, social norm s, and rules reflect culturally shared schem ata, w hereas beliefs about o n e ’s own m ar­ riage may be private and not shared by others. Furtherm ore, people’s beliefs about them selves activate beliefs about others and relationships. M iller and R ead (1991) provided a hypothetical scenario o f Jo h n and Mary, who m eet at a bar and have som e drinks. Jo h n believes that others are untrustw orthy and that he h as to hurt others before they hurt him. M ary believes the opposite and feels she can depend on others. Jo h n has am bivalent feelings about being attach ed to som eone else, w hereas M ary finds security in such an attachm en t. In this sce ­ nario, im agine what would happen if M ary discloses som ething personal to Joh n . Perhaps, John would not affirm her disclosures and would say very little. A C O M P A R I S O N O F M E M O R Y W IT H T H E O R G A N IZ A T IO N O F A C O M P U T E R T h e primary function o f a memory structure is to process new experiences and assign them to a particular type o f structure or con text necessary for under-

SC H E M A T A , SC EN ES, ANO SC R IP T S

II

stan d in g them (S c h an k , 1982). For exam p le, a datin g m em ory structure can in ­ clude a n um b er o f typical d a tin g scen es, such as goin g to a m ovie or restau ran t. T h e existin g m em ory structure serves as a reference th at en ab les the in dividual to ju d ge if a new datin g experien ce is sim ilar to or differen t from w hat h app en s on a typical date. P eo p le’s e x p e c ta tio n s a b o u t e v e n ts in rela tio n sh ip s c a n be co m p a re d to the o rgan izatio n o f c o m p u te r files. A s in a co m p u te r sy stem , h u m an m e n ta l o r g a ­ n ization cate go riz e s in fo rm ation a b o u t re la tio n al d e v e lo p m e n t in a h ie rarch i­ c al arra n g e m e n t o f n e ste d su b cate g o rie s. A directory, sym bolized in co m p u te r term in ology by a d irectory n am e , is co m p a ra b le to a co m p le x sc h e m a . C o n ­ s id e r , f o r e x a m p l e , a d i r e c t o r y e n t i t l e d E s c a l a t i n g R e l a t i o n s h i p (c :\E sc a la t.R lp ). T h is d irectory reflects the m em ory stru ctu re for a d e v e lo p in g ro m an c e ; it c o n sists o f u n derly in g sc e n e s an d scrip ts (in co m p u te r term in o l­ ogy, su b d ire c to rie s an d su b files). In the directory c:\E sc a lat.R lp , there are su b directories co n tain in g m em ory stru ctu res for variou s related topics. A prim ary subdirectory D A T IN G , for e x ­ am ple, co n ta in s a n um ber o f subfiles c o n tain in g scen es an d scripts for m em ories such as D ate s O b serv ed as a C h ild , M em o rab le D ates S e e n in the M o vies or on T elevision, M em o rab le D ate s R ead ab ou t in N o v e ls or S to rie s, In teresting D ate s F riends H ave D escrib ed , an d M em ories o f D ate s Personally E xperien ced. To carry the m etap h o r further, in the subfile M em ories o f D ate s Personally E x ­ p erien ced, there are specific m em ories or further subfiles o f m em orable dates, in clu ding M Y F IR S T D A T E , M Y M O S T B IZ A R R E D A T E , or MY M O S T R E ­ C E N T D A T E . R esearch in d icates th at people tend to rem em ber su ch specific m em orable o ccasio n s rath er th an rep etitious activities or routines, w hich are m ost often lodged in m ore gen eral m em ory stru ctu res. T h e prim ary m em ory stru ctu re, or subdirectory, D A T IN G m igh t also c o n tain the subfiles G oo d D ates, Bad D ates, D o u b le-D ate s, an d so on, in w hich people tend to rem em ber the m ost m em orab le exam p les an d blend togeth er or aggregate oth ers in to a gen eral category for datin g. T h is p rocess o f aggregation is exem plified by the m em ory stru ctu res o f those w ho are highly exp erien ced at a specific task or skill, su ch as a sport. B e cau se the experien ce is rep etitive, its script has b eco m e au to m atic to som e degree; c o n se ­ quently, specific o c casio n s or in stan ces m ay be m ore difficult to recall (Berger, 1993). In a datin g m em ory stru ctu re, unless an u n usual in ciden t occurs, a p e r­ son will n ot n ecessarily recall, say, sm all talk during a din n er d ate ab o u t w hat w ent on at work th at day. T h e m em ory o f the experien ce b eco m es aggregated, or clu stered , in a b road er D atin g su b file -a process co m parable to file c o m p re s­ sion in a com puter. C o n tin u in g in the co m p u ter m etaphor, D atin g subfiles (or scen es) inclu de further subfiles (or scripts) for the routin es o f each o f the recalled scen es. A first-d ate script, for exam p le, is assim ilated or ac c o m m o d ate d in to later first-date subfiles. A lth o u gh differen t types o f d a te s h ave different scripts c o n ­

CHAPTER 2

\2

sisting o f underlying subscenes and subroutines, som e scripts, such as the greet­ ing ritual, are com m on to all d atin g scen es. T h e se scripts, co n sidered prototypical or the best exam ple o f the appropriate behavior, are adapted and re p licate d acro ss all the sub files in the D A T IN G subdirectory. T h e se prototypical scripts can then be accessed in order to provide step-by-step in ­ structions for each new experience. H oneycutt (1993) provided an exam ple o f a specific datin g memory stru c­ ture that may be accessed by recalling a first date at a m ovie. T h e memory struc­ ture will consist o f a m ovie-date script (or subfile), which includes actions (or further subfiles) o f w aiting in line, ticket purchasing, buying refreshm ents, lo­ cating seats, w atching the m ovie, and leaving the theater. If the couple decides to get som ething to eat after the m ovie, a restauran t-date subfile, containing further subfiles o f w aiting for a table, ordering the m eal, sm all talk during d in ­ ner, paying the bill, and leaving the restaurant can then be accessed. Subfiles o f both the theater and restaurant scenes will subsequently be replicated and adapted to com pose the updated first-date dating memory structures. M em ­ ories o f each physical setting can then be used (sim ilar to com puter icons) to a c ­ cess m em ories that will provide a frame of reference and create expectation s for subsequen t first dates. O f course, the hum an mind is not a m ass o f netw orked com puter chips and the analogy to com puter processing breaks down at som e point. In fact, the way in which people process inform ation is even more com plex than what occurs in­ side the m ost soph isticated com puter. T h us, cognitive psychologists have d e­ veloped a rubric o f term s to specify the com puter-like com ponents o f hum an cognition, based on what has been learned in tightly controlled experim ents. T h e following sections provide definitions for the know ledge-structure term i­ nology em ployed in the com puter m etaphor and review what researchers have learned about the influence o f memory on the developm en t o f relationships. However, first the theoretical foundation that provides the basis for this discus­ sion— con structivism — is discussed. C O N S T R U C T IV IS M C on structivism posits that each individual determ ines his or her reality and subsequently fram es his or her social (and thus com m un icative) action s based on cognitive schem es. W hether these schem es are highly developed or rather sim plistic is determ ined by how cognitively com plex an individual is in a p artic­ ular area. C ognitive com plexity relates to the number, interrelationships, com ­ plexity, and variety o f the schem es used when constructin g m essages. C ognitive com plexity is an inform ation-processing variable that indicates an individual’s increased capacity to process inform ation about personal relationships in a more highly adaptive way. In relationship to interpersonal skills, O ’Keefe and D elia (1979) stated “in construing other persons, perceivers use a characteristic

S C H E M A T A , S C E N E S , ANI> S C R I P T S

13

set o f con structs relevant to interpersonal judgm en ts” (p. 231). M artin (1991) em phasized the im portance o f distinguishing betw een cognitive com plexity that relates to an understan din g o f individuals and the ability to conceptualize about a relationship. H e wrote, “it is conceivable that an individual’s ‘relational cognition com plexity’ may be largely unrelated to the com plexity o f that sam e individual’s understanding o f other persons” (p. 468). Burelson and D en ton (1997) suggested that individuals dem onstratin g co g­ nitive com plexity in a particular area could be called experts (as opposed to novices; see later in this chapter for a discussion o f novices and experts, and see chap. 7 for ad ditional exam ples). H e stated that the expert displays m ore differ­ entiated, abstract, and integrative schem es. T h e novice h as schem es that are global, undifferentiated, con crete, and diffuse. M artin suggested that those who display greater structural com plexity in the relational dom ain are better able to finely tune their responses to experiences because o f an increased ability to dis­ crim inate and differentiate. H e reinforced the idea o f a structural com ponent when discussing this as a difference in an in dividual’s “cap acity ” (p. 468) to re­ spond to interpersonal experiences. W ilson (1994) concurred with this view o f m ore relationally com plex indi­ viduals when he suggested that those who are better able to differentiate can m ake m ore appropriate responses to stim uli in the environ m en t than those who display less differentiation. H e wrote that “persons high in interpersonal co n ­ struct differentiation spontaneously utilize a larger num ber o f dim ensions of judgm en t about people than do their less differentiated coun terparts” (p. 7). H e suggested that highly differentiated individuals have relational rules that are easily accessed, w hereas less-differentiated individuals may have the sam e rules but the rules are only more difficult to access. H e discovered that more highly differentiated people are able to attribute more supporting goals to target indi­ viduals who neglected to fulfill an obligation than those who displayed less dif­ ferentiation. Burleson and D enton (1997) cautioned, however, that it is im portant to rec­ ognize that factors other than relational cognitive com plexity may influence be­ havior. T h ey suggested that it is problem atic to assum e that responses to interpersonal situation s arc a result o f cognitive com plexity only, rather than being influenced by lack o f m otivation or the desire to com m un icate in a more sim plistic or negative manner. T h ey cited as exam ples studies that purported to dem onstrate that distressed couples evidenced less con structive com m un ica­ tion when problem solving than did nondistressed couples, and posited that other factors may com c into play w hen individuals who are unhappy with their relationships are asked to solve problem s. T h u s, c o n stru ctiv ism and its related co n ce p t, co gn itiv e com plexity, a p ­ p e a r to play a fo rm id a b le ro le in in te r p e r s o n a l re la tio n s h ip s . M o re cogn itiv ely com p lex in d ivid u als ap p e ar to h ave a gre ater rep erto ire o f re­ sp o n ses, w hich are m ore ad ap tiv e an d d iffe ren tiated . H ow ever, it is im por­

14

CHAPTER 2

tan t to recognize th a t o th er facto rs, such as lack o f m o tiv atio n or d eliberate atte m p ts to o b fu sca te or to provide d y sfu n ctio n al re sp o n ses, can also sig n ifi­ can tly im p act co m m u n ic atio n in re latio n sh ip s. H ow ever, even d y sfu n c­ tion al resp o n ses rep resen t a type o f sch e m a ta , d e v e lo p e d , filtered , and refined through ex p e rie n ce s.

SC H EM A TA T h e term schem ata is frequen tly used in a glo bal sen se to in d icate stru ctu re s o f m em ory or kn ow ledge. S c h e m a ta are categorized ac co rd in g to the fu n c ­ tion and c o n te n t o f sc e n e s, scripts, and proto ty pes. A n d erse n (1 9 9 3 ) d e ­ fined sc h e m a ta as kn ow ledge stru c tu re s th at stem from prior exp e rie n ce and organize the p ro ce ssin g o f in fo rm ation . S c h e m a ta also guide b e h av io r in the form o f e x p e c tatio n s. Sch em ata represent the m ental organization o f inform ation— the storage o f lan guage and exp erien ce in memory. E ach in dividual sch em a is a language-based grouping o f ideas, such as shopping for groceries, preparing dinner, and cleaning the kitchen, in which the groupings reflect som e com m onality or similarity in the primary them e within a broader schem a, such as “R outine re­ sponsibilities in the h om e.” A schem a may also consist o f a series o f ideas unex­ pectedly related to the single primary them e they have in com m on. T h e home responsibilities listed here, for exam ple, may be interpreted as extrem ely plea­ surable w hen m aking up a primary them e o f “Q uality time betw een two friends with a m utual interest in gourm et cookin g.” Cognitive researchers point out that sch em ata are used to organize the pro­ cessing o f future tasks (Scott, Fuhrm an, & Wyer, 1991). A ndersen (1993) e x ­ p a n d e d the d e fin itio n o f s c h e m a ta , in d ic a tin g th a t s c h e m a ta c re a te expectation s, anticipatory assum ptions, and contingency rules to guide future behavior. In short, sch em ata is a broad term for know ledge structures— orga­ nized groupings o f inform ation in memory that sum m arize past experience and guide future behavior. R e la tio n a l S c h e m a ta T h e study o f social cognition focuses on sch em ata that store inform ation about relationships and social interaction. T h e term relational schemata refers to units o f organized inform ation stored in memory, which act as repositories for fu n d a­ m ental beliefs and expectation s regarding the developm en t o f relationships. R elational sch em ata provide the sources o f people’s m ost fun dam en tal beliefs about the characteristics o f relationships. People’s beliefs about how relation ­ ships develop are derived from direct experience gained by participating in rela­ tionships or from indirect experience gained vicariously by w atching others or reading about the experiences o f others (Fig. 2.1).

SC H EM A T A , SCEN ES, AND SC R IP T S

F I G . 2.1

15

R e l a t i o n s h i p s c h e m a t a are f o r m e d by w h a t p e o p l e re ad .

Fletcher and Fitness (1993) agreed that m em ories, beliefs, thoughts, exp ec­ tations, and attributions reside in knowledge structures and rem arked that peo­ ple typically develop relatively elaborate theories, beliefs, and expectation s about relationships. A n exam ple o f an elaborated schem a for m arriage is pre­ sented in Box 2.1, in which a 27-year-old, engaged fem ale student reports on her expectation s for m arriage and how these expectation s were form ed. Sh e in ­ dicates that her expectation s may be altered during the daily realities o f married life. Sh e m entions nine them es as part o f her m arriage schem a. Each o f the them es that the stud en t m entions in her schem a may be considered a schem a subfile in the broader m arriage schem a file. For exam ple, part o f her religion subschem a includes a belief in G od and atten din g church. T h e young wom an indicates that her schem a for com m itm ent includes subsch em ata, such as talk­ ing about problem s and seeking m arital counseling, if necessary, before splitting up. A ll o f the sub sch em ata reflect her values for m arriage. To sum m arize, sch em ata influence the search for inform ation and its re­ trieval. R elational schem ata, which contain inform ation based on experience, are specific sch em ata for behavior in relationships (Scott et al., 1991). R e la­ tional sch em ata evolve as more inform ation is gath ered about the relationship betw een an individual and partner. Sch em ata can provide a basis for evaluatin g experiences, structuring inform ation, anticipating the future, and setting goals or intentions for the relationship (M iell, 1987).

Box 2.1

Sam ple M arriage Schem a of an Engaged Female Student

We as individuals all have som e kinds o f expectation s, w hether they are from work, a dating partner, marriage partner, or children. Unfortunately, some o f us have expectation s that others are incapable o f fulfilling. I have expectations o f my upcom ing marriage and partner, including:

16

Finances.

T h ere will be one checking accoun t and savings account, which will includc both o f our nam es. In order to keep the re­ cords straight, I will have the only checkbook. I will be respon­ sible for paying bills and for giving Kyle money or checks when needed.

Careers.

Kyle will continue to work and be the m ain provider during the m arriage. 1 will work as a teacher and will be free to have designated w eekends, holidays, and sum m ers off. I will also con tin ue to work during pregnancy, but will take off from work the appropriate am ount o f tim e allow ed. T h e decision not to work will be mine alone, if financial m atters allow it.

Children.

We agree to wait for at least two years or until we are mentally and financially ready for a baby. We also agree to have no more than two children. T h e sex o f the children has no bearing, as long as they are healthy. C hild rearing and responsibilities will be shared as m uch as possible.

Recreation.

We both agree that recreation is im portant. Th erefore, we will try to set aside as m any w eekends as possible to devote to each other. We will also rem em ber that we as individuals need time to ourselves. T h is time can be spent alone or in the com pany o f friends.

Religion.

T h is subject has not yet been decided by either o f us. I am B ap­ tist and Kyle is a C ath olic. T herefore, we will have to choose the religion in which our belief is the strongest and in which we will raise our children. We both agree that the main point is that a person believes in G od and attends a church.

Housekeeping.

I will be responsible for the care o f the inside o f the house, while Kyle is responsible for the outside. Kyle will pick up his personal belongings (clothes, shoes, etc.) and put them in their proper place. I will be responsible for the m eals during the week. Kyle likes to cook, so he will have the w eekends to

S C H E M A T A , S C E N E S , A N IÏ S C R IP T S

17

do so. T h e clean u p o f the m eals and table will be the resp o n si­ bility o f both. In-Laws.

Wc will n ot live with cith er set o f paren ts, unless there is no a l­ tern ativ e. T h ey can visit, w ithin reason , anytim e. We agree n ot to let them interfere or con trol our relation sh ip. It is our m arriage during good and bad tim es. We also agree to spend T h a n k sg iv in g and C h ristm as D ay with my m other. We will on o ccasio n go to N ew O rlean s to spen d on e o f these holidays w ith my father. We will go to Kyle’s p aren ts' h ouse th a t afte r­ n oon an d/or night during the tim e o f the two holidays.

Commitment/ Faithfulness.

I prom ise to be faithful th rough out the entire m arriage an d e x ­ pect the sam e from him , b ecau se we love an d h ave chosen e ach as a partn er before G od . If one partn er d oes b reak this prom ise, we will try to find o u t w hat the problem is and correct it. A fter con siderab le trying, if the problem is n ot correctable, we will sep arate and then take legal steps for a divorce. If we have oth er m arital p roblem s and b oth wish for the m arriage to co n tin u e, we agree to seek profession al counseling.

Communication.

A m arriage can n o t last if p artn ers can n o t con fide in one a n ­ other. T h erefore, I feel that it is very im portan t to be able to c om m u n icate and be open ab ou t ou r feelings with e ach other. A spouse should be not only a partner, b ut a b est friend as well.

I know that life or m arriage can't an d doesn 't follow a se t o f rules or gu idelines. I know that my ex p e ctatio n s will be altered to a certain degree during the “every­ d ay ” o f life. I can 't say th a t one person or thing has h elped me form these e x p e c ta ­ tions. 1 h ave seen and learned a lot from my paren ts, friends, an d sch oo l. Even though I h ave com e to u n derstan d w hat’s w rong and w hat's right through my e x ­ perien ces, that d oesn ’t m ean I will h ave the perfect m arriage. M arriage is so m e ­ thing I ju st h ave to try an d then hope for the best.

SCENES S c c n c s a r c m e m o r y s t r u c t u r e s o f te n lin k e d w ith in fo r m a t io n a b o u t a sp e c ific p h y s ic a l s e tt in g . S c e n e s c a n a ls o re fe r to a n e n tir e c o m p le x e p is o d e : th e s e ttin g , a c t iv it ie s , a n d p e o p le in v o lv e d . S c h a n k (1 9 8 2 ) d e fin e d a s c e n e a s a g e n e r a l d e ­ s c r ip t io n o f a s e t t in g a n d a c t iv itie s in p u r s u it o f a g o a l r e le v a n t to t h a t se ttin g . S c e n e s a ls o m a y c o n t a in t h o u g h t p a t t e r n s o f d ia lo g u e a n d a c t io n (o r s c r ip ts ) b a s e d o n e x p e r ie n c e s t h a t h a v e o c c u r r e d in t h a t p a r t ic u la r e n v ir o n m e n t . T h e y re fle c t im a g e ry a b o u t a s p e c ific s it u a t io n a n d p r o v id e a p h y sic a l s e tt in g t h a t

IK

CHAPTER 2

se rv e s as the b asis for the re c o n stru c tio n o f m em ory. If an in d iv id u al c a n re m e m ­ ber the se ttin g in w hich an e v e n t o c c u rre d (th e s c e n e ), it is th en e asie r to a c c e ss sp ecific d ialo g u e an d a c tio n s (th e sc rip t). S c h a n k (1 9 8 2 ) term ed an o rd e re d array o f re late d sc e n e s a memory organiza­ tion packet. C o lle c tio n s o f su c h m em ory stru c tu re s c o n stitu te metarnemory orga­ nization [jackets. S c h a n k in d ica te d th a t m em ory o rg an iza tio n p a c k e ts o c c u r at the p h y sical, so c ie ta l, an d p e rso n a l lev els. P h y sical sc e n e s re p re se n t m e n ta l or v isu al im ag es o f p a rtic u la r su rro u n d in g s a t a sp ecific tim e. A so c ie ta l sc e n e re ­ flects a re la tio n sh ip b e tw e en in d iv id u als w ho are p u rsu in g a c o m m o n g o al a t th e sam e tim e, w ith a c o m m u n ic a tio n link b e tw e en th em . T h e a c tio n s an d the in ­ te rac tio n b e tw e en the p a rtic ip a n ts d efin e th e sc e n e (S c h a n k , 19 8 2 ). A n e x a m p le o f on e c o n te m p o ra ry so c ie ta l sc e n e is the in c re asin g use o f the In te rn e t to c o m m u n ic a te w ith o th e rs h av in g sim ilar in te re sts, d e scrib e d in c h a p te rs 1 an d 10. For e x am p le , th ere are g ro u p s d e alin g w ith lo n e lin e ss, fin d ­ ing a re la tio n sh ip partn er, co p in g w ith d iv o rce , an d g e n d e r issu es. S u c h In te rn et gro u p s allow p e o p le to re tain th eir in d iv id u al id e n titie s an d c o n c e a l th eir a p ­ p e a ra n c e . For th o se w ho regularly u sed this type o f w eb -b ase d v e n u e for r e la ­ tio n sh ip s, m e m o ry s tr u c tu r e s are c re a te d th a t o rd e r th e v a rio u s sc e n e s c o n ta in e d th erein . P erso n al sc e n e s arc id io sy n c ratic an d m ay be th o u g h t o f in term s o f rep etitiv e p riv ate go als o r strate g ie s. For e x am p le , a d a tin g m em ory stru c tu re m ay reflect an e n c o u n te r a t a sp e cific m ovie th e a te r (ph y sical sc e n e ) or a d isc lo su re in the e n v iro n m e n t o f a re sta u ra n t (so c ie ta l sce n e ) th a t c re a te s g re ate r in tim acy in an e sc a la tin g re la tio n sh ip (p e rso n al sc e n e ). S c h a n k ’s ph y sical sc e n e is sim ilar to the n o tio n o f a sc e n e in the th e atrical m e ta p h o rs o f B u rke (1 9 6 2 ). B u rk e ’s fiv e-p art m o d e l o f c o m m u n ic a tio n (a g e n t, a c t, sc e n e , agency, an d p u rp o se) p aralle ls th e five key e le m e n ts of jo u rn a lism (w ho, w h at, w here, w hen, an d h ow ). S c h a n k ’s (1 9 8 2 ) re fe re n ce to so c ie tal sc e n e s is a n a lo g o u s to B u rk e ’s n o tio n o f a c t (w h at tran sp ired ) .w h ereas the p e r­ so n al sc e n e is re fle cte d in the n o tio n o f p u rp o se (why so m e th in g o c c u r r e d ). T h e p h y sical sc e n e c o rre sp o n d s to B u rk e ’s n o tio n o f sc e n e (th e c o n te x t in w hich an ac tio n o c c u rs). B o x e s 2.2 an d 2.3 d e m o n stra te how th e se e le m e n ts m ay be a r ­ rayed in term s o f th e types o f q u e stio n s p e o p le co u ld ask th e m se lv e s, e ith e r in ge n e ra l o r in referen ce to an e sc a la tin g ro m an tic re la tio n sh ip . S C R IP T S A sc rip t co m p rise s a se t o f se q u e n tia l ste p -b y -ste p in stru ctio n s for a c c o m p lish ­ ing a sp e cific ta sk . T h e term script refers to the se q u e n c in g an d c ate g o riz atio n o f b e h a v io r ac ro ss tim e to ac c o m p lish a g o a l (A b e lso n , 1981; Bow er, B la c k , &. Turner, 1979; S c h a n k & A b e lso n , 1 9 7 7 ). S c rip ts are d e riv e d from in te ra c tio n s in o n e ’s fam ily an d cu ltu re an d p ro v id e in stru ctio n s for b e h a v io r in sp e cific situ ­ atio n s (Fiske & Taylor, 1 9 8 4 ). S c rip ts are m in d le ss in th a t they are w ell le arn ed

S C H E M A T A , S C E N E S , A N IÏ S C R IP T S

B o x 2 .2

F u n d a m e n t a l Q u e s t i o n s T h a t P r o c e s s B e h a v i o r in S c e n e s

Physical scene.

W hat physically happened? W here did it happen?

Socictal scenc.

W hat societal conventions or norms were used? W hat was said? W hat effect did the behavior have on the individual’s so­ cial position?

B o x 2 .3

19

Q u e s t i o n s T h a t P r o c e s s B e h a v i o r in D e v e lo p i n g R e la t i o n s h i p s

Physical scene.

W hat physically happened the first time my partner said, “ I love you"? W here were we?

Societal scene.

W hat was said? How was love com m unicated nonverbally?

an d the b e h a v io r is so m e w h a t h ab itu a l. P eople h av e in n u m e rab le scrip ts for re ­ latio n sh ip in te ra c tio n s, su ch as w h at to say w h en m e e tin g a stran ger, in tr o d u c ­ ing a frien d, re q u e stin g a favor, ask in g for a d a te , say in g g o o d b y e, m a k in g se x u al o v e rtu re s, or o fferin g an apology. S u c h sc rip ts reflect so cial b e h a v io rs le arn ed th ro u gh p e rso n a l e x p e rie n c e , o b se rv a tio n o f fam ily an d p eers, an d a c c e ssin g in ­ fo rm a tio n from the In te rn e t an d the m ed ia, in c lu d in g m ovies, m u sic, an d te le ­ v isio n show s. H o n e y c u tt (1 9 9 6 ) in v e stig a te d th e p o p u la rity o f re a d in g v a rio u s m a g az in e s in o rd e r to le arn a b o u t re la tio n sh ip s. R e s p o n d e n ts w ere a sk e d to list an y m a g ­ azin e they re a d for in fo rm a tio n o n ro m a n tic re la tio n sh ip s. F a sh io n m a g az in e s w ere th e m o st p o p u la r (7 3 % ), fo llo w ed a t a d r a m a tic d is ta n c e by h e a lth m a g a ­ zines (1 3 % ) an d n ew s m a g a z in e s (5 % ). S o m e o f th e fa sh io n m a g a z in e s w ere V oque, Elie, C osm opolitan , M adem oiselle, G lam our, Brides, Young M s., an d M axim . W h e n a sk e d to ra n k th e so u r c e s o f r e la tio n a l in fo rm a tio n from an e x ­ te n siv e list, re s p o n d e n ts liste d frie n d s, p a re n ts, sib lin g s, m a g a z in e s, an d m o v ­ ies as th e to p five. S c rip ts a c t as a type o f a u to m a tic pilot an d p rovid e gu id elin e s on how to a c t w hen o n e e n c o u n te rs new situ a tio n s. To a c c e ss a scrip t from m em ory, an in d i­ v id u a l first th in k s o f a ge n e ra l cate g o ry o f a c tio n (su ch as o v e rc o m in g a crisis in a re la tio n sh ip ) an d th en re c a lls a sc e n e . O n c e a sc e n e is e n v isio n e d , the ac tio n s, b e h a v io rs, o r d ialo g u e th a t o c cu rre d in th a t sc e n e c a n be re ca lle d . S c e n e s c a n th u s be c o n sid e re d as en tryw ays to scrip ts an d o th e r m em ory stru c tu re s. R e ­ c allin g a sp e cific sc e n e allow s th e tem p o ra l o rderin g, or tim e se q u e n cin g , o f sp e ­ cific scrip te d b e h a v io rs an d a c tio n s to occur. S c e n e s, th e n , p o in t to o rd e re d an d se q u e n tia l (sc rip te d ) activ itie s.

20

CHAPTER 2

A s step-b y -step in stru ction s for any given behavior, scripts m ake it possible to plan and execu te everyday activ ities an d aid in the recogn ition o f the fam iliar activities o f oth ers (Bow er et al. 1979). For exam ple, scripts p rovide in stru ction s for greetin g g ran d p aren ts or sign ifican t others, or for w h at to say during a job in ­ terview or w hen arriving at a party. A lternatively, con sid er the variou s jok es people tell ab ou t open in g lines or the ritual o f m eetin g som eon e for the first tim e; these reflect cultu ral scripts o f inept ways o f saying hello or initiating in ­ teractio n . B e cau se scripts are sequ en tial, they frequently reflect a logical order. S crip ts are stereotypic rep resen tation s o f b eh avioral ac tio n s and reflect a p ­ pro ach es acce p tab le in a given cultu re or sub culture. A custom ary first-date script, for exam ple, d oes n ot allow a young m an to ask for a go od-n igh t kiss until he h as com e to know his d ate reason ably well. S crip ts range in specificity from m etascripts th at organize an d specify w hat may be ap pro priate in oth er scripts to specific e x p e c tatio n s in a given co n text. For exam p le, a person m ay h ave the follow ing script for atte n d in g a lecture: (a) en terin g the room , (b) finding a se at, (c) sittin g dow n, (d) takin g o u t a n o te ­ b ook , (e) listen ing to the speaker, (f) takin g n otes, (g) ch eck in g the tim e, (h) giving the p se u d o -a p p e a ran c e o f listening, and (i) leavin g (Bow er et al., 1979). S u b scrip ts for en terin g the room (such as look in g for friends, en terin g w ith a friend, or w hat to d o w hen arrivin g late) m ay also exist. S crip ts m ay also be situ ­ ated in a variety o f scen es. T h e scen e o f the lecture m ay be recalled as a function o f tim e, o f the specific ph ysical en viron m en t, the size o f the au d ien ce, or the specific lecture topic. M in d le s s n e s s V e r s u s M in d f u ln e s s In m any ways, on goin g relation sh ips m ay be th ough t o f as m ore-or-Iess scripted routin es that, despite their ap p are n t novelty, follow predictab le pattern s. S crip ts allow people to be m indless. M in d lessn ess refers to situ atio n s in w hich individuals con sid er the av ailab le in form ation rigidly with preco n cep tio n s, in ­ com pletely, an d thoughtlessly. T h in k o f in an e pick-up lines th at m en use on w om en. T h ey use them over an d over in the face o f rejection and failure. Yet they keep using them b ecau se they are so in grain ed in their lan guage p ractices. T h e y use them w ithout th in k ­ ing. B urgoon an d L an ger (1 995) d iscu ssed how routin e lan gu age en cou rages m in dlessn ess, and how m in dlessn ess also c au se s certain kin ds o f lan guage use. M in d lessn ess en tails lim ited in form ation processin g an d the failure to process new in form ation (Langer, 1989). C onversely, w hen m indful, individuals draw distin ction s and create categories b ecau se they arc sen sitive to ch an ges in c o n ­ text an d are aw are o f cre atin g new persp ectives. People h ave e x p e c tatio n s from e ach o f the follow ing roles: a pickup, com m itted d atin g partner, fian cée, and spou se. T h e script th at is acce sse d to p rocess w hat com es to m ind for these roles is affected by a num b er o f facto rs th at precip itate m in dlessn ess.

S C H E M A T A , S C E N E S , AN I> S C R I P T S

21

T h e first facto r is certainty. R esearch by L an ger (1 989) show s how certainty results in m in dlessn ess. Stro n g beliefs m inim ize the need to reflect on new or even con tradictory inform ation . For exam p le, n ice guys often com plain that they are n ot n oticed by w om en at bars w here picku ps are m ad e. If the m in dless script for b ein g p icked up in clu des th at the m an is aggressive, then nice guys are seen as u n attractiv e or passive. P lan alp and H o n ey cu tt (1 985) describ ed situ a ­ tion s in w hich u n certain ty in creases in long-term relation sh ips. For exam ple, a ch an ge in o n e ’s p a rtn e r’s personality, betraying con fid en ces, or leavin g with no e x p lan atio n may in crease u n certain ty ab ou t w hat m otivates the partner. For e x ­ am ple, saying “ I love you” durin g the d ev elo p m en t o f ro m an ce m ay show o n e ’s partn er th at on e really feels close intim acy, but over tim e saying this loses its uncertain ty -redu ction value. C o n sid e r the reaction to the follow ing. A m ajor e x ­ p e ctatio n in in tim ate relation sh ips is fidelity. In fact, the v iolation o f this e x p e ctatio n may lead to the rapid term in ation o f the relation sh ip (K n ap p & V angelisti, 1996). Su p p o se a spouse tells his or her p artn er a t the end o f the day, “ I w as faithful to you today.” In stead o f the state m e n t redu cin g uncertainty, it m om en tarily in creases u n certain ty b e cau se the o th er partn er may q u estio n w hat h eretofore w as tak en for gran ted — fidelity. T h e p artn er may im m ediately wonder, “ Well, I assu m ed you were faithful, but now I w onder if you are im plying th at there were o th e r tim es th at you w eren’t faith fu l.” A t this m om en t, the p a rt­ ner is im m ediately m indful an d desperately w ants m ore in form ation to further redu ce uncertainty. A se c o n d cau se o f m in d le ssn e ss is d ic h o to m iz atio n (B u rgo on & Langer, 1 9 9 5 ). In o rd er to take actio n , c le ar c h o ic e s are m ad e. T h e n eed for a ctio n is b ased on w ell-d efin ed alte rn ativ e s th at lead peop le to d ich o to m ize. A n t ­ on ym s such as a ttr a c tiv e /u n a ttr a c tiv e , c arin g /u n carin g, se n sitiv e/in se n sitiv e , se cu re /in se c u re , and q u ie t/lo u d fail to n ote the n u a n c e s an d g ra d a tio n s w ith in th ese cate g o rie s. U n d e rly in g am b igu ities are co n v e n ien tly ign ored. “ L ove me or leave m e ” is a co m m o n d e m a n d th at ign ores the variety o f facto rs affectin g co m m itm e n t. A third cau se o f m in dlessn ess is h ab itu al respondin g. O n e can en gage in re­ peated b eh avior in w hich e ach rep etition is con sid ered new by n oticin g differ­ en t asp ects o f the situ atio n , such as ch o osin g a given response. Yet, ritualism in relation sh ips is im p ortan t in su stain in g an d m ain tain in g the relation ship, d e ­ spite the m in dless rep etition . It is ritual to give an an n iversary card on the d ate o f o n e ’s anniversary. A n exam p le o f violatin g a ritual w ould be for som eon e to forget to give the card. A fo u rth c a u se o f m in d le ssn e ss is p re m atu re c o g n itiv e c o m m itm e n t (C h anow itz &. Langer, 1981). W h en people are presen ted with in form ation that they h ave no m otivatio n to q u estio n , they cling to their initial im pression s. Later, if ad d itio n al or new in fo rm ation is supp lied, people often do n ot re c o n ­ sider the initial in form ation in term s of the new in form ation an d ch an ge their im pressions. For exam p le, if people arc show n a tape o f a couple telling jokes

22

CHAPTER 2

about each o ther and told that they are happily m arried, then the jokes are seen as kidding around. Later, the serious m om ents tend to be ignored. If people are shown the sam e tape and told that the couple is unhappily m arried and having som e problem s in their relationship, then the jokes are seen as teasing, mockery, or put-dow ns. T h e serious m om ents arc more easily recalled. T h is recall repre­ sents a confirm atory bias that is m indless because o f the prem ature cognitive com m itm ent that the couple is either happy or unhappy. T h e rigid use o f sch em ata for interpreting new inform ation reflects m indless­ ness. People do this in the interests o f cognitive efficiency because to process all the new inform ation available would be too time consum ing and m entally draining. People have language labels to describe others who are mindful, re­ flecting a range from positive to negative feelings (i.e., creative, im aginative, ab ­ sorbed, an alreten tive). A ccordin g to Langer (1978), people are m ore mindful in five situations: when there arc no scripts for a novel situation, w hen engaging in scripted be­ havior requires an effort because the new situation requires more behavior than was required by the original script, w hen enacting the scripted behavior is in ter­ rupted by external factors that disrupt its com pletion, when en actin g the script results in a negative or positive consequen ce that is discrepant from the co n se­ quen ces o f prior en actm en ts o f the sam e behavior, and finally, m indfulness is likely when the situation allows for sufficient involvem ent. H ence, m indless­ ness is m ore com m on when situations are fam iliar and uninvolving, w hen little effort is required, when behaviors are not interrupted, and when the co n se­ quen ces are sim ilar to previous ones. M uch o f people’s cognition about relation ­ ships is based on m indless scripts that are derived from com m un icating with significant others, from w atching others, from the m edia (e.g., m ovies, books, and m agazines), and, last but not least, from experience, even if the experience has been bad. T h e following sections review the research on scripts that are accessed dur­ ing various phases o f a relationship. T h ese scripts include initial interaction scripts, scripts for dating, sexual scripts, interactive scripts, m em orable m es­ sages, and relational rules. In itia l In te r a c tio n S c r ip ts A lth ough there is considerable research on script gen eration , there is m uch less inform ation about the functions o f scripts in terms o f the con du ct o f personal relationships. A ccordin g to G insberg (1988), scripts for particular scenes o f in­ teraction can be expected to reduce the effort o f in teraction because they fu n c­ tion as a form o f m ental autom atic pilot. O n ce a behavior is scripted and then called up, the individual proceeds autom atically until a barrier to the script is en coun tered. Scripts also coordinate action and reduce the necessity o f paying atten tion to the sm all details that tend to clutter everyday interaction.

S C H E M A T A , S C E N E S , A N IÏ S C R IP T S

23

S c r ip ts a p p e a r to in c re a se p e o p le ’s se c u rity in u n fa m ilia r s o c ia l s itu a tio n s by p r o v id in g a p p ro p ria te in itia l re s p o n s e s a v a ila b le fo r r e c a ll (S ta ffo rd & D aly, 1 9 8 4 ). A n d a lth o u g h s o c ia l s itu a tio n s v ary in th e ir d e g re e o f u n fam iliarity , p e o ­ p le e n c o u n te r c o m m u n ic a tio n o p p o r tu n itie s ev e ry d a y in w h ic h th ey are t h a n k ­ ful t h a t th e ir m in d s c a n p ro v id e so m e ta c it g u id a n c e . F o r e x a m p le , K e llc rm a n n , B r o e tz m a n n , L im , a n d K ita o (1 9 8 9 ) an a ly z e d h ow th e to p ic s p e o p le u se in in i­ tia l in te r a c tio n s w ith str a n g e r s are fairly c o m m o n a n d a c c o m p a n ie d by a n a p ­ p r o p r ia te o r d e r fo r d isc u ssio n . T h e a n a ly sis r e v e a le d a p ro g r e ssio n o f to p ic s for in itia l e n c o u n te r s t h a t is re la tiv e ly c o n s iste n t a n d c a n b e a d a p te d to s itu a tio n a l n e e d s. T h e y fo u n d th a t in itia l in te r a c tio n sc rip ts c o n ta in v e rb a l b e h a v io rs for o b ta in in g , d isc u ssin g , a n d e v a lu a tin g fa c ts ; fo r p r o v id in g e x p la n a tio n s ; a n d for d is c u s sin g g o a ls . O n th e o th e r h a n d , it a p p e a r s t h a t w h e n c o n v e r s a tio n a lis ts k n o w o n e an o th e r, th e s tr u c tu r e o f th e in te r a c tio n is m o re fle x ib le , allo w in g a g r e a te r flex ib ility in th e o r d e rin g o f to p ic s, a s lo n g a s th e n o rm s o f in te r a c tio n are fo llo w e d . S u c h n o rm s fo r c o n v e r s a tio n s e n c o u r a g e tu rn ta k in g , to p ic c o n ­ tin u a tio n , a n d to p ic -tra n s itio n r e le v a n c e (G o o d w in , 1 9 8 1 ) a n d se e m to b e a s s o ­ c ia te d w ith m o re g e n e ra liz e d in te r a c tio n sc rip ts. It is in te re stin g to n o te th a t th e v io la tio n s o f th e se n o rm s a r e to le r a te d m o re w h e n in d iv id u a ls h a v e sp e c ia liz e d k n o w le d g e o f e a c h o th e r o r h a v e sp e c ia l re la tio n sh ip ru le s fo r in te r a c tio n , so th a t p a r tic u la r s u b je c ts m ay b e p u r su e d o r a v o id e d . A s p e o p le c o m e to kn o w th e ir p a rtn e r s, th ey u n d e r s ta n d w h a t to say a n d w h a t to a v o id say in g, as w ell as d e v e lo p in g th e ir o w n c o d e s for c o m m u n ic a tio n . O n e p a r tic u la r r e la tio n sh ip sc rip t th a t h a s b e e n r e s e a r c h e d in v o lv e s s t a t e ­ m e n ts u se d w h e n m e e tin g so m e o n e fo r th e first tim e . D o u g la s (1 9 8 4 ) e x a m in e d in itia l in te r a c tio n s c rip ts t h a t are re fle c te d in la n g u a g e (g r e e tin g s ), to p ic s (su c h a s c u rr e n t e v e n t s ) , a n d g e n e ra l c o n v e r s a tio n a l b e h a v io r (su c h as c o m p lim e n t s ). S ta ffo r d a n d D a ly (1 9 8 4 ) fo u n d t h a t a lth o u g h p a r t ic ip a n ts ’ re p o rts o f sp e c ific c o n v e r s a tio n s are s o m e tim e s in a c c u r a te , th e ir r e c a ll o f re c u r re n t c o n v e r s a tio n s is g e n e ra lly o n ta rg e t. F o r e x a m p le , a c o lle g e s tu d e n t w h o se m o th e r re g u larly a sk s h e r h ow sh e is d o in g in h e r c o u r se w ork w ill re c a ll th a t sh e c o n siste n tly r e ­ s p o n d s , “ P lu g g in g aw ay ,” in o rd e r to a v o id g iv in g a d e ta ile d a c c o u n t o f h er a c t iv ­ ities. A n d w h e n in te r a c tio n s are p u r p o se fu l, S ta ffo r d an d D aly fo u n d th a t so m e p a r tic ip a n ts a rc ab le to a r tic u la te th e ir p u r p o se c o n sc io u sly . F o r e x a m p le , a w o m an in te re ste d in th e p o ssib ility o f a p a r tic u la r r e la tio n sh ip m ay say, “ I told h im a b o u t m y in te re s t in c la s s ic a l m u sic in o r d e r to se e if w e sh a re d an y c o m m o n in te r e s t s .” H o w e v e r, m a n y if n o t m o s t sim p le in te r a c tio n s are fo u n d to b e r e la ­ tively a u to m a tic a n d p e rfo rm e d w ith o u t m u c h s tr a te g ic p la n n in g o r fo re ­ th o u g h t (K e llc rm a n n , 1 9 9 2 ). F o r in sta n c e , w h e n s o m e o n e a s k s “ W h a t ’s u p ? ” th e u su a l rep ly is u su a lly “O h , n o t m u c h ” o r th e like, as o p p o s e d to “ T h e sky, I s u p p o s e ” o r “ E v e ry th in g t h a t ’s n o t d o w n ." It is a s if p e o p le h a v e a d o p te d a se rie s o f little ritu a ls th a t allow th e m to b o th p r o c e ss a n d p r o d u c e c o m m u n ic a tio n w ith o u t a s e c o n d th o u g h t. A n d th e sa m e m a y h o ld tru e fo r e v e n m o re e x te n s iv e a n d c o m p le x in te r a c tio n ro u tin e s.

24

CHAPTER 2

S c r i p t s f o r D a t in g P eople o fte n th in k th a t th e p ro c e ss o f se c u rin g a d a te w ith so m e o n e is re a so n ­ ably c o n sc io u s an d u n iqu ely su ite d to a p a rtic u la r situ a tio n . H ow ever, a variety o f stu d ie s su g g e st th a t th ere m ay be a go o d d e a l less strate gizin g g o in g on th an on e m igh t e x p e c t. For e x am p le , fou r stu d ie s w ere c o n d u c te d by Pryor an d M erluzzi (1 9 8 5 ) to d e term in e m ale an d fe m ale scrip ts for G e ttin g a D a te an d T h e First D a te . In the first study, 3 0 m ale an d 21 fe m ale u n d e rg ra d u a te stu d e n ts w ere ask e d to g e n e r­ ate a list o f 20 a c tio n s th a t typ ically o c c u r w h en a m an ask s a w o m an for a d a te an d w h en they go on a first d a te . T h e resu lts o f the stu d y re v e al th a t th e p a rtic i­ p a n ts ag re e d on th e c o n te n ts an d m e a n in g o f the G e ttin g a D a te an d T h e First D a te scrip ts. Typical a c tio n s re p o rte d in the G e ttin g a D a te scrip t in c lu d e d the m an o b se rv in g th e w o m an , eye c o n ta c t an d sta rin g b e tw e en th em , sm iling, o th e r b e h a v io rs sign alin g in te re st, an d in fo rm atio n se e k in g a b o u t o n e a n o th e r th ro u gh frien ds. O th e r ac tio n s in c lu d e d p o te n tia l p a rtn e rs m a n ip u latin g e v e n ts to cre a te an a c c id e n ta l m e e tin g or b e in g in tro d u c e d by a friend, the m an in itia t­ ing co n v e rsa tio n , the c o u p le e x p lo rin g in te re sts th ro u gh c o n v e rsa tio n to find com patib ility , an d th e m an ask in g w o m an for h er p h o n e n u m b e r an d th en p h o n in g h er for a d a te . Yet the d a tin g b e h a v io rs d e scrib e d in the stu d y clearly im plied a w illin gn ess on the p a rt o f th e w om an to be ask e d o u t. O f c o u rse , th e se ac tio n s co u ld be p e rce iv e d as n e g a tiv e if the w o m an did n o t desire th em , but th e n how w ould an in itiato r kn ow th is b efore the fact? It is im p o rta n t to n ote th a t a n u m b e r o f the a c tio n s a sso c ia te d w ith m ale in itiativ e in ask in g for a d a te co u ld be p e rce iv e d as a S e x u a l H a ra ssm e n t script. In Pryor an d M e rlu zzi’s (1 9 8 5 ) stu d y o f ty p ic a l sc rip ts f o r a first d a te , th e re ­ p o rts o f s e q u e n c e s o f b e h a v io r w ere c o n s iste n t, im p ly in g c u ltu ra l c o n s e n s u s on e x p e c te d , o r ty p ical, b e h a v io rs. T h e stu d y a ttr ib u te d th e fo llo w in g s e ­ q u e n c e to th e c u ltu ra l c o n s e n s u s o f a ty p ic a l first d a te : th e m an g o e s to th e w o m a n ’s re sid e n c e , the w o m an g r e e ts h im , th e m a n m e e ts h er fam ily o r ro o m ­ m a te s, an d they e n g a g e in sm a ll talk a n d d e c id e w h ere to go . If they d e c id e , for e x a m p le , to go to a m o v ie , th e ty p ica l sc rip t in c lu d e s w aitin g in lin e, b u y in g r e ­ fre sh m e n ts, an d g e ttin g so m e th in g to e a t a fte r th e m o v ie . T h e m a n th e n ta k e s the w o m an h o m e an d w alk s h er to h er door. T h e c o u p le su m m a riz e s th e e v e ­ n in g a t th e e n d o f th e d a te . T h e m a n m ay a sk to c a ll a g a in ; th e w o m an m ay h o p e he a sk s to c a ll a g a in ; they k iss, say g o o d n ig h t, a n d th a n k e a c h o th e r for th e e v e n in g ; an d th e m a n d e p a rts. T h e s tu n n in g re g u larity o f su c h v e rb a l r e ­ p o rts s u g g e sts th a t a sc rip t m ay be o p e r a tin g a t a n o n c o n s c io u s le v e l in m o st, if n o t all, o f th e first d a te s p e o p le e x p e r ie n c e . N o te th a t th e se scrip ts o c c u r in c o n te x t an d re fle ct the c u sto m s an d v a lu e s o f b o th th e so ciety an d su b c u ltu re in w hich they occur. T h e re c a n be sign ifican t d iffe ren ce s in the scrip ts for d a tin g an d c o u rtsh ip in u rb an , sm all-tow n , an d ru ­ ral c u ltu re s. D iffe re n ces, for e x a m p le , w ould be o b se rv e d b e tw e en the d a tin g

S C H E M A T A , S C E N E S , A N I> S C R I P T S

25

c u sto m s in N ew O r le a n s an d th o se o f a villag e in F ran ce or in ru ral M a lay sia. S u b c u ltu re an d so c io e c o n o m ic sta tu s also in flu e n ce scrip ts. T h e r e co u ld be v a ria tio n s in th e d a tin g sc rip ts for H isp a n ic , A fric a n -A m e ric a n , A sia n , N a tiv e A m e r ic a n , or w hite c o u p le s on a first d a te , e v e n th o u g h they all lived in the sam e city. Yet m o st o fte n th e sam e ph y sical, so c ie ta l, an d p e rso n a l sc e n e s arc re ­ calle d an d e n v isio n e d in o rd e r to a c c e ss a variety o f scripts. S e q u e n c e s o f D a t in g B e h a v io r.

T h e sc c o n d stu d y by Pryor an d M crlu zzi

(1 9 8 5 ) e x a m in e d th e u n d e rly in g s e q u e n c e o f b e h a v io r s in th e G e ttin g a D a te a n d T h e F irst D a te sc rip ts. T h e stu d y p a rtic ip a n ts w ere d istin g u ish e d o n the b a sis o f th e ir d a tin g e x p e r tise . D atin g experts w ere d e fin e d as th o se w ho re ­ p o rte d h a v in g d a te d six or m ore d iffe re n t p e o p le in th e p a st year. N ovices w ere c o n sid e re d th o se h a v in g d a te d th ree or few er d iffe re n t p e o p le in th e p a st year. T h is c rite rio n id e n tifie d on ly a sm a ll n u m b e r o f w o m en as e x p e r ts. C o n s e ­ q u en tly , th e sa m p le o f p a rtic ip a n ts w ith d a tin g e x p e rtise w as re stric te d to a g ro u p o f 58 m e n . T h e p a r tic ip a n ts w ere ask e d to c re a te a se q u e n tia l o rd e r fo r a s ta c k o f sh u ffle d in d e x c a r d s, e a c h c ard d e sc rib in g a ty p ic a l e x a m p le o f b e h a v ­ ior t h a t o c c u rs w h en a sk in g for a d a te o r g o in g o u t o n a first d a te . T h e b e h a v ­ io rs w ere se le c te d from th e lists o f th e 20 a c tio n s th a t ty p ically o c c u r w h en a m a le a sk s a fe m a le fo r a d a te an d w h en g o in g on a first d a te th a t w ere g e n e r ­ a te d in Pryor an d M e rlu zz i’s first stud y. T h e p a rtic ip a n ts w ere in stru c te d to re a d th ro u g h th e e n tire se t o f ca r d s an d a rra n g e th e m in to a lo g ic a l o rd e r o f e v e n ts th a t m igh t ty p ically occur. T h e resu lts d e m o n stra te d th a t m en w ith m ore d a tin g e x p e rie n c e w ere able to c re a te lo g ica l s e q u e n c e s o f d a tin g b e h a v io rs w ith th e card s m ore rapidly, c o m p a re d to m en w ho h ad little d a tin g e x p e rie n c e . A p p aren tly , the d a tin g e x ­ p e rts u sed th eir c o g n itiv e re p re se n ta tio n s to c re a te o rd e r from a ra n d o m s e ­ q u e n c e o f e v e n ts. T h e c o h e sio n o f th eir m em ory stru c tu re s allow ed th em to recogn ize a se q u e n c e o f ra n d o m e v e n ts rapidly an d to c atego rize th em in to a s o ­ cially a c c e p ta b le lo g ic a l order. T h e third stu d y by Pryor an d M erluzzi (1 9 8 5 ), w as d e sig n e d to distin gu ish n e cessa ry an d typ ical b e h a v io rs th a t a c c o m p a n y d a tin g scrip ts. T h e y c ite d the w ork o f G raesser, G o rd o n , an d S aw y er (1 9 7 9 ), w ho re p o rte d th at b e h a v io rs in a scrip t differ sign ifican tly in term s o f how n e c essa ry o r typ ical the v a rio u s ac tio n s are. S o m e b e h a v io rs in a sc rip t are n e c essa ry in o rd e r for the scrip t to c o n tin u e . For ex am p le , o rd e rin g food is n e cessa ry for a re sta u ra n t scrip t to be in v o k e d . O n the o th e r h an d , so m e b e h a v io rs m ay be q u ite typ ical in a scrip t b u t n o t n e c e s ­ sary. O rd e rin g co ffee a t the en d o f a m e al is typ ical, alth o u g h n o t n e cessa ry for th e scrip t to p ro c e e d . Sim ilarly, A b e lso n (1 9 8 1 ) d isc u sse d th a t in d iv id u als p e ri­ o d ically rep o rt th a t an a c tio n in a scrip t is typ ical o n se e in g it, e v e n th o u g h it is n o t frequ en tly m e n tio n e d in a free recall. E x a m p le s o f the b e h a v io r m ay be e a s ­ ier to re call an d av ailab le in m em ory d u e to a re co g n itio n o f the activity.

CHAPTER 2

X(>

G rae sser et al. (1979) reported th at w hen p articip an ts perceive actio n s as highly necessary, they are tak en for gran ted an d assu m ed to be inferred in scripts, even w hen n ot actually present. Pryor an d M erluzzi (1 985) surveyed 30 m en an d 20 w om en, w ho w ere asked to rate how typical a given b eh avior w as from the G e ttin g a D ate an d T h e First D ate scripts. P articip an ts also reported how n ecessary or un n ecessary the b e­ h avior w as for the perform an ce o f o th er b eh aviors in the script. M o st o f the script co m p o n en ts were con sidered m ore typical than necessary. In ad dition , b eh aviors reported as m ore frequ en t in the first study were describ ed as m ore n ecessary in the third study. For exam p le, sm iling w as m en tion ed by 20% o f p ar­ ticipan ts w hen they w ere freely gen eratin g lists o f b eh aviors. Yet w hen a differ­ en t group o f individuals w as asked to rate the typicality o f sm iling, they rated it as ju st as typical as oth er b eh aviors th at actually h ad b een m en tion ed m ore fre­ quen tly in the script gen eration task . A ctio n s con sidered as n ecessary in the G e ttin g a D ate script in clu ded the initial greetin g by the w om an, the m an ’s in iti­ ation o f co n v ersatio n , an d the m an ’s in itiation o f req u estin g a date. Se q u en ce-G ron p in g in D a tin g B eh avior.

T h e fourth study by Pryor and

M erluzzi (1 985) revealed p attern s th at ap p ear to in dicate an underlying gro u p ­ ing o f seq u en ces in scripts. S tu d e n ts w ere asked to read two stories th at corre­ sp on d ed to e ach script; the sto ries co n ta in ed se n te n c e s th at rep resen ted each seq u en ce o f the reported scripted b eh aviors. P articip an ts w ere told th at the story could be in terpreted as co n sistin g o f several n atu ral section s, or them es. T h e y w ere ask ed to identify the distin ct se ctio n s o f the story by placin g a slash m ark, in d icatin g a boundary, w herever they recognized a shift in them e. B oxes 2.4 an d 2.5 c o n tain the fiction al sto ries the research ers used as scripts. T h e fre­ qu en cies o f slash m arks or b oun dary n o tatio n s identified by the p articip an ts are show n in paren th eses. Pryor an d M erluzzi in d icated th at the p articip an ts w ere generally c o n sisten t in their agreem en t on the p lacem en t o f boun dary m arks. T h e typical placem en t o f the b ou n daries in the text d em o n strated th at the G e ttin g a D ate script had four b asic sequ en ce groupin gs or them es: (a) n oticin g e ac h other, (b) trying to m eet each other, (c) gettin g to know each other, and (d) m akin g a d ate . T h e First D ate script yielded five b asic seq u en ce groupin gs or th em es: (a) m eetin g the date, (b) w arm -up co n v ersatio n , (c) m ain -ev en t activity (such as goin g to a m ovie), (d) p ost-m ain -even t activity (such as going to a re stau ran t), an d (e) bringing the d ate to a close. N otably, e ach o f these seq u en ce groupings con tain s su b goals th at are part o f the h ierarch ical organization o f the scripts. T h e results o f the story-readin g procedure revealed th at p articip an ts fre­ quen tly agreed in their in terp retation o f actio n s. T h e re w as also a con sen su s on the groupin g o f seq u en ces togeth er acco rd in g to them es. T h is agreem en t re­ flects culturally in fluen ced sch e m ata, im plying th at there are agreed -on scripts

B o x 2.4

S e q u e n c e - G r o u p i n g in the G e t t i n g a D a t e S c r i p t: G e t t i n g a D ate — G reg M eets Susan

G reg was e atin g at the dining hall w hen he n oticed Su e stan d in g at the salad bar; (2) and Su e also saw Greg. (1) G reg poin ted S u e o u t to a friend. (0) T h ey each cau gh t the oth er one staring. (13) T h e n they sm iled. (0) T h ey both tried to find ou t as m uch as they could ab ou t each oth er from their friends. (11) T h ey also th ou gh t o f ways in w hich they could “ac cid e n ta lly ” run into each other. (4) T h en a m u tual friend in troduced them to each o th e r at a party. (2) G reg and Su e said hello to o n e another. (2) G reg began the con versation . (5) T h e y talked o f their in ­ terests, attem p tin g to find com m on on es. (0) T h e n G reg asked Su e if she w ould be interested in going o u t. (14) S h e gave him her ph on e num ber. (0) G reg called her later. (10) He began the ph one con v ersatio n with "sm all ta lk .” (0) T h e n he asked her out, an d the ac tu al arran gem en ts for the d ate w ere m ade. (16) N o te. N u m b e rs in p a r e n th e se s in d ic a te th e fre q u e n cy o f su b je c ts m a rk in g b o u n d a rie s. A d a p te d from “T h e R o le o f E x p e rtise in P ro c e ssin g S o c ia l In te r a c tio n S c r ip t s ,” by J. B . Pryor a n d T. V. M erlu zzi, ( 1 9 8 5 ) , Jo u rn a l o f Experim ental S ocial Psychology, 2 1 , p p . 3 6 2 - 3 7 9 . C o p y ­ righ t© 1985 by A c a d e m ic P ress. R e p rin te d w ith p erm issio n .

B o x 2 .5

S e q u e n c e - G r o u p i n g in T h e F irst D a t e S c rip t: D a v e a n d L i s a ’s First D a t e

D av e arrived at L isa’s dorm room right on tim e. (0) L isa greeted him , asking him in. (0) T h ey talked for a little while. (1) T h e n L isa in troduced him to her ro om ­ m ates, and D ave an d Lisa left the dorm . (17) A s they were driving to the theater, they talked ab ou t the m ovie they were going to see. (1) T h ey en gaged in “sm all ta lk ,” d iscussin g their com m on in terests. (15) D ave and Lisa then w atch ed the m ovie, and D ave bough t refresh m en ts. (10) A fterw ard, they talked ab o u t the m ovie. (1) T h e y w ent to a nice restau ran t/lou n ge, w here they had so m eth in g to eat an d drink. (1) M eanw hile they con tin u ed their c on versation . (17) D ave then took Lisa b ack h om e. (0) H e w alked her to her dorm . (2) T h e y exch an ged their positive im pressions o f the even ing. (2) D ave ask ed if he cou ld call her again , and L isa gladly co n se n te d . (4) T h ey kissed. (3) T h e n they said “go o d n igh t.” (2) Lisa thanked D ave, and he thanked her in return. (4) Finally, D ave w ent b ack to his dorm . (20) N o te. N u m b e rs in p a re n th e se s in d ic a te th e fre q u e n cy o f su b je c ts m a rk in g b o u n d a rie s. A d a p te d from “ T h e R o le o f E x p e rtise in P ro c e ssin g S o c ia l In te r a c tio n S c r ip t s /' by J. B. P ryor an d T. V. M erlu zzi, 1 9 8 5 , Jo u rn a l o f Experim ental Social Psychology, 2 1 , p p . 3 6 2 - 3 7 9 . C o pyrigh t© 1985 by A c a d e m ic P ress. R e p rin te d w ith p erm issio n .

27

28

CHAPTER 2

w ithin a society. T h e scripts spell o u t social b eh aviors, such as the unspoken rules th at apply w hen ask ing for a d ate or the e xp ected step-b y -step ro u tin es o f a first d ate . T h e in fluen ce o f cultu re is ap p aren t w hen research ers con sid er w hat the variou s sch e m a ta w ould be in su ch differing societies as S e a ttle , B an gk ok, and C o p en h ag e n . In ad dition , c u sto m s ch an ge rapidly in societies linked by m e ­ dia, perh aps as rapidly as every d ecad e. For exam ple, the script for answ ering the teleph on e h as typically been for the person b ein g called to say, “ H e llo ,” an d w ait for the caller to initiate the con v ersatio n . N ow , with C aller ID, it is com m on for the person being called to in itiate the co n v ersatio n s by saying, for exam ple, “ H ello, Jim . H ow arc you doin g to d ay ?” S e x u a l S c r ip ts For som e in dividuals, a part o f their datin g script may inclu de e x p e ctatio n s o f sexu al c o n ta c t. S e x u a l scripts refer to the cu ltu ral n orm s for sexu al relation s (G agn o n &. Sim o n , 1973), an d may in clu de su ch stereo ty pes as th at m en in iti­ ate sexu al relation s, an d th at these activities sh o uld occu r in private. Yet, as Sp re ch e r and M cK in n ey (1 994) in d icated , the idea o f se x u al scripts im plies that little sexu al in volvem en t is truly sp o n tan eo u s, even though cou p les develop their ow n cou p le-sp ecific scripts. A t the b road er cu ltu ral level, con sider the scen ario o f a person being invited by a d ate to his or her ap artm e n t for som e wine an d m usic. T h is scen ario may be in ten ded as a prelu de to m aking love. Traditionally, form al courtsh ip scripts reflected m ale p rerogatives for sexual in itiatives. B au m eister (2 000) review ed stud ies on the h um an sex drive. It is fu n ction al for w om en to deny sex to m en b ecau se o f evolution ary an d biological pro cesses; w om en can n o t h ave as m any offspring as m en, an d they are presu m ­ ably m ore selective ab ou t their sex partn ers. W h en a couple begin s h avin g sex, it is m ainly b ecau se the w om an h as ch an ge d her d ecision from no to yes. R e ­ search by A rd (1977) revealed th at even in m arriage h u sb an d s reported a signif­ ican t gap betw een the am o u n t o f sex they w an ted an d how m uch they h ad. T h e w ives’ answ ers in dicated that they felt less d iscrepan cy betw een how often they w an ted and how often they h ad sex. A cro ss-cu ltu ral review o f research on the h u m an sex drive reveals th at there is a sta n d ard script for sex betw een first-tim e partn ers th at dep en d s on the w om an sign alin g sexu al in terest. B au m eister (2000) discu ssed how in nearly all know n h um an societies, as well as in n on h u m an prim ate societies, w om en c o n ­ stitu te the restrain in g force on sex to the e x ten t th at they refuse offers or ch a n ce s for sexu al activity. B uss an d S c h m itt (1 993) d o cu m en ted th at in h e t­ e ro se x u al attractio n , m en are typically ready for sex long before w om en are. M en are m ore w illing to h ave sex w ith som eon e they h ave ju st m et (e.g., H erold &. M ew hinney, 1993). M en also fall in love faste r th an w om en an d h en ce are likely to feel loving affe ctio n and the ac co m p an y in g se x u a l desire at an earlie r p o in t in the r e la ­ tion sh ip (e.g., B au m eister, W o tm an , &. Stillw ell, 1993; H ill, R ubin, &. P eplau,

S C H E M A T A , S C E N E S , A N IÏ S C R IP T S

29

19 7 6 ; H u sto n , S u r ra , F itzg e rald , & C a t e , 1 9 8 1 ). E v id e n c e from d ire c t c o m ­ m u n ic a tio n w as p ro v id e d by C la r k an d H a tfie ld (1 9 8 9 ). M e n an d w o m en w ere a p p ro a c h e d by an o p p o s ite - g e n d e r re se a rc h c o n fe d e r a te w h o in v ite d th e p a r ­ tic ip a n t to h av e se x th a t sa m e e v e n in g . A ll th e w o m e n re fu se d th is in v ita tio n , w h e re a s m o st o f th e m en a c c e p te d . By th e sa m e to k e n , M e rc e rn an d K oh n (1 9 7 9 ) fo u n d th a t b o th m en an d w o m en ra te d all the c o m m u n ic a tio n s tr a t e ­ gie s for a v o id in g se x as m ore ty p ic a l o f w o m en th a n m e n , w h e re a s all c o m m u ­ n ic a tio n o v e r tu r e s for in itia tin g an d o b ta in in g se x w ere ra te d as m ore typ ical o f m en th a n w o m e n . C learly , th e p a rtic ip a n ts a s s o c ia te d se x w ith m a sc u lin ity an d re fu sin g se x w ith fem in in ity . B e c a u se se x u a l sc rip ts em b od y so cially a p p o in te d ritu als an d ru les o f so cial a p p ro p ria te n e ss, they are tricky to n e g o tia te . Pep per an d W eiss (1 9 8 7 ) d efin ed proceptivity as fem ale b e h a v io r in te n d e d to in itiate o r m a in ta in a se x u a l in te ra c ­ tion , o fte n th ro u gh n o n v e rb a l cu e s. For e x am p le , a w o m an m ay give n o n v e rb a l sign als o r c u e s h o p in g th a t h er p o te n tia l p a rtn e r will take th e h in t an d assu m e the in itiativ e. In the n e x t p h ase o f th e in te ra c tio n , the in itiativ e p a sse s to the m an as he sta rts to sta g e d ire c t th eir in te ra c tio n tow ard in te rc o u rse . If th e m an d o e s n o t re sp o n d to h er o v e rtu re s, th e w om an ev e n tu a lly c e a se s sign alin g. T h is in d ire ct b e h a v io r on th e p art o f th e w om an is th e resu lt o f c u ltu ra l tab o o s a g a in st to o m u c h fem ale in itiatio n o f se x u a l scripts. S e x u a l scrip ts e x ist in o rd er to e sta b lish e m o tio n a l an d se x u a l ra p p o rt an d to sav e face w hen o n e is co n fro n te d w ith u n re c ip ro c a te d d esires or e m o tio n a l n e e d s. U n fo rtu n ate ly , a c o n flic t arises w hen o n e p e rso n ’s d a tin g sc rip t in c lu d e s an e x p e c t a t io n o f in te r c o u r s e a n d th e o t h e r ’s d o e s n o t. S u c h a m isc o m m u n ic a tio n c a n resu lt in the an g u ish o f ac q u a in ta n c e o r d a te rap e. A l ­ th o u g h m o st c a se s o f a c q u a in ta n c e rape d o , in d e e d , c o n stitu te crim e s o f v io ­ len ce p re d ic a te d o n the e x e rc ise o f pow er ro o te d in the p sy c h o p ath o lo g y o f law le ssn e ss an d d isre sp e c t, so m e c a se s a p p e a r to b e gro u n d e d in the in ap p ro p ri­ ate u se o f co g n itiv e scrip ts, le ad in g to the m isin te rp re ta tio n o f am b ig u o u s b e ­ h av io ral c u e s. B o x 2.6 re fle cts ju st su c h a sc e n a rio , in w hich a s tu d e n t sh ared h er frie n d ’s e x p e rie n c e in w hich d ifferen t in te rp re ta tio n s o f b e h a v io ra l cu e s lead to se rio u s c o n se q u e n c e s. C u l t u r a l S c r i p t s a n d P e r f o r m a n c e s fo r S e x B o th w ed d in gs an d p o rn o grap h y arc c u ltu ra l p e rfo rm an c e s. E ach is filled w ith scrip ts th a t serve to illu strate w h at so ciety term s le gitim ate an d illeg itim ate s e x ­ u al in itiativ es. B ell (1 9 9 9 ) n o ted how c u ltu ra l p e rfo rm an ce s o f sex, “ b o th w e d ­ d in g s an d p o rn o grap h y d e p e n d on the e ffic a c io u s e n a c tm e n t o f c o n v e n tio n s an d scrip ts, p e rfo rm an ce c o n sc io u sn e ss o f th e p erfo rm ers, d e lib e rate m a n ip u la ­ tio n o f tim e an d sp a ce , an d the im p o sitio n o f fra m e s o f b e lie f an d p la y ” (p. 1 7 5 ). B o th h o ld c o n se n t an d se x u a l in te rco u rse as th eir sine qua non. B e c a u se they are as m irror d o u b le s, n o t o p p o site s, they are m u tu ally d e p e n d e n t. W edd in gs an d p o rn o grap h y h o ld sim ilar c o n str u c tio n s o f c u ltu re , p e rfo rm an ce , an d se x for

Box 2.6

How M iscom m unication C an R esult in D ate Rape

Two of my friends went on a date in high school that turned out to be a tragedy as they m isinterpreted certain behavioral cues. H e had expectation s o f sexual in­ tercourse in his dating script and she didn’t. M elissa and I grew' up together. We becam e best friends in kindergarten and a t­ tended the sam e schools throughout high school. Toby and 1 met through our par­ ents, who were good friends. H e was the type ofguy who would take me out when 1 needed a date. O ne night I introduced the two o f them, thinking they would be a great m atch. T h a t night at the party they hit it off. T h e next day, M elissa called, excited, saying that she had the best time last night talking and hanging out with Toby and that he had asked her out for Friday night. I later talked to Toby, who was also excited yet he tried to be calm and cool about the situation. Toby didn’t talk m uch about their con versation the night before. A ll he could talk about was her body, how big her breasts were and how long her legs were. I was actually having fun being the go-betw een. A ll week M elissa talked about what she was going to wear and asked n on stop if Toby had m entioned her. Toby on the other hand, w restled with the question o f w hat to do on the date. By Friday they had worn me out. 1 could have cared less about the date. Friday evening M elissa called me again to ask w hat she should wear. “Should I go sexy or con servative?” she asked. I told her to go a little sexy, som ething I still regret. Saturday m orning M elissa called me very early. I im m ediately knew som e­ thing was wrong. My heart pounded as 1 tried to make sense o f w hat she was say­ ing. H er words were broken up with loud sobs as she told me about their date. She told me they w ent out to a movie and dinner. M elissa said th at they were getting along great and that she felt really com fortable with him. She thought Toby was a com plete gentlem an, so she didn’t worry about getting a little tipsy at dinner. A f­ terwards, M elissa said they parked on the levee and drank a bottle o f wine. She said they continued to talk and he kissed her. By this point, M elissa was drunk and when Toby invited her back to his house she thought it was a good idea. Toby’s parents were out o f town, so they had the house to them selves. M elissa said things were blurry, but that she rem em bered telling Toby that she w anted to take a little nap. S o she lay down on his bed and they m ade out for a while. She said that things got a little carried away, but that she knew all along that she didn’t w ant to have intercourse. M elissa said she struggled and yelled, “N O !,” but that she was too drunk and weak to do anything, so she gave in. By this point I felt guilty and really angry. W hen M elissa and I hung up, I called Toby to yell at him. H e didn’t answer the phone, so I decided to go to his house. W hen I saw' Toby, I yelled at him for five m inutes solid and 1 even threw a shoe at him.

30

S C H E M A T A , S C E N E S , A N I> S C R I P T S

31

A fter he calm ed me down he told me his side of the story. Toby said that when he picked her up she was practically hanging out of her skirt. He said they had a good time during dinner and a movie afterwards. Th en he said he kissed her and she didn't seem to mind his fondling her breasts. Toby told me that M elissa co n ­ tinued to ask, “ W hat do you want to do now?” T h a t’s when he invited her back to his house. He said that going to his house was never in the plans and the only reason it came up was because M elissa wasn’t ready to go home. W hen they got to his place, he offered her som ething to eat to sober up, but she declined. M e­ lissa had crawled in bed to take a nap while he ate. Toby went into his room to find M elissa in his bed with only her T-shirt and panties on. He claims they started kissing and one thing led to another. He swears that he never thought that she would have sex on the first date, but that he wasn't about to turn it down. Toby did say that M elissa cried a little and said, “N o ,” but that was after he was already in her. I asked if he felt M elissa struggle and he said that she wasn't struggling, she was just a little rough in bed. After hearing both sides, I believe that they were both being honest. Toby acted on what he thought M elissa wanted and Melissa did not do a good job of com m u­ nicating with Toby. M iscommunication and misinterpretation of behavioral cues can lead to horrible results.

th eir e x iste n c e . If th ere w ere no legalized co u p lin g th ro u gh m arriage, there w ould be n o illeg itim ate c o u p lin g th ro u gh porn ograp h y. W eddings put th eir p articip an ts th rough an cie n t rituals to p lace so c iety ’s stam p o f ap p ro v al o n sex, w hich o cc u rs ou t o f view b u t w hich is often referred to as p art o f the ritual (e.g., co n su m m a tin g the m arriage). In m arriage, sex is the ph ysical co m p le m e n t to the co m m u n icatio n o f actio n , “ I d o .” Bell (1 9 9 9 ) claim ed th at the ccn trality o f sex to w ed din gs is ap p are n t in its un iversal a c c e p ta n c e as a cu ltu ral practice “ until, o f cou rse, ou tsid ers q u estio n its exclusivity, n orm s, an d priv ileges” (p. 182). S h e also argu ed th at sex is con sid ered guilty until p roven in ­ n o cen t. M arried sex, created th rough c o n se n su a l w eddings, is the c u ltu re ’s sex “p roven in n o c e n t,” w h ereas p orn ograp h y is the cu ltu re ’s “ w orst p ossib le e x p re s­ sio n .” Pornography carries so cietal c o n d e m n atio n . H ere sex is public in the sen se th at it is av ailab le to be view ed by ou tsid ers, ev en th ough the sex m ay not be real. B ell (1 9 9 9 ) c o n c lu d e d th at w ed d in gs le av e a c u ltu ra l re m in d e r th a t th e ring m u st be w orn in o rd e r to show fidelity, a m a jo r p art o f the m arriage script. T h is re m in d e r is alw ays p re se n t w hen p la c in g a p o rn o g rap h ic v id e o ta p e in to a V C R , a re m in d e r th a t th e p e rfo rm an ce th a t is a b o u t to o c c u r is n o t a p p ro v e d . I n t e r a c t iv e S c r i p t s S c rip te d ro u tin e s for in te ra c tio n in clu d e the o p p o rtu n ity for v a ria tio n s on the scrip t, p ro v id e d the v a ria tio n s are n o t so g re at as to d e stro y th e iden tity o f the

32

CHAPTER 2

sc rip te d e p iso d e . S u c h in te ra ctiv e sc rip ts m ay h in d e r ra th e r th a n e n h a n c e sm o o th c o m m u n ic a tio n , p a rticu la rly d u rin g e p iso d e s o f co n flic t. E ach p a rtn e r's in te rn al scrip ts are a c tiv a te d d u rin g co n flic t, typically e c h o in g scrip ts from their fam ilies o f origin . T h u s, in a c o n flic t situ a tio n , th e ten d e n c y to rep lay old scrip ts in an a u to m a tic m a n n e r c a n be c o u n te rp ro d u c tiv e . H e a rin g the in te rn a l scrip t, rath e r th an fully h ea rin g the in te ra c tio n in the m o m e n t, p re v e n ts p a rtn ers from re sp o n d in g re alistically to th e situ a tio n a t h an d . In te ractiv e sc rip te d ro u tin e s offer a ch a lle n g e to b oth p a rtic ip a n ts. T h e in iti­ ato r o f th e in te ra c tio n m ay c u e a p a rtn er by sta tin g e x p e c ta tio n s, p ro v id in g n o n v e rb a l sig n als, o r m odify in g the e n v iro n m e n t in w ays th a t p ro v id e c u e s. A c a n d le lig h t d in n e r a t an e le g a n t re sta u ra n t, for e x am p le , m ay se t th e sc e n e an d cu e the scrip t for ro m an ce . H a v in g tacitly ag re e d th a t a p a rtic u la r sc rip t is in the offing, th ere c a n still be v io latio n s th a t will n o t req uire a c h a n g e in th e script. For ex am p le , th ere is no v io la tio n if a re sta u ra n t is to o chilly an d the m an go es to th e c ar to get his d a te ’s sw eater. N o n e th e le ss, w hen an in d iv id u al lack s su ffi­ c ie n t in fo rm atio n to u n d e rsta n d a p a rtn e r’s scrip t, m isu n d e rsta n d in g o fte n o c ­ cu rs. A n e x am p le w ould be if a m a n ask s a w o m an to see a m ovie w ith him , in te n d in g to p ick up a v id e o an d w atch it at h er h o u se , an d she e x p e c ts th a t they will be go in g to a m ovie th e a te r; an o th e r e x am p le is p ro v id ed in B o x 2.7. O f c o u rsc , c ith e r party m ay a d o p t o th e r sc rip ts o n ce the m isu n d e rsta n d in g is m ad e clear. S o m e tim e s, how ever, p e o p le rem ain o b liv io u s to th e prob lem b e ca u se th eir sc rip ts tell th em th a t they kn ow w h at is go in g on . In d iv id u als w ho e x p e c t th eir p a rtn ers to read th eir m in d s in ste ad o f e x p re ssin g the sc rip t they w an t their p a rtn ers to follow o fte n find th e m se lv e s in v o lv e d in c o u n te rp ro d u c tiv e in te ra c ­ tive scrip ts. G o ttm a n (1 9 9 4 ) d isc u sse d how m arried co u p le s o fte n th in k they c a n read the m in d s o f th eir p a rtn e rs by a ttrib u tin g em o tio n s an d feelin gs (g e n e r­ ally w ith o u t m u ch ac c u rac y ) to o n e an o th e r w hile they are sp eak in g. T o w h at d e gre e do in d iv id u als n e g o tia te in te ra c tiv e scrip ts, p articu larly in d e v e lo p in g re la tio n sh ip s? B e c a u se a lm o st all b e h a v io r in v o lv e s scrip ts in v ary ­ ing d e g re e s, in a new re la tio n sh ip p a rtn e rs o fte n c o m p a re scrip ts an d e x p e c t a ­ tio n s for every in te ra c tio n . W h o d o e s the c o o k in g , for e x am p le , an d w ho d o e s B ox 2.7

T h e Effect o f E xpectation s on Interactive Scripts

A woman, stylishly dressed, expecting to be taken out for a gourmet meal, waits in her living room to be pickcd up for a first date with a business associate. Her date greets her at the door in cutoffs, with a carry-out pizza and a six-pack. The woman’s script has been unexpectedly and negatively violated. In order to deter­ mine the script, she could have asked her date how formal the evening was going to be. In order to make his script clearer, he could have indicated that he planned to order take-out food. W hen expectations are unstated in relational encounters, m iscommunication frequently results.

S C H E M A T A , SC E N E S, ANIÏ S C R IP T S

33

th e c le a n up? W h a t b e h a v io r is e x p e c te d as an a c c o m p a n im e n t to w ash in g d ish es? (L iste n in g to ro ck an d roll m u sic? C la s s ic a l m u sic? C o n c e n tr a tin g on ge ttin g the jo b d o n e , o r m a k in g sm all talk ?) D o p a rtn e rs h elp o n e an oth er, or is w ash in g d ish e s c o n sid e re d to be w o m en ’s w ork? A n sw e rs to su ch q u e stio n s, an d ev e n the q u e stio n s th e m se lv e s, n eed n ot be v o ic e d b e c a u se p e o p le o fte n c o n ­ sid e r n o n v e rb a l re a c tio n s as p ro x ie s for o p e n c o m m u n ic a tio n . W h e n in d iv id u als perform an in te ra c tiv e activity, they o fte n assu m e u n c o n ­ scio u sly th a t th eir p a rtn e r in th a t activ ity kn ow s w h at the scrip t is. In reality, o n e o f th e task s in every sta g e o f a re la tio n sh ip is to d e term in e scrip ts in te ra c ­ tively. It is im p o rta n t th a t in d iv id u als c o m m u n ic a te th eir e x p e c ta tio n s to on e an oth er. T h is in te ra c tio n e n ta ils an e n o rm o u s a m o u n t o f n e g o tia tio n an d is o f­ ten a c c o m p lish e d th ro u gh trial an d error as m ay be seen in B o x 2.8.

C h a n g e s in In te rac tiv e S c rip ts.

C h a n g e s in the s ta tu s o f a p e rso n a l re la ­

tio n sh ip are also likely to be o c c a sio n e d by c h a n g e s in th e scrip ts th a t cu e new b eh avior, as w hen a c o u p le ’s re la tio n sh ip sh ifts from d a tin g to e n g a g e m e n t or from e n g a g e m e n t to m arriage. G in sb u rg (1 9 8 8 ) n o ted th a t a lte ra tio n s in the v erb al c o n te n t o f scrip ts c a n be e x p e c te d as a re la tio n sh ip e v o lv e s. C h a n g e s in a re la tio n sh ip are re fle c te d in c h a n g e s in the lan g u ag e u sed to d isc u ss th e r e la ­ tio n sh ip . W h e n tw o p eo p le b egin th in k in g o f th e m se lv e s a s a c o u p le , for e x a m ­ ple, they m ay begin u sin g th e first perso n p lu ral p ro n o u n s (w e, us) ra th e r th an the sin g u lar p ro n o u n s (I, m e). In su m m ary , a sig n ific a n t p ro b lem in c h a n g in g r e la tio n sh ip s is th a t in d iv id ­ u a ls a c t o u t c o g n itiv e sc rip ts an d e x p e c ta tio n s . T h e y m ay e x p e c t th e ir p a r t ­ n ers to u n d e rsta n d th e ir e x p e c ta tio n s a u to m a tic a lly , w ith o u t e v e n realizin g they are d o in g so . In o rd e r for o n e ’s p a rtn e r to g e t th e sc rip t, it is im p o r ta n t to

B ox 2.8

U n co m m u n icated Interactive Scripts

Woman: "H ow did your day go?” Man (sarcastically): “It w'ent fine.” His inner script: “ It was a disaster; I don’t re­ ally want to talk about it.” Woman: “You don’t care about me. We don’t communicate. If your day went so badly, why don’t you just say it, instead o f saying, ‘fine.’” Her inner script: “Why doesn't he think enough of me to express his true feelings?” The woman’s script represents a desire for open com m unication. It may also re­ flect gender bias in that women seem to prefer talking about feelings and em o­ tions more than men do.

34

CHAPTER 2

com m u n icate as clearly as possible. Indeed, com m u n ication difficulties are com m only cited as the prim ary reason s for relationships breakin g up (Price & M cKenry, 1988). SU M M A R Y Sch em ata influence how people perceive events in relationships. For exam ple, going to college football gam es may m ean spending quality time to one person in a relationship, w hereas his or her partner may view it as a sacrifice in order to please the other. E xpectation s about relationship activities and the develop­ m ent o f intim acy are based on the recall o f scenes and scripts pertaining to p ar­ ticular activities; for instan ce, expectation s for how one breaks bad news may be based on the recall o f w hat was done the last time a sim ilar situation was faced. T h e use o f sch em ata reflects m indlessness, in w hich people habitually do not process new inform ation and use old stereotypes as guides to how to act in situ a­ tions. People are often m indless w hen it com es to thinking about com m un ica­ tion in their relationships because they do not think o f alternative ways of thinking. H en ce, som e individuals are m indless and limited when it com es to com m unicating, “ I love you.” People have sexual scripts derived from culture, socialization, and evolution. Cross-culturally, sexual initiatives are associated with masculinity, w hereas re­ fusing sex is associated with femininity. W omen have becom e selective in choosing m ates due to their limited ability to bear num erous children from dif­ ferent partners. H ence, part o f the script for courtship involves w omen ch an g­ ing their desire for sex from no to yes (Baum eister, in press). T h ere are cultu ral scripts for legitim ate an d illegitim ate sex that are seen in exam in in g w eddings and pornography. C o n su m m atio n is legitim ized w hen it is don e in private. Pornography is illegitim ate b ecau se it is view ed publicly by outsiders. Scripts for initiating interaction, getting a date, what to do on a date, and com m un ication about sexual arousal each contribute to w hat people typically think goes on in a relationship. C ultural relationship scripts involve jokes about opening lines, asking for a date, com m on behaviors on dates, proposing m ar­ riage, and com m unicating term s o f endearm ent such as “ I love you.” Yet scripts may be personal and unique to the exten t that people’s experiences are not shared by others, and thus researchers always face the challenge o f determ ining how two people can view them selves as an independent couple.

D IS C U S S IO N Q U E S T IO N S 2.1 D iscuss the specificity o f the sam ple m arriage schem a. W hat h appens if one's expectation s for m arriage arc rigid, versus rem aining flexible?

S C H E M A T A , SC EN ES, ANIÏ SC R IP T S

35

W h at w ould you ad vise the w om an to do con cern in g h er e x p e ctatio n s for her fian cée? 2 .2 D iscu ss how m en an d w om en m igh t in terpret n on verb al co m m u n ic a­ tion cu es differently on a first d ate . For e xam ple, how can a w om an c o m ­ m u n icate, “N o ,” to sexu al overtures? 2 .3 D iscu ss the differences betw een the m ale an d fem ale sex drives. W h at are exam p les o f co m m u n icatio n strategies design ed to in itiate sex? W h at are exam ples o f strategies d esign ed to refuse sex. A P P L IC A T IO N S 2 .1 Take a blan k sh eet o f p ap er an d n um ber lines from 1 to 20. O n e ach line, write dow n an im p ortan t e x p e c tatio n th at you h ave for w hat h ap p en s on a first d ate . S ta rt the list with pickin g up your p artn er an d end it anyway you desire. C h o o se a group o f your friends an d com plete this survey with them . C o m p are an d co n trast your e x p e c tatio n s w ith theirs. 2 .2 Interview four people ab ou t the term “d atin g.” W h at d o es it m ean to them ? Is datin g now an o b solete term , given the inform al sh arin g o f tim e th at m any individuals do while studying, doin g erran ds, an d h elping one an oth er? 2 .3 In the initial in teraction script, w hat do you believe are ap p ro p riate lines o f in trod u ction oth er th an “ H i” or “ H e llo ” ? Interview four friends and c om pare their responses.

3 Memorable M essages, Prototypes, and Relational Memory

T h is ch ap ter reveals how people rem em ber the c o n ten t o f m essages from friends, paren ts, or oth er sign ifican t individuals in their lives. H ow this c o n ­ ten t affects the m ain ten an ce o f these on goin g relation sh ips and im pacts the form ation o f new relation sh ips are also discussed. Prototypes for love and ch an gin g relation ships are discussed. Finally, a m odel o f relation ship memory is presented as a h euristic guide for categorizing ex p e ctatio n s for the rise or d e ­ m ise o f rom ance. M EM O R A BLE M ESSA G ES A S A TYPE O F R E L A T IO N S H IP S C R IP T R esearch by K n ap p, Sto h l, and R eardon (1981) revealed th at m em orable m essages are m ost often delivered by people who know the recipient in ti­ m ately— paren ts, siblings, or sign ifican t others. T h e m essage is m em orable b ecause it is p ersonally m eaningful. For the in dividual receiving it, the m em o ­ rable m essage may becom e scripted due to its enduring m em ory and them e. It is idiosyn cratically directed , specifically and personally, to th at in dividual and is highly relevant to the in d ivid u al’s needs at that p articu lar tim e. T h e m em o­ rable m essage may be a clich é, but it provides profound insight for the recipi­ 36

M EM O R ABM . M E SSA G ES

37

e n t. In itially th e se m e ssa g e s fu n c tio n as trigg ers for re c a llin g th e e n ric h e d d e ta ils o f p rio r in te r a c tio n s . A s they are re c a lle d o v e r tim e, h ow ever, th ey b e ­ c o m e in te rn a liz e d an d s c h e m a tiz e d a s p a rt o f a sc rip t. In the p r o c e ss, m u ch o f th e sp e c ific ity an d d e ta il o f a p a rtic u la r e n c o u n te r g e ts g lo sse d o v e r as th e g e n ­ eralize d sc rip t c o m e s to th e fore. A c o lle g e s tu d e n t is told by h is m oth er, “ B lin d ro m a n tic lo v e is n o t e n o u g h for c h o o sin g a partn er. You h a v e to d e m o n stra te se lf-in te re st an d sh o p a r o u n d .” G iv e n h is m o t h e r ’s p h ra sin g , th e s tu d e n t r e ­ c a lls th e lyrics o f a 1 9 6 0 s so n g by S m o k e y R o b in so n , in B o x 3 .1 . T h e s e lyrics, am p lifie d by th e m e m o ra b le m e ssa g e from his m oth er, e v e n tu a lly b e c o m e in ­ tern alize d in to th e s tu d e n t ’s d a tin g sc rip ts. E v e n tu a lly , th e sag e a d v ic e “ av o id b lin d lo v e ” is fo rg o tte n an d th e d ic tu m " D a t e u n til you d r o p !” g o v e rn s h is g e n ­ e ra l a p p ro a c h to ro m a n c e . R e se a rc h e rs e x a m in e d th e n o tio n th a t re c a lle d m e m o ra b le m e s s a g e s o ffer g u id a n c e for b e h a v io r in c u rre n t o r fu tu re re la tio n sh ip s (K n a p p e t al., 1 9 8 1 ). T h e m e s s a g e s fre q u e n tly re fle c t ru le s o f w h a t sh o u ld o r sh o u ld n o t b e d o n e . S t o h l (1 9 8 6 ) c o n sid e re d th e se m e ssa g e s to be in stru c tio n s, o r w ork scripts, b e ­ c a u se th ey fu n c tio n a s c o g n itiv e c u e s for a p p ro p ria te o r e x p e c te d b e h av io r. E x a m p le s o f th e se m e ssa g e s are “ D o n ’t ru sh in to re la tio n s h ip s ,” “ B e w ary o f m o o d y p e o p le ,” an d “ If you lo o k for th e rig h t o n e , th e rig h t o n e w ill fin d y o u .” M e m o ra b le m e s s a g e s c a n th u s sh a p e an d m od ify p e o p le ’s e x p e c ta tio n s for re ­ la tio n sh ip s. (Fig. 3 .1 ) H o lla d ay an d C o o m b s (1 9 9 1 ) e x a m in e d m e m o rab le m e ssa g e s th a t college stu d e n ts re c a lle d from th eir a d o le sc e n t years. T h e m e ssa g e s frequ en tly re fle cte d ru les for d a tin g e tiq u e tte . Typically, the re calle d m e m o rab le m e ssag e s w ere m a x im s th a t ad d re sse d to p ic s su c h as c riteria for se le c tin g d a tin g p a rtn ers, m a n ­ ag in g im p ressio n s, e v a lu a tin g a re la tio n sh ip , sta te m e n ts a b o u t se x u a l beh avior, re c o v e rin g from a b re ak u p , an d b a la n c in g life g o als. A n u m b e r of th e m e ssag e s re p o rte d w ere clich e s, su c h as “ L o v e is b lin d ,” “ B irds o f a fe a th e r flock to g e th e r,”

B ox 3.1

A n E xam ple o f a M em orable M essage

You’ve got to find yourself a bargain son. Don't get sold on the very first one. Pretty girls come a dime-a-dozen. You got to find you one that’s going to give you true lovin'. My momma told me, You better shop around. N ote. Shop Around, From words and music by Berry Gordy and William “Sm okey” Robinson C o p y r i g h t 1 9 6 0 , 1961 ( R e n e w e d 1 9 8 8 , 1 9 8 9 ) J O B E T E M U S I C C O . , I N C . A l l R ig h t s C o n t r o l l e d a n d A d m i n i s t e r e d by E M I A P R I L M U S I C I N C . A l l R ig h t s R e s e r v e d . I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o p y r i g h t S e c u r e d . U s e d by P er m is si o n .

38

FIG. 3.1

CHAPTER 3

M e m o r a b le m e ss ag e s offer g u id a n ce for b eh a v io r a nd ca n sh a pe ex p e ct a ti o n s for relation-

ships.

an d “ It takes on e to know o n e .” Yet th ese clich és held person al sign ifican ce for the receivers. So m e o f the m essages focused on the d ev elo p m en t o f re la tio n ­ ships, such as: “ D on ’t d a te anyone you can ’t im agine y ou rself m arried to, b e­ cau se you n ever know how things will work o u t” and “ M e e t the fam ily m em bers before gettin g serious an d see if you like th em ; if not, break it off.” “ I love you” w as a m em orab le m essage th at served as a m ajor sta te m e n t for ev alu atin g the d ev elo p m en t o f a relation ship. PRO TO TYPES M en tal prototypes co n tain the im ages in m em ory o f the m ost fam iliar and fre­ quen tly u sed e xam ple o f any b eh avior or d ialogue for a given situ ation . B eh avior or speech th at is alm o st au to m atic, su ch as h ab itu al p attern s o f speak in g, ge s­ tures, an d attitu d es, is con sid ered prototypical. In m any ways, prototypes fu n c ­ tion sim ilar to the d efau lt program on a com puter. A prototype is ch aracterized by a list o f featu res com m on to a category. H ow ever, prototypes go beyond g e n ­ eral catego ries in th at they are unique to in dividuals and their experien ces. T h in k o f a prototype as the b est exam ple illustratin g a category. For exam ple, p erso n al recollection s o f o n e ’s b est d ate and w orst date w ould be opp osite p ro ­ totypes o f w hat typically h ap p en s on a date. Furth erm ore, prototypes con tain in d iv id u als’ un ique defin itions o f life’s fu n d am en tal elem ents. T h e y m ay define, for exam p le, w hat co n stitu te s a m oth er or father, a h om e, or a partner. T h e im ­ age th at flash es in an in d ivid u al’s m ind at those tim es w hen he or she m ust d e ­

M EM OR ABM . M E SSA G ES

39

fine the sort o f person she or he h as en co u n tered are the reflection o f an in d ivid u al’s ow n p erso n al prototype, based on accu m u late d life experien ces th at h ave been stored in m emory. In mem ory, prototypes co n tain exam ples that are “com plete w ith all their attrib u te s” (G insburg, 1988, p. 33). A prototype is thus a m en tal im age o f any su b ject th at exists as an in divid­ u al’s ow n p erso n al definition o f a q u in tesse n tia l person, p lace, or co n cep t, such as a best friend, v aca tio n spot, or m arriage relation sh ip. T h e im age con sists o f the m ost fam iliar exam p le, rath er than the m ost ideal. Prototypes m ay be form u ­ lated from ob serv atio n o f an in dividual family as well as from cultu ral ste re o ­ types. For exam p le, in thin kin g o f the essen ce o f T h an k sgivin g, w hat com es to m ind? Turkey and all the trim m ings? In this case, o n e ’s prototype may be based on the fam ily T h an k sg iv in g o f o n e ’s ch ildh ood, as well as the cu ltu ral im age o f T h a n k sgiv in g reflected in the m edia. O f cou rse, d epen din g on p e o p le ’s ch ild ­ h ood exp erien ces, they m igh t gen erate very differen t im ages, especially if their fam ily stru ctu res w ere n ot typical. R e la t io n a l P r o t o ty p e s P rototy pes for re la tio n sh ip s e xist as p art o f an in d iv id u al’s se t o f n atu ral c a t e ­ go ries (R o sch , 1 9 7 8 ). R e se a rc h e rs id en tified p ro to ty p es for frien ds an d for ro ­ m a n tic p artn ers (D av is an d T odd, 1 9 8 2 ). T h e se p ro to ty p es h elp distin gu ish am o n g c ate g o rie s o f re la tio n sh ip s— w hether, for e xam p le , in d iv id u als relate as a c q u a in ta n c e s, c a su a l frien d s, or b e st frien d. A s d o o th e r k in ds o f m em ory stru c tu re s th at organ ize in fo rm ation , p ro to ty p e s fac ilitate the recall o f e x p e ri­ e n c es an d in flu en ce e x p e c ta tio n s. S tu d ie s o f the p ro to ty p es o f frien d sh ip re ­ v e al th at the e x p e c te d c h a ra c te ristic s o f frien ds in clu de intim acy, spon tan eity , viability, stability, su p p o rt, an d en jo y m en t. Fu rth erm o re, th ese e x p e c ta tio n s provide b e n c h m a rk s for d istin gu ish in g am o n g b e st frien ds, clo se sam e -g e n d e r frien ds, o p p o site -g e n d e r friends, ca su a l a c q u a in ta n c e s, an d form er frien ds, as well as for d istin gu ish in g b etw een satisfy in g an d u n satisfy in g frien d sh ips (D a ­ vis an d T o dd, 198 5 ). B eh aviors th at are ob served in rom an tic relation sh ips m ay also be c a te g o ­ rized on the b asis o f accessed prototypes. A prototype o f the su ccessfu l in tim ate relation sh ip, for exam p le, could be on e th at m inim izes con flict betw een rela­ tion al partn ers. By providin g a kind o f m en tal diction ary o f social defin itions, prototy pes a c t as cogn itiv e an ch o rs by w hich people e v alu ate oth ers and in ter­ pret b eh avior in ch an gin g en viron m en ts. For exam ple, if an in d ivid u al’s p ro to ­ type for an ideal p artn er is ch aracterized by h elpfuln ess in day-to-day life, th at in dividual w ould e v alu ate n egatively a d atin g relation sh ip with a p artn er who did n ot d em o n strate this ch aracteristic. Sm ith (1 997) exam in ed the effect o f e x p e c tatio n s on the in terp retation o f behavior. S tu d e n ts were asked to in terpret b eh aviors after b ein g given distorted b ack gro u n d in form ation . A fter view ing a 2-m inute video o f a rom an tic couple in teractin g, som e o f the view ers were told th at the couple w as happily m arried,

CHAPTER 3

w hereas oth ers were told th at the couple w as m eetin g for the first tim e. S t u ­ d en ts w ho b elieved they w ere w atch in g a m arried couple reported th at the c o u ­ ples gazed at each other, n odded their h eads, an d to u ch ed , w hereas view ers w atch ing w hat they presu m ed to be new a c q u ain ta n c e s reported gaze aversion, ge stu rin g, an d leg an d arm m o v e m e n ts re fle c tin g n e rv o u sn e ss. H c n c c , p rein teractio n e x p e ctatio n s derived from prototy pes affect w hat in form ation individuals atten d to and how th at in form ation is in terp reted . For exam p le, a sh ove m ight be seen as play in a couple perceived to be happy, b ut as reflecting dom in an ce in a relation sh ip perceived to be unhappy. Clearly, then, the ways in w hich people cast th em selves an d oth ers in to particu lar types o f relation sh ips, such as lovin g couples, are n ot wholly d ep e n d e n t on the actu al b eh aviors that occu r w hen people are together. P r o t o ty p e s o f L o v e E ach person carries a m ultitude o f prototypes in m em ory— in clu din g prototypes o f love. In dividuals com p are w hat they are experien cin g in their relation sh ips with these prototypes o f love they hold in mem ory. C o u p les in d evelopin g rela­ tionships typically com pare the d e claratio n s an d actio n s o f their p artn er with their ow n inner prototy pes o f loving union s. Fehr (1 993) discu ssed the e x ten t to w hich in dividu als hold sim ilar rep resen tation s o f w hat co n stitu te s love. Sh e d o cu m en ted prototypes o f love by ask ing particip an ts to recall im portan t fe a ­ tures o f this state, b ased on the prem ise th at the m ore frequently the values were m en tion ed, the m ore frequently they were retrieved from m emory. T h e fre­ quen cy w ith w hich valu es w ere acce sse d and reported w as in terpreted as an in ­ d icatio n o f their sign ifican ce in the sch e m a ta o f w hat co n stitu te s love. V alues recalled m ost frequently were con sid ered the building b locks o f a person ’s pro­ totype for love. T h e m ost com m on types o f love reported were friendship, sexu al, p aren tal, brotherly, sibling, m atern al, p assio n ate, ro m an tic, an d fam ilial love acco rd in g to Fehr (1 993) as cited. In analyzing the specific featu res o f love, Fehr (1 993) had university stu d e n ts recall ch aracte ristics reflectin g the c o n c e p t o f love. T h e m ost com m on c h aracteristics o f love reported were caring, a sen se o f h app in ess, the desire to be together, friendship, an d open co m m u n icatio n . A c co rd in g to Fehr, ro m an tic love reflected a percep tu al b ias in w hich only the p a rtn er’s p o si­ tive qu alities w ere n oticed . T h e p artn er w as ad m ired, respected , and thought ab ou t frequently w hen ab sen t. Positive feelings foun d to be asso ciate d with ro­ m an ce w ere h app in ess, c o n te n tm e n t, affection, e xcitem en t, an d euph oria, as well as o cc asio n al uncertainty. B eh avioral ch aracte ristics o f ro m an tic love in ­ cluded sm iling, laughing, gazing, an d h elping on e another. P h ysiological c h a ra c ­ teristics in clu d e d in c re ase d h eart rate, p a lp ita tio n s, se x u al aro u sal, an d butterflies in the sto m ach . Peripherally, p articip an ts described feelings o f e u ­ phoria, dependen cy, uncertainty, and fear— both o f em otio n al intim acy an d e x ­ cited an ticip ation .

M EM OR ABLE M ESSA G IS

41

In long-term relationships, companion or friendship features appeared to be central com ponents o f love. Fehr (1993) considered friendship to be more central to prototypes of love than passionate romantic features. She wrote, “Com panionate kinds o f love are at the core o f what the term ‘love’ m eans to the layperson; passion­ ate varieties arc less likely to come to mind and are regarded as peripheral" (p. 92). H er research found that when describing love, individuals mentioned trust, caring, and respect more frequently than the romantic aspects o f a relationship. T h e gen­ eral prototype of love consisted o f characteristics that describe friendship. Passion­ ate attributes o f love (e.g., physical attraction, thinking about the other person all the time, and sexual attraction) were secondary in describing both love in general and more specific types o f love, such as romantic love. P r o to ty p e s an d C h a n g in g R e la tio n s h ip s Prototypes o f love affect judgm ents about a relationship as well as changes in the level o f com m itm ent. In a study cited by Fehr (1993), individuals were given a d e ­ scription of a loving, com m itted relationship and asked to rate the effect o f viola­ tions o f trust in the hypothetical relationship. V iolations o f trust were viewed by participants as abrogations o f the central values o f a relationship. A loss o f the prototypical features o f love, such as caring, honesty, or respect, was seen as threatening to the extent the relationship was no longer perceived as loving. Fehr (1993) con cluded that prototypes o f love influence beliefs about close relationships and suggests that individuals pay close atten tion to the ch aracter­ istics o f these prototypes when assessing the state o f their relationships. Sh e sug­ gested in her 1988 study that individuals in developing relationships m ight use a prototype-m atching exercise in which the characteristics o f their actual rela­ tionships are com pared with their prototypes o f love (as cited in Fehr, 1993).

M EM O RY A S A R E C O N S T R U C T IV E P R O C E SS M artin, H agestad, and D iedrick (1988) described the ways in which memories about events in family relationships arc often recalled through the telling o f sto ­ ries o f brief, m emorable occurrences. T h ese stories about relationships often focus on overcom ing obstacles, hardship, or strife. W hen asked to recall the develop­ ment o f a current relationship, individuals also tell stories about brief but signifi­ cant events that serve as m ilestones in the relationship, such as how they met their partners, an em barrassing m om ent, overcom ing a crisis, or the recognition that the relationship was becom ing intim ate. T h e stories serve the purpose o f consciously stating and reinforcing expectations about the quality and intimacy o f the relationship, as well as imposing a sense o f order on experience. O f course, as a partnership unfolds, story telling about the relationship events also reflects the current m oods o f the individuals thus involved. Micll (1987) studied the responses o f college students, who drew graphs to plot the

42

CHAPTER 3

strength o f their relationships over a 10-week period. Sh e had individuals report their retrospections each week about the previous w eek’s feelings and predic­ tions o f future feelings. Past relationship events were recon structed in light o f current events, m oods, and happiness with the relationship. In addition, the preceding 3 days o f con versation betw een relational partners had m ore effect on partn er’s ratings o f the future o f the relationship than did previous m onths of relational history. It appears that the history o f a relationship consists o f the em otions associated with recall o f an event (e.g., the first date) rather than the historical facts o f w hat actually h appened (D uck &. Miell, 1986). D uck, Pond, and L eatham (1991) argued that the literal recall o f inform a­ tion is unim portant; recall is usually not factually accurate and it does not ap ­ pear to be im portant that individuals rem em ber the precise specifics o f what went on before. Rather, the memory o f events is filtered by the individual and m entally refram ed. It is then described after it has been reshaped by the tone of present experience, personal values, and priorities. H cn cc, there is no one real­ ity because everyone’s reality is different due to different experiences and cogn i­ tive processing o f behaviors. T h is reinterpretive process o f memory is at work throughout a relationship. Partners may reconstruct the accou n t o f their breakup and attribute different im portance to elem ents o f the story than they may h ave given before (Weber, Harvey, &. Stanley, 1987). D uck (1991) described how recalling and reinter­ preting events from a prior relationship is a process that often renders past events com patible with one's present feelings toward the relationship; the pro­ cess o f recall is a symbolic and integrative activity that helps individuals create new interpretations o f the current relationship. T h us, the con ten t o f relational m emory structures is subjective and open to interpretative and subjective dis­ tortions. Relationships constantly evolve and change through the in terpreta­ tion o f new experiences in light o f old expectation s. M em ories are continually being reprocessed, reinterpreted, and reshaped, based on both new experiences and old scenes, scripts, and prototypes, and on their arrangem ent into various schem ata. A ccordin g to M iell (1987), m em ories about relational events deter­ mine appropriate behavior and can significantly influence the future d evelop­ m ent o f a relationship. IM P L IC A T IO N S O F R E L A T IO N A L M E M O R Y ST R U C T U R E TH EO RY R elational memory structure theory provides a system that therapists can use to evalu ate the developm en t o f a relationship and to convey fundam ental p a ra­ digm s about com m unication in relationships. Stab le and rew arding relation­ ships may be facilitated for partners who share sim ilar con ception s about the developm en t o f rom ance and those properties that characterize a quality rela­ tionship. For exam ple, Steph en (1987) dem onstrated that individuals who

M EM OR ABLE M ESSA G IS

43

share similar sch em ata for the value and con ception o f different gender roles fa­ cilitate the quality o f interpersonal relationships. Further, D uck and Miell (1986) pointed out that people have internalized expectation s for relationships that are part o f their m ental con stitution and exist independently o f their p ar­ ticipation in a specific relationship. T h ese values and expectation s can be ad ­ vantageously explored as part o f the therapeutic process. Individuals can use inform ation about relational m emory structures to better un derstand their own relationships and to determ ine where they are in a rela­ tionship. Even though relationships are in perpetual m otion, with a dynam ic, evolving psychological identity for each partner, relational memory structures provide a fram e o f reference for evaluation . W ithout relational memory struc­ tures, the developm ent o f relationships would seem random . T h e organization o f the know ledge structures (schem ata, scenes, scripts, and prototypes) pro­ vided by relational memory structure theory provides a m echanism for the e v al­ uation and in terpretation o f isolated events in a wider relational context. SU M M A R Y Sch em ata influence how people perceive events in relationships. For exam ple, going to college football gam es may m ean spending quality time to one person in a relationship, w hereas his or her partner may view it as a sacrifice in order to please the other. E xpectation s about relationship activities and the develop­ m ent o f intim acy are based on the recall o f scenes and scripts pertaining to par­ ticular activities; for instance, expectation s for breaking bad news may be based on the recall o f w hat was done the last time a similar situation was faced. Scripts for initiating an interaction, getting a date, w hat to do on a date, and com m un ication about sexual arousal each contribute to w hat we typically think goes on in a relationship. C ultural relationship scripts involve jokes about open ­ ing lines, asking for a date, com m on behaviors on dates, proposing marriage, and com m unicating term s o f en dearm ent such as “I love you.” Yet, scripts may be personal and unique to the exten t that our experiences are not shared by o th ­ ers, and thus we always face the challenge o f determ ining how two people can view them selves as an independent couple. Prototypes are defined as the best exam ples o f a category. R esearch on proto­ types o f love reveals that the m ost com m on are friendship, sexual, rom antic, and fam ilial love. T h e com m on characteristics o f love are caring, desire to be to­ gether, friendship, and self-disclosure o f feelings. People access their m em ories and prototypes to decide if newly observed behavior reflects a category, such as an individual w ondering what the first kiss signals when he or she is with a p ar­ ticular partner. Yet research also reveals that peop le’s current em otions affect their m em ories and recall o f relationship events. Past even ts that are told in re­ lationship stories are reconstructed and refram ed in reference to the current em otional state o f the individual. R elational memory structure theory provides

44

CHAPTER 3

com m un ication therapists with a m echanism to facilitate relationship quality. Individuals with sim ilar expectation s and who share sim ilar values are more likely to be com patible. D IS C U S S IO N Q U E S T IO N S 3.1 T h e way an individual currently feels about som eone affects his or her recall o f prior events in the relationship. D iscuss your memory o f the first time you m et an im portant person in your life who is not a family m em ­ ber. W h at was the scene o f the encounter.7 D o you have any recollection o f w hat was said? How do you currently feel about this person? 3 .2 Discuss positive and negative memorable m essages given to you by individ­ uals in your life? How did you react? Why do you remember the messages? 3 .3 How valid is memory recall? D o you believe that recall is simply a recon­ structed, fictional scenario o f what previously happened in a relationship. A P P L IC A T IO N S 3 .1 C reate a prototypical script, including specific lines o f dialogue, for (a) initiating a date and (b) ending a close relationship. W h at scenes are as­ sociated with these situations? C om pare your scripts with the scripts o f som e o f your friends. To w hat exten t have your personal experiences in­ fluenced your prototype? 3 .2 A sk two or three friends to do the following. Recall a favorite story in a relationship in which you are or were a part o f (e.g., p aren t-ch ild , ro­ m antic, supervisor-subordin ate, best friends, or com petitors). W h at is the story plot? How long ago did the events take place? W h at is the them e o f the story? D oes your current level o f satisfaction with the rela­ tionship affect your recall and interpretation o f story events? 3 .3 A sk three people to recall the m ost im pressionable m em orable m essage about d ating given to them . Relate their m essages to the following q u es­ tions: W ho said w hat? U sing which chan n el (e.g., letter, face-to-face in­ teraction, or telephone)? In a private or public setting? W ith what effect? How has this m em orable m essage shaped or modified their ex­ pectation s for relationships? 3 .4 Interview a m arried couple who has a videotape o f the couple’s wedding. A sk the partners in the couple w hat they recall happening at the w ed­ ding ceremony, reception, or both. C om pare the cou ple’s recollections with what is on the videotape. How m uch discrepancy is there betw een the reports and w hat is on the videotape?

4 Emotion and Cognition About Relationships

W hen people are asked to describe the relationships that are the most m eaning­ ful in their lives, they often use em otional inferences to express how they feel about the relationship. Indeed, people find it difficult to be descriptive as o p ­ posed to evaluative in describing their romantic partners. How they currently feel about a relational partner affects their recall about the events in the rela­ tionship. For exam ple, a married couple who has just had a heated argum ent will view their wedding video with more cynicism com pared to how they felt on the day of the wedding. This chapter reviews research on the role o f em otions in processing information about the developm ent o f relationships. People have em otion prototypes for anger and love that reveal an association with other types of em otion, such as despair or infatuation. T h e role o f em otions in the developm ent of relationships is critical to under­ standing how people differentiate different kinds of relationships. For exam ple, friendships are distinguished from intimate relationships on the basis o f arousal and feelings of passion. T h e role of em otions in interpersonal relationships is a frequent theme in popular music. Songs deal with love, finding the right part­ ner, and how happiness is a consequence o f being in a romantic bond. C H A R A C T E R IS T IC S O F H A P P IN E S S Research suggests that there are six predictors of happiness, listed in Box 4.1. The m ost important predictor is being in a quality relationship. 45

CHAPTER 4

Box 4.1

C om ponents o f H appiness

1. Being in a quality relationship. 2. Genes— as much as 50% of a person’s happiness is due to a gcnctic tendency. 3. Internal locus of control, as opposed to being a victim or feeling helpless. 4- Belief in God. 5. Optimism— refusing to accept setbacks or hindrances. 6. Flow— feeling needed and use of one’s training or experiences. S o u r c e : M ye rs, D. G., & Diener, E. ( 1 9 9 5 ) . W h o is h app y? Psychological science, 6, pp. 1 0 - 1 9 .

T h e g e n e tic te n d e n c y for h a p p in e ss h as b e e n d e m o n stra te d in c a se s o f id e n tic a l tw in s w ho w ere se p a r a te d a t birth an d ra ise d in d iffe ren t fam ilie s in d iffe re n t sta te s (L y kken &. T e lle g e n , 1 9 9 6 ). L ater, the tw ins d e m o n stra te sim ila r le v e ls o f h u m o r an d re a c tio n s to e v e n ts, e v e n th o u g h they h av e n ot h a v in g sh a re d fam ily e x p e r ie n c e s. T h e g e n e tic a rg u m e n t is stro n g in e x ­ p la in in g h a p p in e ss am o n g in d iv id u a ls in c o u n trie s w here th e sta n d a r d o f liv ­ ing is low an d re so u rc e s are sc a r c e , an d d e p re ssio n am o n g in d iv id u a ls w ith m ore a fflu e n t lifesty les. R E P R E S E N T A T IO N O F A F F E C T A C C O R D IN G T O C O G N IT IV E T H E O R IE S O F E M O T IO N T h e cogn itive theories o f em otion seek to explain how people experien ce e m o ­ tion an d the p h en om en ology o f em otio n s (Z ajon c &. M ark us, 1984). T h e c o gn i­ tive theories o f em otio n assum e th at the rep resen tation o f affect is im posed by individuals usin g c o n te x tu a l cues. A cc o rd in g to S c h a c te r an d Sin ger (1 9 6 2 ), individuals con stru e em otio n s by com b in in g percep tion s o f their feelings with ob servation s o f e xtern al even ts. For exam p le, in dividuals in jected with a d re n a ­ line were friendly in a friendly c o n te x t an d h ostile in a hostile en viron m en t. Yet, as Z ajon c an d M ark u s (1984) n oted , the rep resen tation o f p e o p le ’s internal feeling states, how they label their in tern al exp erien ces as rep resen tin g a given em otio n , is rath er ab stract and is inferred by ob servin g b eh avior and its a n te ­ c e d e n t co n dition s. By ob servin g b eh avior an d an te ce d e n t con d ition s, people often learn to h abitually asso c iate em otio n s with certain c o n te xts. E m otion th eorists h ave show n th at by altering in d iv id u als’ cogn itive ap praisals o f a stim ­ ulus (e.g., view ing a disturb in g m ovie o f a surgical in cision from the view point o f a surgeon or from the sta n ce o f an o b server), it is possible to alter in d iv id u als’ em otio n al respo n ses (M an d ler 1975). Peop le’s e x p e c tatio n s for relation sh ips affect their em otio n al respo n ses to ev en ts in relation sh ips. M an d ler (1 975) argued th at past experien ces provide e x p e ctatio n s ab out relation sh ips. H e suggested th at an in terruption o f the e x ­

E M O T IO N A \'l) C O G N IT IO N A B O U T R E L A T IO N S H IP S

47

p e ctatio n s may result in p ositive or n egative em otio n , d epen din g on the degree an d in ten sity o f the in terruption . Low -level in terruption s occu r w hen peop le's e x p e ctatio n s are m ore closely m et, w hereas h igh-level in terruption s produce m ore arou sal an d m ore inten se em o tio n al reaction s. A n exam ple o f a low -level in terruption w ould be an in dividual ask ing som eon e o u t after he or she h as sp o ­ ken w ith the o th er person, w ho is now involved in a co n v e rsatio n with others. B e cau se it is now h ard er to isolate this person in order to pop the qu estio n , a low -level interruption in w hat w as e xp ected occurs. In deed, people h ave e x p e ctatio n s for em otio n s in relation sh ips an d scripts for em otio n s in relationship. P lan alp (1999) n oted that m any em otio n s arc played o u t and n egotiated through in terp erson al scripts. So m e em otio n s are only experien ced internally and d issip ate, w hereas oth er em otio n s provoke a re­ spon se from o th er people, su ch th at there may be som e m u tu al ad ju stm en t. A com m on exam ple on a first d ate is av oid in g any display o f an ger even if the d a t­ ing p artn er has d on e som eth in g to offend on e. T h e m otivatio n for the e m o ­ tional con trol is to foster the b est possible im pression o f oneself, yet this may be part o f in d ivid u al’s scripts for em otio n s in term s o f ap p ro p riaten ess o f display. Follow ing the id ea o f a ro u sal lab e lin g from co n te m p o rary th eories o f e m o ­ tion (L azaru s, 1966; M an dler, 1975; S c h a c te r &. Singer, 1 9 6 2 ), G o ttm a n (1 9 9 4 ) defin ed affect in term s o f the n o n v e rb a l b e h a v io rs e m itte d by a sp eak er while d eliv erin g a m e ssage . A ffe c t is the o b se rv ab le o u tco m e o f an em otio n . For e x am p le , lab elin g a p erso n “ an g ry ” is don e by o b serv in g his or her facial e x ­ p re ssio n s, ton e o f v o ice , or so m e c o m b in atio n o f b e h av io rs. G o ttm a n cod ed affect on a c o n tin u u m ran gin g from very n e gativ e to very p o sitiv e. H e foun d th at n o n v e rb al affe ct d isc rim in ates h app ily m arried c o u p le s from less happily m arried c o u p le s m ore th an d o es the c o n te n t o f th eir sp e e ch . U n h ap p ily m a r­ ried c o u p le s ten d to m a tc h n e gativ e affe ct, w h ereas h appily m arried co u p le s ten d to resp o n d to n e g a tiv e affect with n e u tral or p o sitiv e affe ct. In deed, am o n g less h appily m arried c o u p le s, th ere is a v icio u s affectiv e cycle in w hich the wife e x p re sse s n e g a tiv e feelin gs w hile the h u sb an d w ith draw s em otionally. S h e th en re sp o n d s w ith in creasin gly in te n se n e g a tiv e affe ct an d the h u sban d eith er w ith draw s or b e co m e s exceed in g ly e x p re ssiv e as he loses c o n tro l o f his e m o tio n s (F itn ess & S tro n g m an , 1991; G o ttm a n , 1979; 1994; N o ta riu s & Jo h n so n , 198 2 ).

D IF F E R E N C E S A M O N G E M O T IO N S , M O O D S, A N D A FFE C T

B efore discu ssin g the affect o f em otio n on p rocessin g in form ation ab ou t p er­ son al relation sh ips, the term inology sh o uld be precisely defin ed. E m otion is a loosely used, vacu o u s term b ecau se it h as m ultiple m ean in gs to d ifferent people. Furth erm ore, w hat is em otio n al to one person m ay be u n em o tio n al to som eon e

C H A PTER 4

else. A l t h o u g h s o m e e m o t io n th eo rists b elieve th a t e m o tio n s are h ard w ire d b io ­ lo g ic a l p r o c e s s e s , P l a n a l p ( 1 9 9 9 ) d i s c u s s e d h o w e m o t i o n s e v o l v e d n o t o n l y in r e s p o n s e t o t h e p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t b u t t o t h e s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t a s well. A n d e r s e n a n d G u e r r e r o ( 1 9 9 8 ) r e v i e w e d s t u d i e s i n d i c a t i n g h o w e m o t i o n s a r ise m o r e in s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s t h a n in n o n s o c i a l o n e s . E x a m p l e s o f s o c i a l e m o t i o n s ar e g u ilt, l o v e , c o n t e m p t , j e a l o u s y , a n d e m b a r r a s s m e n t ( P l a n a l p , 1 9 9 9 ) . T h e s e e m o t i o n s a r e c o m m o n l y e l i c i t e d in r o m a n c e . S o m e e m o t i o n s a r e e v e n d e f i n e d a s b e i n g w a y s a n i n d i v i d u a l f e e ls a b o u t o t h e r p e o p l e . I n t h is r e g a r d , S h i e l d s ( 1 9 8 7 ) d e s c r i b e d r e s e a r c h in w h i c h s t u d e n t s w e r e a s k e d to t h i n k o f t h e m o s t e m o t i o n a l p e r s o n t h e y k n e w a n d e x p l a i n w h y th e y c h o s e t h e p e r s o n . E m o t i o n a l p e o p l e w e r e d e s i g n a t e d in t e r m s o f t h e m a g n i t u d e o f their re sp o n se s s u c h as the e x tre m ity o f their re a c tio n to an e v e n t. N e g a tiv e e m o tio n s w ere cited m o r e o fte n th a n w ere p o sitiv e o n e s. P a rticip an ts w ere also a s k e d t o d e s c r i b e a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n in w h i c h t h e p e r s o n t h a t t h e y w e r e th in k in g a b o u t h ad b e e n e m o tio n a l. S a d n e s s a n d d e p r e ssio n w ere m e n tio n e d m o s t ( 4 1 % ) , f o l l o w e d by a n g e r ( 3 7 % ) . S h i e l d s ( 1 9 8 7 ) r e p o r t e d t h a t p o s i t i v e e m o t i o n s s u c h a s l o v e o r h a p p i n e s s w e r e m e n t i o n e d in 1 3 % o f t h e c a s e s . M e n w e r e j u d g e d a s h i d i n g t h e i r e m o t i o n s . T h e o n l y e m o t i o n t h a t m e n felt th e y c o u l d e x p r e s s w i t h o u t b e i n g l a b e l e d “gir lish ” w a s an g e r. M e n a l s o r e p o r t e d th a t the e m o tio n a l w o m e n th a t they w ere th in k in g a b o u t e x p re sse d m o re h ealth y e m o tio n s th a n they did th e m se lv e s. S h ie ld s (1 9 8 7 ) w rote, “ T h e e m o ­ t i o n a l f e m a l e is n o t t h e a n g r y f e m a l e . A n g e r o r a g g r e s s i v e n e s s , in c o n t r a s t to n e a r l y all o t h e r s p e c i f i c e m o t i o n s is c o n s i d e r e d a ty p ic a lly m a l e r e s p o n s e ” (p. 2 3 5 ). T h e asso ciatio n b etw een m e n an d anger an d b etw een w om en an d other c o m m o n e m o t i o n s s u c h a s s a d n e s s , fear, o r h a p p i n e s s is l e a r n e d by a g e 5 ( B i r n b a u m , N o s a n c h u c k , &. C r o l l , 1 9 8 0 ) . O t h e r s t u d i e s h a v e f o u n d t h a t w o m e n e x p e r i e n c e j u s t a s m u c h a n g e r a s m e n d o , b u t t h a t t h e y m a y cry o r fe el h u r t a s a r e a c t i o n t o it. A p p r a i s a l o c c u r s w h e n l a b e l i n g t h e e v e n t . A ppraisals a r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d t h e e n v i r o n m e n t in t e r m s o f h o w t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’s w e l l - b e i n g is a f f e c t e d a n d h is o r h e r ab ility t o c o p e w it h t h e e v e n t ( D il l a r d , K i n n e y , & C r u z , 1 9 9 6 ) . P o s i t i v e e m o t i o n s e m a n a t e fr o m a c o m ­ p a t i b l e fit b e t w e e n e n v i r o n m e n t a l e v e n t s a n d a n i n d i v i d u a l ’s m o t i v e s , d e s i r e s , o r g o a l s . N e g a t i v e e m o t i o n s o c c u r w h e n t h e r e is a m i s m a t c h b e t w e e n t h e e n v i ­ r o n m e n t a n d a n i n d i v i d u a l ’s m o t i v e s . A p p r a i s a l t h e o r ie s d i s t i n g u is h b e t w e e n p o s i t iv e a n d n e g a t i v e e m o t i o n s b a s e d o n th e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e v e n t s in t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a n d i n d i v i d u a l m o t i v a ­ tio n s, n e e d s , o r d e s i r e s a t g i v e n t im e s . A p p r a i s a l t h e o r ie s o f e m o t i o n p o s i t t h a t e m o t i o n s u n f o l d in a s e q u e n c e in w h i c h a n e v e n t o c c u r s in t h e e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t m a y o r m a y n o t b e n o t i c e d (D il l a r d e t al., 1 9 9 6 ; F rijd a , 1 9 8 6 ; R o s e m a n , S p i n d e l , & J o s e , 1 9 9 0 ; S m i t h & L a z a r u s , 1 9 9 0 ) . If t h e e v e n t is n o t i c e d , t h e i n d i v i d u a l a p ­ p r a i s e s it by d e c i d i n g if th e e v e n t m a y h a r m o r b e n e f i t h im - o r herself. D e p e n d i n g o n t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e a p p r a i s a l , a n e m o t i o n arises.

E M O T IO N A \'l) C O G N IT IO N A B O U T R E L A T IO N S H IP S

4 9

A p p raisal theorists claim th at in dividuals com p are w hat they ob serve in the en viron m en t to their goals, desires, or m otives. W h en the ob serv atio n s are c o n ­ gruen t with their d esires, p ositive em otio n s follow. T h e percep tion o f m ism atch results in n egative em otio n s. T h e intensity o f em otio n d ep en d s on the degree o f con gru cn ce or m ism atch . M an d ler (1 975) also d iscu ssed how ph ilosoph ers (e.g., Peters, 1969) and psy­ ch o logists argued th at em otio n s follow an initial ap p raisal o f an o b ject as good or bad. Yet it is im portan t to n ote th at there are in stan ce s in w hich an ev e n t g e n ­ e rates som e p articu lar m ean in g regardless o f w hether arou sal is asso ciate d with it and th at the final em otio n al expression leads to a p ost hoc assessm en t o f the even t as bad or good (M andler, 1975). In ad dition , b eh aviorists su ch as Bowlby (1 982) argued th at ap p ro ach tow ard and av o id an ce o f stim uli are n ot in h er­ ently positive or n egative, respectively; rath er ap p ro ach an d w ithdraw al ten ­ den cies with respect to a p o ten tial em otio n al stim ulus are in d ep en d en t o f linguistic labels “g o o d ” an d “ b a d .” People often ap p ro ach bad stim uli, as well as the reverse. In deed, M an d ler (1 975) argued th at bad e v alu atio n s are often a c o n se q u e n ce o f invokin g an e x p e c tatio n ab o u t som e even t and th at the o b ­ served b eh avior can n o t be assim ilated into the e x p e ctatio n or the e x p e c tatio n can n o t be ac c o m m o d ate d to acc o u n t for the u n exp ected behavior. A n exam ple is a person ex p e ctin g an in tim ate p artn er to be supp ortive in tim es o f n eed, only to find ou t that the intim ate p artn er is busy copin g with his or her own stress and is too busy to su pp ort the person. N e g a tiv e e v alu atio n s o f the in tim ate partn er are likely to result. A relatio n al e x p e ctatio n o f su pp ort or com fort is violated. T h is could be explain ed as the p erso n ’s partn er being too busy or un der too m uch stress to help him or her. T h is is an exam ple o f the assim ilatio n o f the un supp ortive b eh avior in to the e x p e ctatio n th at the intim ate p artn er should be supp ortive in tim es o f stress. O n the oth er h an d , ac co m m o d atio n occu rs w hen the e x p e c tatio n is m odified such th at in tim ate partn ers are now con dition ally ex p e cted to provide su pp ort only to the e x ten t th at in tim ate partn ers are not overw h elm ed w ith stress. A good w orking definition o f e m otion is provided by C lo re, Sch w artz, and C on w ay (1 9 9 4 ). A cco rd in g to these research ers, emotions are defin ed as “ in te r­ n al m en tal sta te s th at are focused prim arily on affect (w here affect sim ply refers to the perceived go o d n ess or b ad n e ss o f so m e th in g )” (p. 3 2 5 ). E xam p les o f e m o ­ tio n te rm s are “ a d o re ," “ a g g r a v a te d ," “ an g u ish e d ," “ ap p reh en siv e,” an d “aive'Struck.” T h e se term s do n ot refer directly to ev en ts or to bodily reaction s or behavior. In stead , they refer to m en tal e v e n ts th at in tegrate feelings. C o m ­ m on term s th at do n ot c o n stitu te em otio n s refer to e xtern al e v e n ts (e.g., a b a n ­ don ed ) or bodily sta te s (e.g., tired). C lore et al. (1994) defin ed affect in term s o f valen ce o r the positive and n e g a ­ tive asp ects o f things. A ffect reflects the ev alu ativ e c o m p o n en t o f em otio n s. In ­ deed, C lore et al. (1 994) state d th at all em otio n s are affective, b ut th at n ot all affective term s arc em otio ns. T h e y in d icated th at attitu d e s an d preferen ces arc

CHAPTER 4

50

affective, but are not em otions. Em otions are also seen as states, w hereas prefer­ ences and attitudes are personality dispositions. T h e distinction betw een m oods and em otion is clear. C lore et al. (1994) cited the work o f Batson, Shaw, and O leson (1992), who stated that em otions arc concerned with the present, w hereas m oods concern an ticipation o f the fu­ ture. Em otions have a specific focus, w hereas m oods are nonspecific. Em otions have an object that m oods may not have. M oods do not have to be caused by em otion. In essence, a w orking definition o f mood is a feeling state, “ which need not be about anything, w hereas em otion refers to how one feels in com bination with w hat the feeling is ab out" (Clorc et al., 1994, p. 326). A n im plication o f these definitions is that cognition is essential for em otion, but not for m ood (Clore, Ortony, D ienes, & Fujita, 1993). H ence, a person may be in a depressed m ood on dreary m orning because the absence o f sunlight in­ hibits the release o f a horm one, as opposed to simply appraising the day’s o ppor­ tunities as futile. In addition, C lorc ct al. (1994) argued that such changes may alter m oods rather than em otions. In essence, em otions result from ongoing a p ­ praisals o f situations regarding w hether they are negative or positive for one's goals. Em otions serve as intrapersonal com m un ication concerning the nature and urgency o f the situation. G iven that em otion is concerned with feedback or inform ation about the n a­ ture o f a stim ulus (Clore et al., 1994), the question arises about the ch aracteris­ tics that provide the prototypes for many hum an basic em otions such as love, hate, anger, and jealousy. H olm es (1991) noted that couples often have distinct and specific m em ories o f past hurts. Furtherm ore, spouses may m isrem em ber or not rem em ber specific em otions that are incongruent with their beliefs about the types o f em otions that are com m only expected in m arriage (Fitness, 1996). S IM IL A R IT IE S A N D D IF F E R E N C E S A M O N G L O V E , H A T E , A N G E R , A N D JE A L O U S Y Fitness and Fletcher (1993) exam ined the em otions o f love, hate, anger, and jealousy in m arriage. Both love and anger events, as opposed to hate or jealousy, had occurred in the preceding m onth. In addition, both anger and love scripts reflected the desire to com m un icate with the partner, w hereas hate or jealousy scripts reflected the desire to withdraw from the partner (cf., G ottm an , 1994). A love, h ate, anger, or jealousy survey was random ly assigned to 160 m arried individuals who were asked to rem em ber the m ost rcccnt time they had felt their assigned em otion in relation to their spouses. They answ ered a series o f open-ended questions dealing with their m ood before the even t; details o f the actu al even t including w hat they rem em bered thinking, saying, or feeling; w hether they had any urges to do som ething; and how they actually behaved during the incident. T h ey also reported about controlling their em otions, the duration o f the em otion, their m ood after the event, and their partn ers’ reac­

E M O T IO N A \'l) C O G N IT IO N A B O U T R E L A T IO N S H IP S

51

tion s. B oth love an d an ger e v e n ts h ad occu rred recently, w hereas h ate or je a l­ ousy ev en ts h ad occu rred earlier. A s e x p e c te d , lo v e -e lic itin g e v e n ts w ere e v a lu a te d as p le asa n t, in volvin g little effort an d few p e rce iv e d o b sta c le s. T h e c au se o f love w as glo b al (“ S h e ’s su ch a b e au tifu l w om an ” ) rath e r th an bein g iso lated to a c o n te x t. L o v e w as also a sso c ia te d w ith a feelin g o f security for som e in d iv id u als. R e call from c h a p te r 3 th a t in p ro to ty p es for ro m an tic an d c o m p a n io n a te love tru st, carin g, an d re sp e ct ch a ra c te riz ed b oth types o f love. C h a r a c te r istic s o f ro m an tic love w ere c o n te n tm e n t, e u p h o ria, sm iling, gazing, b u tterflies in o n e ’s sto m ach , and perio d s o f un certain ty . P assio n ate attribu tes su ch as “ thin king ab o u t the partn er all the tim e” were only secon dary in describ in g love; however, they w ere prim ary qualities in d e ­ scribin g em otio n s like h ate. In deed, people som etim es talk ab o u t the fine line betw een love and h ate in a variety o f c o -d e p e n d e n t relation sh ips involving ch em ical dependency, battery, or jealousy. N o t surprisingly, h ate-e licitin g ev en ts w ere seen as u n p leasan t an d the o p p o ­ site o f love-elicitin g even ts. P articip an ts feeling h ate reported lack o f supp ort by the p artn er and less con trol o f the situ ation . H a te w as elicited by bein g hum ili­ ated by the spou se in public. For w ives, this often in volved the h u sb an d s d rin k ­ ing too m uch a t a social g ath erin g an d b eco m in g aggressive. H u sb an d s reported feeling h um iliated and h atin g their w ives w hen they m ade angry or je alo u s scen es in public. B oth sp ou ses reported w an ting to w ithdraw an d escap e from the situ ation . T h e re w ere feelings o f being pow erless an d trapped. R e g a rd in g je a lo u sy - e lic itin g e v e n ts, few o f th e sp o u se s re p o rte d infidelity. T h e m o st c o m m o n je a lo u sy -e lic itin g e v e n t w as a p a rtn e r pay in g a tte n tio n to or sp e n d in g tim e w ith so m e o n e o f th e o p p o site sex (Fig. 4 .1 ). T h e m o st in ­ ten se je a lo u sy o c c u rre d w hen the third party w as the p a r tn e r ’s e x -sp o u se . Je a lo u sy w as c h a ra c te riz e d by w orrying, b ro o d in g , an d less se lf-e ste e m . A c o m m o n je a lo u sy th e m e w as th a t the p a rtn e r w as n o t n e ce ssa rily re sp o n sib le for the third p a rty ’s o v e rtu re s, b u t th a t the p a rtn e r c o u ld h av e re a c te d m ore distan tly . T h e se resu lts re v e al th at p eop le sh are socially c o n stru c te d scrip ts or kn ow ledge stru ctu re s for b asic e m o tio n s in elose re la tio n sh ip s like m arriage. F itn ess (1 9 9 6 ) d iscu sse d how in d iv id u als sh are k n o w ledge a b o u t e m o tio n s in gen eral, as w ell as h av in g m ore sp e cific kn ow ledge stru ctu re s a b o u t the d is­ play o f e m o tio n s in their ow n p e rso n al re la tio n sh ip s. S h e pro v id ed an exam p le o f je alo u sy in w hich a sp o u se e x p re sse s je alo u sy to his or h er p a rtn er b e cau se the e x p re ssio n o f je alo u sy h as po sitiv e o u tco m e s su ch as lo v in g rca ssu ran cc from the partn er, w ho p e rce iv e s the je alo u sy as flattery. G u e rre ro an d A n d e rse n (1 9 9 8 ) also rep orted th a t re la tio n al p artn ers m ay resp o n d to je a l­ ousy in o rd er to m a in tain the e x istin g re latio n sh ip . H ow ever, in o th e r in ­ sta n c e s, the n e g a tiv e se n tim e n t e n d u re s an d n e u tral or po sitiv e e m o tio n s are c o n sid e re d to be cynically m o tiv ate d by a partner.

52

F IG . 4-1

CHAPTER 4

Je a lo u sy kn ow s no limit atio ns a s to age .

Finally, the re se a rc h by F itn e ss (1 9 9 6 ) re v e a le d th a t in c o n tr a stin g an g e r w ith h a te - e lic itin g e v e n ts, an g e r w as re p o rte d to be less d e m e a n in g an d a s ­ s o c ia te d w ith less loss o f se lf-e ste e m . T h e c o m m o n e lic ito r o f an g e r w as the p c rcc p tio n o f h a v in g b e en tre a te d unfairly, w h e reas h ate w as a ss o c ia te d w ith h u m ilia tio n an d n e g le c t. A n g e r e v e n ts w ere view ed as m ore c o n tro lla b le an d p re d ic ta b le th a n h a te or je a lo u sy e v e n ts. F itn e ss (1 9 9 6 ) an d F eh r an d

EM O TIO N AND CO G N ITIO N A B O U T R E LA TIO N SH IPS

Box 4.2

53

Scripts for the Escalation of Anger Leading to Aggression.

C o m m u n i c a t i o n r e s e a r c h e r s H a rr is , G e r g e n a n d L a n n a m a n n ( 1 9 8 6 ) d is c u s s h o w a n g e r a n d a g g r e s s i o n m a y b e s a n c t i o n e d o r e v e n a d v i s a b le a f t e r tim e h a s e l a p s e d a n d the p a r t ie s h a v e n o t r e s o lv e d t h e c o n flic t . A g g r e s s i o n m a y b e s e e n a s a c u ltu ra lly s a n c t i o n e d form o f r e l a t i o n s h i p g o v e r n e d by ru les. I n d iv id u a ls w ere a s k e d to p r e d ic t , a d v i s e , a n d e v a l u a t e tw o s c e n a r i o s in w h i c h tw o ro o m m a t e s c a m e to b low s a n d a n o t h e r s c e n a r i o in w h ic h a h u s b a n d criticized his wife's c o o k i n g a f t e r s h e h a d s p e n t h o u rs p r e p a r in g the m e a l. O v e r tim e, as c o n flict e s c a l a t e s , i n d i v i d u a l s j u d g e t h a t t h e p ro b ab ility o f a g g r e ss iv e a c t i o n s inc r e a s e , w h e r e a s t h e p rob ab ility o f c o n c i li a to r y a c t i o n s d e c r e a s e . In d i v i d u a l s ju d g e a g g r e ss iv e a c t i o n s to be in c re a s in g ly d e s ira b le , w h e r e a s c o n c i li a t i o n b e ­ c o m e s less d e s ir a b le . H e r e is o n e s c e n a r io . 1. 2.

L e e criticized L i s a ’s c o o k in g . H e r r e s p o n s e c o u l d be a n y o f the follow in g: e m b r a c e or kiss L e e , ap o lo g iz e for the m e a l, la u g h a b o u t the r e m a r k , d e f e n d h e r c o o k in g , criticize L e e, c u r s e s a r c a s ti c a l l y a t L e e , th row t h e d i n n e r o n t h e floor, o r s la p L e e. H o w p r o b a b l e , a d v i s a b le , a n d d e s ir a b le is it t h a t e a c h o f t h e s e r e s p o n s e s be u s e d a t this tim e ?

3.

L e e ’s r e a c t i o n to L i s a ’s r e s p o n s e w as to d e f e n d his c ritic ism . H o w p r o b a b le , a d v i s a b le , a n d d e s ir a b le is th is r e a c t i o n ?

4.

L i s a ’s r e a c t i o n w a s to c u rs e L e e.

5.

T h e c o n f l ic t e s c a l a t e d u n til L isa s l a p p e d L e e.

T h e s tu d y p a r t i c i p a n t s t e n d e d to i n c re a s in g ly r e c o m m e n d a g g r e ss i o n as the seen ario p r o c e e d e d , a n d the r e c o m m e n d e d c o n c i l i a t i o n less a n d less. W i t h in c re asin g a m o u n t s of a g g r e ss iv e i n t e r c h a n g e o v e r tim e , p a r t i c i p a n t s realize t h e n a m e o f the g a m e a n d play ac c ord in gly . B u t h o w o f t e n d o e s c o n f l ic t e s c a l a t e in a n a r g u ­ m e n t w ith a r e l a t i o n a l p a r t n e r ? W h a t d o e s it tak e to s t o p the a r g u m e n t from i n ­ c r e a s i n g t o hostility?

Baldw in ( 1996) repo rted th a t the an ge r script is very c o m m o n in an d ou tside close relation sh ips. T h e role o f co m m u n ica tio n in eliciting em otion is critical. Planalp (1999) and A n d e r se n and G uerrero (1998) discussed that em o tion s are elicited by co m m u n ica tio n , m anifested in co m m u n ica tio n , and socialized through inter­ action. For exam ple, em otion s in rom an ce often serve in teraction goals, such as em barrassing others to discredit or help them. A n individ u al’s inability to co m m u n ica te effectively with partners c a n lead to anger, depression, and loneliness, ju st as effective c o m m u n ica tio n may lead to happiness, joy, and co n ten tm en t.

54

CHAPTER 4

PROTOTYPES OF ANGER IN RELATIONSHIPS Th ere has been intriguing research on em otion prototypes o f anger in personal relationships. Indeed, A m erican culture has idiom s indicating the prevalence o f anger in peop le’s closest relationships, such as “ knowing which button s to pu sh .” W hen individuals are asked to describe anger, 90% o f the descriptions mostly involve anoth er person as the target o f anger (Fehr & Baldwin, 1996). A n ger can be defined as a type o f social relationship because the em otion so of­ ten em an ates from frustration with anoth er person. Fehr and Baldwin (1996) described a series o f studies o f the conditions lead­ ing to anger and the reaction to it. T h eir research in dicated that there are differ­ ent types o f anger, including hurt, rage, and contem pt. T h ere is a tem poral sequen cin g o f events for anger. Rage and hatred tend to precede feelings o f c o n ­ tem pt. Som e individuals attem pt to control the expression o f anger until a sa tu ­ ration point is reached. T h ere is a loss o f control followed by verbal aggression, physical aggression, and leaving the scene. Box 4-2 con tain s two scripts reflecting the e scalation o f anger that results in physical aggression . V iolations that occu r in the culturally en dorsed rituals for com plim en ts in dicate th at the rules for con flict resolution are not e n ­ dorsed by both partn ers in a given in teraction . H en ce, in dividuals over time increasingly con d on e higher levels o f coercive respon ses in the b elief th at the other person is being irrational and is unw illing to use con stru ctive com m un i­ cation to reduce con flict.

T y p es o f A n g e r Fehr and Russell (1991) asked 317 individuals to list all the terms they believed to be synonym ous with anger. A total o f 635 term s were generated. O v er one third o f the participants listed term s such as “m ad ,” “ frustration ,” or “ h ate ” ; only 1 or 2% listed “exasperation ” and “co n tem p t.” A subset o f the term s was rated by a different group o f participan ts on how representative the terms were o f anger. T h e highest ratings were for “ fury,” “ rage,” and “m ad .” T h e lowest rat­ ings were for “d epression ,” “ fear,” and “sorrow.” Interm ediate ratings were given to “irritation,” “ bitterness,” and “spite.” A n g er often takes over oth er thoughts, so th at w hen angered individuals often have difficulty focusin g on anything else. Fehr and Baldw in (1996) re­ ported that brooding an d dw elling on the e ven t are prototypical thoughts and that in dividuals form ulate plans for revenge or im agine attack in g the cause of their anger. In essen cc, anger results in intrusive thinking so that in dividuals often are obsessed with the em otion until it is lessened to intensity by time p a s­ sage or oth er even ts.

E M O T IO N A \'l) C O G N IT IO N A B O U T R E L A T IO N S H IP S

55

A n u m b e r o f p h y sio lo g ic a l re a c tio n s are a s s o c ia te d w ith an ger. C o m m o n fe a tu re s are h e a d a c h e s , in c re a se d h e a rt ra te , s h a k in g h a n d s o r k n e e s, te n se m u sc le s, an d a tig h t o r k n o tte d s to m a c h . T h e a n g e r p ro to ty p e a lso re fle c ts b e ­ h a v io rs su c h a s u sin g profan ity , a tta c k in g so m e th in g o th e r th a n th e c a u se (e.g ., sla m m in g d o o r s ), le a v in g th e sc e n e , cry in g, an d a tte m p tin g to re so lv e th e situ a tio n . F itn e ss an d F le tc h e r (1 9 9 3 ) fo u n d th a t 7 5% o f su rv ey r e s p o n ­ d e n ts re p o rte d th a t th ey tried to c o n tr o l th e ir an ger, w h e re a s o v e r 2 5% did n o t. In d iv id u a ls w h o d id n o t w a n t to c o n tr o l th e ir a n g e r a lso re p o rte d th a t they w an te d th e ir p a rtn e r to kn ow they w ere an gry o r th a t th e e m o tio n w as to o in te n se to c o n tr o l. A m in o rity (1 0 % ) o f th e r e sp o n d e n ts re p o rte d th a t they b e lie v e d it w as h e a lth ie r to e x p re ss a n g e r ra th e r th a n k e e p it b o ttle d in ­ sid e th e m se lv e s. Feh r an d B ald w in (1 9 9 6 ) in d ic a te d th a t the ag re e m e n t a b o u t th e a n g e r p ro ­ toty pe is w id esp read as sh o w n by d a ta g a th e re d in d ifferen t c o u n trie s. P eople p e rce iv e d ifferen t c a u se s for anger, re a c t in a v ariety o f w ays, an d o fte n th in k th at th eir re a c tio n s w ill elicit a re sp o n se by th e ta rg e t o f th eir anger. S c rip ts fo r A n g e r F eh r an d B ald w in (1 9 9 2 ) e x a m in e d g e n d e r d iffe ren c e s in how an u n fo ld in g s e ­ q u e n c e o f an g e r w as in te rp re te d . In on e study, m en an d w o m en ra te d how they w ould feel if th eir p a rtn e r en g a g e d in a n u m b e r o f an g e r-p ro v o k in g b e h a v io rs. A se c o n d stu d y w as c o n d u c te d to e x a m in e p e o p le ’s re sp o n se s w hen fe elin g angry, an d a third stu d y d e term in ed the re a c tio n s th a t in d iv id u al e x p e c te d from th eir re la tio n sh ip p a rtn ers in re sp o n se to th e ir e x p re ssio n s o f anger. T h e first stu d y e x a m in e d th e c a u se s o f an g e r d eriv ed from e arlie r re se arch . T h e c a u se s o f an g e r w ere b e in g criticized, h av in g o n e ’s tru st b etray ed (o n e ’s p a rtn er d isclo sed in tim a te c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm atio n a b o u t o n e to o u tsid e rs), an d b e in g rebuffed (o n e 's p a rtn e r rep els o n e ’s p la n s for an e v e n in g to g e th e r). A d d itio n a l c a u se s w ere n e g lig e n c e (su c h as fo rg e ttin g o n e ’s b irth d ay) an d c u ­ m u la tiv e a n n o y a n c e (w hen an irritatin g h ab it k e e p s re c u rrin g ). W om en w ere m ore an g e re d by all o f th e e v e n ts, e sp e cially by a b e tray al o f tru st. O th e r re ­ se a rch re v e a led th a t m en w ere m ore likely to rep ort feelin g an g e re d by th eir p a rtn e r s’ m o o d in e ss, p h y sical se lf-a b so rp tio n , an d w ith h o ld in g se x , w h ereas w om en re p o rte d feelin g an g e re d by th eir p a rtn e r s’ n e g le c t an d re m ark s a b o u t th eir a p p e a ra n c e (B u ss, 1 9 8 9 ). T h e se c o n d stu d y by Feh r an d B ald w in (1 9 9 2 ) re v e a led g e n d e r d ifferen ce in re sp o n se s to b e in g an g e re d . W om en rep o rted b e in g m ore likely th a n m en to e x ­ p re ss h u rt feelin gs, u se in d ire c t ag g re ssio n su c h as c o m p la in in g to so m e o n e else or g e ttin g an gry a t so m e o n e else, an d to use d ire c t ag gre ssio n su ch as trying to h u rt the p a rtn e r e ith e r verb ally o r physically. T h is flies in th e face o f lo n g - sta n d ­ ing e v id e n c e th a t m e n are m ore likely to b e h a v e w ith ph y sical ag g re ssio n (S te ts &. S tra u s, 1 9 9 0 ). S e v e ra l stu d ie s fo u n d th a t m en w ould rath e r e x p re ss a n g e r to

56

CHAPTER 4

an o th er m an , w hereas w om en were m ore com fortab le expressin g an ger directly to their partn ers. In ad dition , w hen m en used ph ysical aggression, they were m ore likely to use in ten se form s such as hitting, w hereas w om en used less in­ tense form s su ch as slapp in g (S te ts & H en d erso n , 1991). A third stu d y e x am in e d in d iv id u a ls’ b eliefs ab o u t th eir p a rtn e rs’ re a c tio n s to the in d iv id u als’ ex p re ssio n s o f b ein g angry. T h e a c tio n s c o n sid e re d w ere a v o id a n c e , re sp o n d in g w ith ag gre ssio n , talk in g it over, re sp o n d in g w ith in d i­ rect ag gre ssio n , bein g con ciliatory , e x p re ssin g h urt feelin gs, d en y in g re sp o n si­ bility, re je ctin g the partner, an d m o ck in g the partner. P articip an ts e x p e c te d m ore p o sitiv e re a c tio n s to po sitiv e e x p re ssio n s on their p art and m ore n e g a ­ tive re a ctio n s to n e g a tiv e e x p re ssio n s. In re a c tio n to a v o id a n c e or w ith draw al, m en w ere m ore likely to talk an d e x p re ss h u rt feelin gs. In re a ctio n to in direct ag gre ssio n , m en w ere m ore likely to re je c t w om en an d to e x p ress h urt feelin gs. W h en the m en e n gage d in d irect rath e r th an in d irect ag gre ssio n , they e x ­ p e c ted th eir p a rtn ers to av oid th em , re jc ct th em , or e xp re ss h urt feelin gs. W om en w ere m ore likely to e x p e c t th eir p a rtn ers to ridicule them or to deny responsibility. In d iv id u als o f b o th gen d ers ag reed th at th eir p artn ers w ould re ­ a c t p o sitiv ely if the in d iv id u als w ere to c o n c ilia te , talk w ith ou t hostility, or e x ­ press h urt feelin gs. E M O T IO N A L S C R IP T S F O R R E L A T IO N S H IP S Forgas (1991) exam in ed the scripts for ro m an tic h etero sexu al relation sh ips and foun d th at the scripts were based on affective an d co n n o tativ e ch aracteristics rath er th an on ob jective and d e n o tativ e featu res. T h re e d im en sio n s c h a ra c te r­ ize ro m an ce: love an d co m m itm en t versus un love and instability, m u tu al v ersus o n e-sid ed , and se x u al or ph ysical versus n o n sexu al or em otio n al. H av in g an a f­ fair with a m arried person w as asso c iate d m ost with the sexuality dim en sion. T h is relation sh ip w as view ed as o n e -sid ed an d reflected m ore o f a tran sien t, u n ­ com m itted , superficial, an d un lovin g relation sh ip. T h e m ost proto ty pical in ­ stan ce o f co m m itm en t an d m utuality w as a m arriage o f 25 years. T h is m arriage w as m odestly related to sexuality. T h e se d im en sio n s are m ostly affective and evalu ative in n atu re, in dicatin g the critical role o f em otio n in the cogn itive rep resen tation s o f relation sh ips. O n ly the sexuality dim en sion is d escriptive. Forgas (1 991) in d icated th at m u tu ­ ality and love are m ore evalu ative b ecau se they reflect how in dividuals feel ab ou t som e relation sh ips (e.g., a lon g-lastin g p laton ic relation sh ip) rath er than the ob jective c h aracteristics o f the relation sh ips them selves. In dividu al d ifferen ces w ere foun d am on g the relation sh ip d im en sio n s. W om en ten ded to represent h ete ro se xu al relation sh ips m ore in term s o f their m utuality th an did m en. In ad dition , love and co m m itm en t w ere m ore im por­ tan t c h aracteristics for those w ho w ere currently in a ro m an ce and w ho h ad id e­ alistic attitu d e s ab o u t love in gen eral. In dividuals w ho w ere m ore extroverted

E M O T IO N A \'l) C O G N IT IO N A B O U T R E L A T IO N S H IP S

57

ten ded to view relation sh ips acco rd in g to sexu al ap peal as o p p osed to m utuality (Forgas &. D obosz, 1980). T h e se findings in d icate th at cogn itio n ab ou t re la­ tionsh ips is n ot based only on affect, but is related to an in d ivid u al’s personality, attitu d es, and previous datin g history. C O M M U N IC A T IO N A N D T H E S E N T IM E N T -O V E R R ID E H Y P O T H E S IS A n im p ortan t relation sh ip a ttitu d e th at h as received con siderab le e xam in atio n is the gen eral sen tim en t th at partners feel tow ard on e an o th er w hen they are asked to in terpret the in ten tion s behind their p a rtn e r’s sta te m e n ts. W eiss (1 984) proposed the sen tim en t-override h ypoth esis, w hich links cogn ition in term s o f the p rocessin g o f curren t inform ation w ith the history o f in teraction in long-term relation sh ips such as m arriage. T h e sen tim en t-override h ypoth esis proposes th at the history o f in teraction w ith an o th er person affects the in ter­ pretation o f curren t b eh avior by the o th er person. For exam p le, an unhappily m arried wife could in terpret her h u sb a n d ’s state m e n ts ab ou t bein g late for d in ­ ner as an irresponsible excu se in d icatin g his lack o f con cern ab o u t her. T h is re­ flects the assim ilation o f his tard in ess into the w ife’s o verall sen tim en t th at her h usban d is irresponsible. A cco rd in g to P iaget (1 9 8 3 ), assim ilation occu rs w hen new in form ation is m ade com patib le w ith existin g e x p e c tatio n s or cognitive stru ctu res. A c c o m m o d atio n oc c u rs w hen the e x p e ctatio n is ch an ged or m od i­ fied so th at new even ts b eco m e part o f the e x p e ctatio n . A s M an d ler (1975) n o ted , an in d iv id u al’s view o f the world is ch an ged by inclu ding the new even t as a legitim ate part o f som e new c o n ce p tu al structure in term s o f sim ply m odify­ ing the original e x p e c tatio n . W eiss (1984) su ggested th at m any sp ou ses are in ­ sen sitiv e to the n on verb al in ten t behind p a rtn er’s b eh aviors. In stead , their reaction s to their p a rtn ers’ b eh aviors are d eterm in ed by the gen eral sen tim en ts ab ou t the p artn er at a given tim e. H en ce, assim ilatio n is takin g p lace as spouses with positive sen tim en ts in terpret their p a rtn ers’ b eh aviors in a p ositive light an d respond positively tow ard their partn ers. S p o u ses with n egative sen tim en ts view their p artn ers’ in ten tion s negatively an d respond negatively. R esearch re­ view ed by N o lle r (1984) an d G o ttm an (1 994) confirm the h ypothesis. T h e im plication s o f the sen tim en t-override h ypoth esis are clear. S p o u se s’ cogn itive an d affective reactio n s to their p artn ers’ b eh aviors in fluence their ow n reaction s “ regardless o f the co m m u n icatio n quality o f the p artn ers’ b e h a v ­ iors” (Floyd, 1988, p. 5 2 4 ). Still, the q u estio n persists as to why m em ories o f past ev en ts are so pow erful in biasing the cogn itio n o f curren t b eh aviors. In the fol­ lowing, som e stud ies are review ed th at provide partial answ ers to this qu estio n . F itn e ss (1 9 9 6 ) c ited e x am p le s o f c lin ic ian s w ho c o m m e n t th a t c o u p le s o f­ ten h av e m em ories like e le p h an ts for p a st h urts. T h e gap -fillin g fu n c tio n o f scrip ts in d ica te s th at u sin g a scrip t to p ro c c ss in fo rm atio n is b iased w ith the p e rce p tio n an d recall o f scrip t-c o n siste n t fe atu re s th at, in fact, m ay n ot h ave

5«

CHAPTER 4

o ccu rre d . S p o u se s m ay recall in accu rate ly e m o tio n s th a t are in c o n g ru en t w ith their b eliefs a b o u t the kin ds o f e m o tio n s th a t are perm issib le in m arriage. F it­ n ess cited the e x am p le o f je alo u sy in a m arriage in w hich je alo u sy is co n sid ered an u n a c c e p ta b le m a rital e m o tio n . T h e re fo re , the wife re calls h er feelin gs a b o u t h er h u sb a n d ’s payin g close atte n tio n to an attra c tiv e youn g w om an as worry th a t he n ot look foolish or be e x p lo ite d by a n o th e r w om an ’s flirtatio u s in terests. Forgas (1 9 9 1 ) d isc u sse d how em otio n affe c ts the organ izatio n an d sto rag e o f in fo rm ation e v e n ts in the p a st. E m o tio n s affe ct the recall o f e v e n ts from the im m ed iate p a st as well as e v e n ts in early ch ild h o o d . In d iv id u als w ho are fe e l­ ing h appy are m ore likely to rem em b er in te ra c tio n s th a t are p le asa n t, w h ereas th ose w ho are in a b ad m ood are m ore likely to re call e v e n ts th a t are sad or d e ­ pressin g. F orgas, Bow er, an d K ran tz (1 9 8 4 ) e x am in e d the e ffect o f em o tio n on how in d iv id u als in terp ret the b e h a v io r o f o th e rs an d their ow n behavior. P artici­ p a n ts w ho w ere in d u ced to feel sad or h appy th rou gh h ypn osis w ere ask ed to look at a v id eo o f a c o n v e rsa tio n they h ad h ad the prev io u s day w ith a stranger. T h e y w ere ask ed to iden tify po sitiv e an d n e gativ e b e h a v io rs on the tap e for th e m se lv e s an d for the in te ra ctio n p a rtn er on the tap e . Forgas et al. fou n d a stro n g b ias for in te rp re tin g the b e h av io rs on the tape a c c o rd in g to the te m p o ­ rary m ood o f the p a rtic ip a n ts. H ap p y p a rtic ip a n ts id en tified m ore p o sitiv e b e ­ h av io rs th an n e gativ e beh avior, b oth in th eir p artn ers an d in th e m se lv e s. S a d p a rtic ip a n ts ten d e d to be m ore critic a l o f th e m se lv e s th an o f their partn ers. Forgas (1 9 9 1 ) attrib u te d th is to so c ia l norm s th a t co n strain n e gativ e e v a lu a ­ tio n s o f su p erficially know n o th e rs, su ch as the P o lly an n a P rin ciple, the b e lie f th a t in itial e n c o u n te rs sh o u ld be w arm , p o lite, an d c o o p e ra tiv e as o p p o se d to b ein g un frien dly or c o m p e titiv e . Forgas review ed ad d itio n al research su pp ortin g the sen tim en t-overrid e hy­ p oth esis. In dividuals were led to form im pressions o f oth ers by readin g ab ou t a variety o f people on a c o m p u te r screen an d to e v alu ate the people alo ng a n u m ­ ber o f social d im en sio n s. T h e com pu ter w as program m ed to record how long e ach in dividual took to read e ach piece o f in form ation an d to ev alu ate the p e r­ son . M ore tim e w as spen t readin g an d learn in g a b ou t in form ation th at m atch ed the curren t m ood o f the individuals. O th e r re se arch rev ealed th at positiv e th o u g h ts g e n e ra te o th e r p ositiv e th o u g h ts, reg ard less o f any log ical c o n n e c tio n b etw een the th o u g h ts (Forgu s, 1 9 9 1 ). T h is is also ob served in c o n v e rsa tio n s in w hich in d iv id u als en gage in a scries o f po sitiv e or n e g a tiv e sta te m e n ts d u rin g w hich they seem to be c a u g h t in a rep etitiv e loop. P la n alp (1 9 9 9 ) argu ed th a t co gn itio n an d e m o tio n often w ork h an d in h an d in c o n v e rsa tio n s. S h e cited e x am p le s o f talk in g to people a b o u t their fear or sa d n e ss an d p rovid in g re a so n s for why they sh o u ld feel d if­ ferently. S h e sp e c u la te d th a t c o m m u n ic atio n is the prin cip al m ech an ism for ch a n g in g em o tio n s.

E M O T IO N A \'l) C O G N IT IO N A B O U T R E L A T IO N S H IP S

59

In the ab sen ce o f co m m u n icatio n , in dividuals pay selective atte n tio n to m o o d -co n sisten t rath er th an m o o d -in co n sisten t inform ation . For exam ple, happy p articip an ts spen t m ore tim e focusin g on the positive c h aracte ristics o f an o th er person, w hereas sad particip an ts n oticed n egative b eh aviors m ore. In ad dition , these stu d ies su p p ort the c o n ce p t o f sp readin g activ atio n , in w hich a d o m in an t em otio n (e.g., happy) en h a n ces the availability o f em o tio n -c o n g ru ­ en t p ercep tion . N o ticin g b eh aviors th at are c on gru en t with o n e ’s existin g m ood may en h an ce the in tensity o f the existin g m ood s, m o tiv atin g the individual to give such in form ation m ore atten tio n . In deed, a n um ber o f stu d ies in c o m m u n i­ catio n and psychology reveal that happy people m ake positive an d len ien t ju d g ­ m en ts o f o th e rs’ b eh avioral in ten tion s, w hereas sad peop le are m ore likely to be critical in their in terp retation o f o th e rs’ b eh avioral in ten tion s. Forgas (1 991) sum m arized the stu d ies on the sen tim en t-overrid e h ypoth esis in term s o f adaptability. W h en a person is in a positive m ood, he or she is open , c o n stru ctiv e, an d relatively m in dless ab ou t the careful p rocessin g o f in fo rm a­ tion th at is in con gru en t w ith positive feelings. In close relation sh ips, a positive m ood corresp on d s w ith easy-goin g an d u n critical ju d gm en ts th at are asso ciated with len ien t an d gen ero u s in terp erson al e valu ation s. B ein g in a n egative m ood results in slow, d etailed, and an alytic p rocessin g o f m ore av ailab le inform ation an d a focus on oneself. T h is reaction m ay result in co n scio u s in form ation -processin g strategies th at offset the greater availability o f affect-co n sisten t c o g n i­ tion an d m ay lead to n e g a tiv e asse ssm e n ts o f o n e se lf w ith ou t n egativ e e v alu atio n s o f oth ers. Yet, in close relation sh ips, the ju d gm en ts o f o n e se lf and the ju d gm en ts o f o n e ’s p artn er are in terd ep en d en t. In un h appy relation sh ips, o n e ’s p a rtn e r’s b eh aviors are view ed with m ore cynicism . Floyd (1 988) provided qualified supp ort for the sen tim en t-overrid e h yp oth ­ esis in w hich m en in close relation sh ips m ade ju d gm en ts ab o u t their p a rtn ers’ co m m u n icatio n b eh aviors th at were affected by their p revious sen tim en t. T h e w om en m ade ju d gm en ts in ac c o rd an c e w ith their p a rtn ers’ curren t inten t. Floyd h ad 40 d a tin g c ou p les d iscu ss problem s in their relation sh ips for 10 to 15 m in utes w hile being v id eo tap ed . Initially, the m en an d w om en individually com p leted surveys ask in g how satisfied or distressed they were w ith the re la­ tionship. D u rin g the d iscu ssion , cou p les used the co m m u n icatio n box p ro c e ­ dure d evelop ed by M ark m an and Floyd (1980) to e v alu ate the im m ediate im pact o f their p a rtn ers’ sta te m e n ts. T h e relatio n al partn ers spoke on e at a tim e an d rated on e an o th e r’s state m e n ts after they finished on a 5-poin t scale ran g­ ing from “ very n e g a tiv e ” to “ very p o sitiv e.” H a lf o f the cou p les com pleted a co m m u n icatio n skills in terv en tion program after the videotapin g. T h e program co n sisted o f lectu res in sm all groups, h om e­ w ork assign m en ts to practice the skills, feed b ack ab ou t their v id eo tap e, and in ­ dividual p ractice session s with a p arap rofessio n al c o n su ltan t. T h e in terv en tion w as d esign ed to h av e cou ples focus on their e x p e c tatio n s ab o u t m arriage in g e n ­ eral an d their specific relation sh ips in order to ch allenge any irrational beliefs or

CHAPTER 4

60

un realistic e x p e ctatio n s. C o u p les w ere en cou raged to focus on specific c o m m u ­ n ication b eh aviors (e.g., “ H e/sh e in terrupts m e w hen I state a p ro b lem .”) rath er than ab strac t n egative personality traits (e.g., “ H e/sh e is a je rk .”). Two m on th s after the videotapin g, a seco n d v id eotap in g session w as c o n ­ d u cted for all the couples. T h e v id e o tap e s o f the c o u p le s’ pre- and p ost-in ter­ v en tion s were rated by trained observers in term s o f co m m u n icatio n proficiency using a 5-poin t p o sitiv e-to -n eg ativ e scale. T h e results revealed th at the in terven tion did not im prove com m u n ication proficiency. T h e m en’s ratin gs o f the im pact o f the w om en’s sta te m e n ts were co n sisten t with the sen tim en t-overrid e h ypoth esis in th at their ratings at the seco n d session were affected by their gen eral satisfactio n with the relation ship. O n the o th er h an d , the w om en’s ratings o f the m en ’s state m e n ts w ere n ot a sso ­ ciated with the w om en’s overall sen tim en t ab ou t the relation sh ip. T h e se results are c o n siste n t w ith the findings o f oth er stu d ies review ed by N o ller (1 984) su g ­ gestin g th at m en arc in accu ratc d ecod ers o f their p a rtn ers’ n on verb al affect. In the course o f an in teraction , m en’s in terp retation s o f their p artn ers’ behaviors ap p ear to be d istorted by their own cogn itive ev alu atio n s, w hich are incongruen t with the co m m u n icatio n quality o f the beh aviors. M en m isinterpret their p artn ers’ co m m u n icatio n b eh aviors an d their own b eh avioral respon ses are a result o f these m isin terp retation s (Floyd, 1988). D esp ite relation sh ip p artn ers’ shared know ledge o f on e an o th e r’s e xp e ri­ en ces, sim ilar b eh aviors or activities are u n d erstood an d in terpreted by the p a rt­ ners differently. In m arriage coun selin g, there is often a situ ation in w hich partners h ave different feelings ab ou t the sam e con d ition s eliciting the un derly­ ing problem s in the relation sh ip. Forgas (1991) in d icated th at the effect o f m ood, cogn itio n, an d ju d gm en t is inten sified in close relation sh ips b ecau se close relation sh ips provide a c o n te x t in w hich the in form ation base is so e lab o ­ rate that selective processin g is required. SU M M A R Y C o g n itio n affects em otio n an d vice versa. E ven th ough p e o p le ’s e x p e ctatio n s ab out ro m an ce reflect em otio n s, the in feren ces rep resen t the o u tco m e o f b e ­ haviors th at o ccu r in relation sh ips. For exam p le, if som eon e describes his or her best friend as caring, then the un derlyin g b eh aviors m ay rep resent a script in w hich the friend is av ailab le in tim es o f a crisis, the friend listen s sensitively to the in d iv id u al’s co n cern s, the friend lau gh s at his or h er jokes, or the friend calls a t the right tim es. C arin g is a c o n ste llatio n o f m any b eh aviors. Yet w hat is c o n ­ sidered carin g by an in dividual in a given c o n te x t or tim e period m ay be labeled “ in tru siv e” or “ n ot m in din g o n e ’s ow n b u sin e ss” at a differen t tim e. People h ave scripts for an ger th at reflect the intensity o f the em otio n s. T h e sen tim en t-override h ypoth esis sta te s th at curren t em otio n s override ob jective ju d gm en ts o f a p a rtn er’s behavior. If an in dividual is feeling com fortab le an d a

E M O T IO N A \'l) C O G N IT IO N A B O U T R E L A T IO N S H IP S

61

p artn er in terrupts him or her, the in dividual m ay overlook the interruption w ithout com m en t. O n the o th er h an d, if the in d ivid u al is feeling ten se or ag i­ tated , then the interruption by his or her p artn er may be seized as an o p p o rtu ­ nity to escalate con flict.

D IS C U S S IO N Q U E S T IO N S

4 .1 D iscu ss the sen tim en t-overrid e h ypothesis an d think o f two recen t ev en ts in volvin g y ou rself and a close friend in w hich you w ent into the in teractio n feelin g (a) very e lated ab o u t an ev e n t an d w ished to tell your partn er an d (b) you felt an ger tow ard your partn er for som eth in g he or she recently did th at affected you. W h at h app en ed in b oth scenarios? D id con flict e sc alate or did you b oth calm ly resolve the issue in the se c ­ on d scenario? 4 .2 D iscu ss how you often express anger. D o es your expression o f an ger re­ flect the research findings on an ger e xpression discu ssed in this ch apter? H ow are your exp erien ces sim ilar to or different from the research fin d ­ ings presen ted here?

A P P L IC A T IO N S

4 . 1 Interview two people ab ou t the follow ing situ atio n and apply the sen d m en t-override h ypoth esis to their sta te m e n ts. T h in k ab ou t som eon e with w hom you h ave been in an in tim ate relation sh ip. It is a w eekend an d you w ant to g o to a m ovie m atin ee to see a p op u lar show th at h as re­ ceived good review s. You and your p artn er h aven 't d on e an y th in g to ­ geth er for a n um ber o f w eeks b e cau se o f job s and sch oolw ork. A fter ask ing your p artn er ab ou t goin g to the m ovie, you are told th at he or she desires to read a n ovel at hom e for a few hours an d then study som e m ore. W h at is your reaction ? D o you co m m u n icate your response to your p artn er or keep your feelings to yourself? 4 .2 T h in k o f the m ost em o tio n al person you know. D escribe him or her. W h at m akes this in dividual em otio n al? T h in k o f the frequency and am ou n t o f em o tio n al displays. A re this p erso n ’s em otio n s prim arily p o si­ tive, n egative, or a com b in ation ? 4 .3 T h in k o f the m ost em otio n less p erson you know. W h at m akes him or her u n em otio n al? W h at w ould m ake this individual m ore em otio n al? If p o s­ sible, also interview this p erson an d ask if he o r she has ever h ad any diffi­ culty expressin g em otio n s.

5 Generating and Maintaining Relationships Through Imagined Interactions

F r o m t h e b o o k t h u s far, o n e m i g h t b e t e m p t e d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t p e o p l e a r e s o m e w h a t o b s e s s e d w ith t h o u g h t s a b o u t th eir p a st, c u rr e n t, o r a n t ic ip a te d r o m a n tic re la tio n sh ip s. C ertain ly , p r iv a te c o n v e r s a tio n s w ith c lo se a s s o c ia t e s m a y s u p ' p o rt th e id e a t h a t p e o p le s p e n d a g r e a t d e a l o f tim e th in k in g a b o u t th e s ta te o f their in tim a te re la tio n sh ip s. H o w ev er, a n o v e r lo o k e d fa c t a b o u t the stu d y o f re­ l a t i o n s h i p s is t h a t , a l t h o u g h p e o p l e m a y i n t e n t l y c o n s i d e r t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , s u c h m a y n o t b e a v e r y c o n s c i o u s o r s a l i e n t p r o c e s s . In f a c t , p e o p l e m a y e v e n d i s ­ c o u n t t h e i r t h o u g h t s a b o u t r o m a n c e a s id l e s p e c u l a t i o n s h a v i n g l itt le t o d o w i t h t h e r e a l w o r l d . Yet, a s D u c k ( 1 9 8 6 ) o b s e r v e s , s o m e t h i n g f a r m o r e i m p o r t a n t m a y be go in g on :

We can plan the relationship; we can rhink back over en coun ters and try to work our what went wrong with them or w hat we can learn from them (D uck, 1980). This out-of-interaction fantasy or thought work is im portant in building and destroying re­ lationships. I believe that it has been overlooked because researchers h aven ’t yet asked people how they spend their time. I’m sure that we spend a lot o f our time thinking,

GEN ER A TIN G AND M AINTAINING R EL A T IO N SH IPS

63

m u si n g , a n d d a y d r e a m i n g . M a y b e we c a n p la n o u r r e la t io n s h ip s to m a k e t h e m w or k better, (p p . 9 5 —9 7 )

T h e sort o f m u sin gs th a t litter e v e ry o n e ’s days often take the form o f im agined in te ra c tio n s (IIs). IIs serve as m a jo r w ellsprin gs th at c re a te e x p e c ta tio n s for re latio n sh ip d e v e lo p m en t. In e sse n c e , they are in te rn a l d ialo g u e s w ith sig ­ n ifican t o th e rs th at allow in d iv id u als to review re la tio n al e n c o u n te rs, and they also serve a re h e arsal fu n ction for future re la tio n al e n c o u n te rs. IIs also c re a te an d su sta in h ab itu a l scrip ts for v ario u s e n c o u n te rs (H o n e y cu tt, 1993). In this regard, im agin in g w hat on e will say on a first d a te , w hen p ro p o sin g m a r­ riage, an d w hen m akin g a d isclo su re ab o u t som e p e rso n a l problem resu lts in e x p e c ta tio n s reg ard in g a n tic ip a te d sc e n e s o f the in te ra c tio n an d the a c c o m ­ panyin g scrip te d lines o f d ialo g u e . T h e p ro c e ss of im agin in g c o n v e rsa tio n s w ith re la tio n al p artn ers keeps the re latio n sh ip alive even w hen the in dividu al is n ot in the ph y sical p re se n c e o f the p artn er; IIs are an in tegral p art o f the o n ­ go in g ebb an d flow o f ro m an ce . In this chapter, IIs arc discu sscd as a m ech an ism for m entally creatin g re la­ tion sh ips, as well as for reliving old m em ories with ex-partners. T h e c h a p te r also in clu des a d iscu ssion o f the use o f im agined d ialogue for creatin g paraso cial re la­ tionsh ips in tim es o f social isolation, for exam ple, as w hen view ers fantasize ab ou t h avin g a close relation sh ip with a television star. T h e role o f em otio n s in im agined co n v ersatio n s, in p articu lar how in dividuals can reexp erien ce prior em otio n s asso ciated with relation al even ts, are exam in ed . T h e ch a p te r c o n ­ cludes with a discu ssion o f gen der d ifferen ces in im aging and offers the results o f a study on topics o f im agined d ialogu e in m arriage.

IM A G IN E D IN T E R A C T IO N S AND TH E

C R E A T IO N O F R E L A T IO N S H IP S

D eeply ingrain ed sch em as, prototypes, scripts, an d p erso n al c o n stru cts are re ­ flected in everyday th ough t processes ou tsid e o f co n scio u s aw aren ess (Singer, 1985). T h e se may take the form o f passin g thoughts, fan tasies, and daydream s. D ay d ream in g is o n e way people su stain in terest an d aro u sal while en du rin g b o r­ ing situ ation s, su ch as atten d in g a com m ittee m eetin g or listen ing to that w ell-in tentioned professor drone on an d on. In deed, som e jobs are particularly co n d u civ e to daydream in g. For exam ple, K lin ger (1 987) reported th at 100% o f lifeguards and 79% o f truck drivers ad m it to h avin g vivid daydream s at tim es. A c c o rd in g to Klinger, daydream in g serves the purposes o f plan nin g ah ead and review ing p ast e v en ts as people find relief from the m on oton y o f doin g the sam e thing again an d again. D ay dream ing ap pears to be a m ech an ism by w hich p e o ­ ple often in itiate p roactiv e an d retroactive im agined in teraction s (IIs) in order to r e h e a r se a n t ic ip a t e d i n t e r a c t io n s a n d re liv e p r e v io u s e n c o u n te r s (H o n ey cu tt, 1991). In ad d itio n to reh earsal and reliving o f prior con versation s,

64

CHAPTER 5

IIs also serve such fu n ction s as cath arsis, en h an cin g self-un derstan din g, and keeping relation sh ips alive in p e o p le ’s thoughts. R e latio n sh ip s c an be stu d ie d by tap p in g in to the m in ds o f in d iv id u als as well as by o b serv in g the c o m m u n ic a tio n an d b eh av io rs o f two in d iv id u als. O n e way to tap in to p e o p le ’s m in ds an d e x am in e the so u rce o f re la tio n al e x ­ p e c ta tio n s in term s o f IIs is to analyze in d iv id u a ls’ jo u rn a l e n tries an d survey their a c c o u n ts o f recalled in te ra c tio n s. A n o th e r m e th o d is to in du ce IIs by ask in g su b je c ts (e.g., c o lle ge stu d e n ts) to im agin e situ a tio n s such as a co n flict w ith a p are n t. T h e se in d u ced IIs h ave b een b eh av io rally m easu red in term s o f ph y sio lo g ical resp o n ses. T h e m em ory structure ap pro ach we ad v an c e in the previous ch ap te rs o f this book assu m es th at in dividuals h ave particu lar e x p e c tatio n s ab o u t w hat should h app en in the progression o f a ro m an tic relation sh ip an d th at the e x p e ctatio n s can be used as an an c h o r for categorizing their ow n relation sh ips an d the re la­ tionsh ips o f others. R elatio n sh ip e x p e c tatio n s may be reinforced w hen observed b eh avior is assim ilated into existin g categories (e.g., self-disclosure may fit best into o n e 's prototype for e scalatin g in tim acy ). O ccasion ally , acco m m o d atio n takes place, as w hen the e x p e c tatio n s are m odified to acc o u n t for newly o b ­ served b eh avior (P lan alp, 1985). For exam ple, a faith ful partn er is no longer trustw orthy if he or she h as an affair an d the oth er p artn er finds ou t ab ou t it. R e ­ gardless o f w hether assim ilatio n o r a cc o m m o d atio n takes p lace, the person may play over in his or her m ind im ages o f c o n v e rsatio n s with his or her relation al partner. T h e se IIs may be o f p revious en cou n ters, linking them to an ticip ated future con versation s. T h e IIs may serve the purpose o f keepin g a relation sh ip in tact, reh earsin g its ending, or in itiatin g a new one (Berger &. Bell, 1988). C o n sid e r the follow in g se q u e n c e o f e v e n ts. Two stu d e n ts talk in c lass a few tim es a b o u t p ro jects an d sc h o o l. T h e y esta b lish a p a tte rn of in fo rm al c h a ttin g at the b e gin n in g o f the c lass period. N e x t, on e o f them d e c id e s th at he or she w an ts to ask the o th e r p erso n if he or she w ould like to h ave lun ch to ge th e r on c am p u s. T h e ask ed g o es o v er in his or h er m ind w hat he or she will say and im ag in es the o th e r p e rso n ’s resp o n se to the o v ertu re. T h e ask er also m ay think o f alte rn ativ e re sp o n ses in c ase the o th e r p erso n in d ica te s th a t he or she is too busy to h av e lu n ch w ith the ask er today. T h is im ag in in g se q u e n c e is an e x a m ­ ple o f a p ro ac tiv e II. Proactive ¡Is o c c u r before an an tic ip a te d e n c o u n te r and serve a re h e arsa l fu n c tio n (H o n e y cu tt, 1 9 8 9 ), osten sib ly d esign ed to en h a n c e o n e ’s c h a n c e s o f co m p e te n cy in in te ra ctio n (e.g., ge ttin g the c o m m itm e n t for a lu n ch d a te ). N ow suppose th at the person th at the asker is in terested in acc e p ts his or her in vitation . A fter lunch is over and the o th er person h as left, the asker drives hom e or w alks to c lass, and alo ng the way, he or she m igh t h ave a retroactive II in w hich the ask er plays over in his or her m ind parts o f the co n v e rsatio n that o c ­ curred during the lunch date. T h e asker begins to im agine w hat he or she will say the n ext tim e he or she e n co u n ters the o th er person in class. If all w ent well,

GENERATING AND MAINTAINING R EL A TIO N SH IPS

65

the asker probably would enjoy the retroactive II, but research has revealed that IIs are associated with negative and m ixed em otions as well as positive ones (Zagacki, Edwards, &. H oneycutt, 1992). C on sider w hat the asker might recall or anticipate if, during the lunch date with som eone he or she generally finds a t­ tractive, that person engaged in rather boorish behavior or unknowingly in ­ sulted the ask er’s best friend. IIs have a n um ber o f ch aracteristics th at are sim ilar to real con versation s. R osen blatt and M eyer (1986) noted that these internal dialogues may be frag­ m entary, exten ded, ram bling, repetitive, or incoherent. Sim ilarly, everyday discourse often exh ibits the sam e sorts o f p attern s. A n d even in relatively for­ m al or structured con v ersatio n al en cou n ters, in teraction may be anything from disjointed to w ell-orch estrated and is often m irrored in the proactive and retroactive IIs that people in itiate in their h eads. For exam ple, in dividuals even have IIs in coun selin g situ ation s with their therapists (H oneycutt, 1995). In short, IIs occu r every day, in a variety o f situ ation s, and m ay b e taken as the cogn itive rep resen tation s o f plannin g for in teraction in a com plex dis­ cursive environm en t. S tudies o f relational partners indicate that IIs occur in all sorts o f con texts, ranging from rom antic partners (33% ), to friends (16% ), to family m em bers (12% ), to individuals in authority (9.4% ), to work associates (8% ), to ex-rela­ tional partners (6% ), and to prospective partners (4% ) (Edwards, H oneycutt, &. Zagacki, 1988; H oneycutt, Zagacki, &. Edwards, 1989; Z agacki et al., 1992). D ependin g on the differing values people place on their assorted relationships, som e people have IIs with many different individuals, w hereas others have re­ curring IIs with only certain individuals about a limited num ber o f topics. A dditional functions o f IIs include catharsis, self-understanding, and psychological-relationship m ain tenance. IIs can function to create catharsis for the individual by relieving tension and reducing uncertainty about an oth er’s actions. A s with actu al self-disclosure, IIs can en han ce self-understanding by helping one to clarify his or her thoughts. For exam ple, C aughey (1984) d is­ cussed how inner dialogue may help individuals to retain a sense o f values and purpose. IIs can also help a person psychologically m aintain relationships by con cen tratin g his or her thoughts on relational sccnes and partners. T h e II relationsh ip-m ain tenance function en h an ces an aw areness o f the relationship and helps galvanize o n e ’s atten tion to details that may otherwise be overlooked. A citelli (1993) discussed relationship aw areness in terms o f a person’s thoughts about interaction patterns, that is, com parisons and con trasts betw een oneself and a relational partner. Individuals may use IIs to m aintain im aginative c o n ­ tact with partners who are living far away and long-distance or com m uter rela­ tionships can even be strengthened through frequent recourse to IIs featuring the absent partner. H erein lies the arbitration betw een two seemingly c o n tra­ dictory m axim s: “A b sen ce m akes the heart grow fon der” only insofar as the IIs auger against the sense o f “O u t o f sight, out o f m in d.”

66

CHAPTER 5

P o sitive e m o tio n s m ay be a ttr ib u te d to the e x c ite m e n t th a t a c c o m p a n ie s re la tio n a l in itia tio n an d grow th (H o n e y c u tt, Z ag a c k i, et al. 1 9 8 9 ). In d iv id ­ u als m ay im ag in e p le a s a n t a c tiv itie s w ith th eir re la tio n a l p a rtn e rs, su ch as e n g a g in g in sm all talk , p la n n in g d a te s, an d d isc u ssin g sh a re d in te re sts. For in sta n c e , the jo u rn a l en try in B o x 5.1 w as w ritten by a 2 5 -y ear-o ld w om an w ho im ag in e s se e in g a lo v er w ho h as b e en aw ay on a trip. N o te how the II se rv e s c a th a r tic , re h e a r sa l, an d r e la tio n a l- m a in te n a n c e fu n c tio n s w ith in th e sam e c o h e re n t e p iso d e . Im a g in e d I n te r a c tio n s W ith E x - P a r tn e r s IIs so m e tim e s featu re ex-p artn ers. For e x am p le , a w om an in on e study (H o n ey cu tt, Z agacki, et al. 1989) reported an II w ith an ex-lover w ho h ad ter­ m in ated the relationship. In the II he apologized for the hurt he had cau sed her an d co n fessed th at he w as w rong to let her go. Sh e respo n d ed th at she hated him an d th at she w as b etter o ff with her new boyfriend. T h is is an e xam p le o f an II o ccu rrin g in w hat m ight be referred to as the post-term in ation aw aren ess o f an ex-partner. T h is ph ase occu rs w hen a rom an tic relation sh ip h as en ded, but the in dividual still thin ks ab out the ex-partner and recon stru cts previous e n ­ cou n ters or im agines future en cou n ters (Edw ards et al., 1988). IIs after a ro m an ce has soured can create valu ed psy ch o lo gical c o n ta ct with the ex-partner. T h is is a type o f rem in iscen ce th at often occu rs during the p ro ­ cess o f d e -e sca latin g relation sh ips w hen people rem em ber the good tim es. It may be th at in dividu als arc likely to h ave these retroactive IIs and be in this post-term in ation ph ase until an altern ativ e relation sh ip dev elo p s or the in di­ vidual diverts atte n tio n to o th er en d eav o rs such as h obbies, friends, or work. T h e jou rn al entry in Box 5.2, w ritten by a 33-year-old m an, supp orts this thesis. Im a g in e d I n te r a c tio n s a n d S o c i a l I s o la t io n : P a r a s o c ia l R e la t io n s h ip s W hile IIs m ay help people to think ab ou t their relation sh ips with friends, ro­ m an tic partn ers, or fam ily m em bers, they also m ay be used dysfu nction ally to im agine a relation sh ip with som eon e with w hom a person has n ever co m m u n i­ cate d in face -to -face in teraction . C au gh ey (1 984) d iscussed c ases in w hich in ­ d ividuals fan tasized th at they w ere involved w ith a celebrity. A w ell-publicized an d un fortu n ate case o f this type o f d y sfu n ction al b eh avior b ecam e public in A p ril 1981, w hen Jo h n H in ckley attem p ted to assassin ate Presid en t R on ald R eag an . H in ckley h ad seen the m ovie Taxi Driver and h ad becom e in fatu ated with the actress Jo d ie Foster, w ho w as one o f the film’s stars. H in ckley w rote love letters to her an d b egan to im agine th at he h ad a p erso n al relation sh ip w ith her. H e even tually began to believe that he could win her love by killing the presi­ den t. It is in terestin g to sp ecu late ab ou t the types o f IIs H in ckley may h av e had with Foster in the tim e leadin g up to the assassin atio n attem p t.

G EN ER A TIN G AN D M A IN TA IN IN G R E LA T IO N SH IPS

Box 5.1

67

Imagined Interaction Journal Entry About Seeing a Long-Distance Lover

A n d y a n d I b o th h a v e h a d n u m e r o u s i m a g i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g o u r r e l a ­ tio n s h ip . A n i m a g i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n is a p r o c e s s t h a t h e lp s p e o p l e in the c o n s t r u c ­ tion o f so c ial reality. A p e r so n m a y d e v e l o p v is u a l o r v e rb a l s c rip ts in h e r h e a d to h elp t h e m d e a l with c e r t a i n s i tu a ti o n s . I m a g i n e d in t e r a c t i o n s se r v e s p e c ific f u n c ­ tio n s: r e h e a r s a l for a c t u a l u p c o m i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n s i tu a ti o n s , e v a l u a t i o n after a n i m p o r t a n t e n c o u n te r , o b t a i n i n g a g r e a t e r s e n s e o f o u r o w n feelin gs, a n d i m ­ p r o v i n g o u r o w n s e lf- k n o w le d g e . P e r h a p s the b e s t e x a m p l e o f i m a g i n e d i n t e r a c ­ tio n s b e in g u s e d in A n d y ’s a n d m y r e l a t i o n s h i p o c c u r r e d d u r i n g o u r s e p a r a t i o n last su m m e r. It w as a very difficult tim e for b o t h o f us b e c a u s e we m i s s e d e a c h o t h e r so m u c h . T h e t h in g t h a t h e l p e d e a c h o f us d e a l with the p a i n w a s the use o f i m a g i n e d i n t e r ­ a c t i o n s . I w as a m a z e d to d i s c o v e r t h a t we b o t h h a d im a g i n e d in t e r a c t i o n s o v e r the s a m e thing, the m o m e n t t h a t we w o u l d be r e u n i t e d at the e n d o f t h e s u m m e r. W h e n e v e r I w as feelin g lo n ely o r e sp e c ia lly m is s in g A n d y , I w o u ld t h in k a b o u t the m o m e n t we w o u l d be ab le to se e e a c h o t h e r ag a i n . I w o u ld im a g in e t h e in e v it a b le e m b r a c e , kiss, a n d w o r d s o f lo v e t h a t we w o u l d give to e a c h other. I w o u l d r e ­ h e a rs e o v e r a n d o v e r a g a i n in m y h e a d the t h in gs t h a t I w o u l d tell A n d y at th a t m o m e n t . T h i n g s like “ I l o v e y ou m o r e t h a n a n y t h i n g else in the w o r l d .” A t th e a c ­ tu al m o m e n t , we did hug, kiss, a n d g ive r o m a n t ic p r o c l a m a t i o n s o f lo v e to o n e a n ­ other, h u t t h e n th e re w as a n a w k w a r d m o m e n t o f s i le n c e for tw o r e a s o n s . First, we h a d e a c h g o n e o v e r in o u r h e a d t h a t m o m e n t so m a n y tim e s t h a t we n e ­ g l e c t e d to t h in k a b o u t w h a t w o u ld c o m e n e x t. S e c o n d , we w ere still in s h o c k t h a t we h a d finally b e e n r e u n it e d . N o w , we b o th l a u g h w h e n we t h in k o f t h a t m o m e n t b e c a u s e we realize h o w r e h e a r s e d t h e w h o le t h in g w a s o n b o t h o f o u r p a rts. N e v ­ e r t h e le s s , im a g i n i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s w ith e a c h o t h e r a n d b e in g t o g e t h e r a g a i n h e l p e d us s u rv iv e t h e s e p a r a t i o n . T h r o u g h the p r o c e s s we l e a r n e d a lot a b o u t h ow we felt a b o u t e a c h o t h e r also.

O n e-sid ed imagined relationships, such as Hinckley’s, reflect extrem e cases o f parasocial relationships. M ore c o m m o n are parasocial relationships in which individuals imagine talking to television characters portrayed by celebrities. However, in som e cases, the individuals are infatuated by the celebrity him- or herself, rather than the character that he or she plays. Individuals in parasocial relationships are often lonely and isolated from real-life interactors (Caughey, 1984). Edwards et al. (1988) found that loneliness is negatively correlated with having IIs; lonely individuals are less likely to experience such m ental co n ve rsa­ tions. Loneliness is also negatively correlated with how well IIs prepare a person to talk about feelings or problems in later actual conversations (r = - 0 .4 0 ) , and

CHAPTER 5

6 »

Box 5.2

Im agined Interaction Jo u rn al Entry A bou t an Ex-G irlfriend

I had a relationship in high school with a girl that was serious as far as high school relationships go. We dated for almost a year and then broke up. Even though I was the one who terminated the relationship, I was also the one who was the most lonely afterwards. I can remember keeping up with the girl through our mutual friends. I wanted to know who she was dating, what they were doing, and whether or not she still liked me. I would have imagined interactions with this girl where 1 would tell her the things that bothered me about her. She would change the be­ haviors that I did not like and then we would get back together. For whatever reasons, I was not able to come straight out and talk to her about the problems I was having with her. Instead I just terminated the relationship. I often still imagined being with this girl years afterwards and would go over in my mind things we had said and what could have been said different. Sort of a cross be­ tween fantasizing and imagined interaction. A couple of years after high school and probably four years since we had dated, we met in a college town and had a few dates. Within a very short time, maybe two weeks, our relationship was right back to where it was before I terminated it with her in high school. Again she showed behavior that was close to that which I had not been able to accept in high school and again I term inated the relationship. T h is time, how­ ever, we both sort of broke con tact and did not make an effort to reach one an ­ other. A lthough I still think about this person on occasion, it is only because she was a big part o f my past and I tend to reflect on my past experiences and rela­ tionships at times.

with their b ein g able to m a k e a pe rso n feci m ore c o n fid e n t (r = - 0 . 3 0 ) . T h e r e is also a w ea k b u t positiv e c orre latio n b e tw e e n lon eliness an d the d is c re p a n cy b e ­ tween IIs a n d real e n c o u n te r s. G r e a t e r loneliness is a s s o c ia t e d with a g r e ater dif­ ference b e tw e e n a c t u a l an d im ag in e d in teraction s. Lon ely in dividu als e x p e r ie n c e less satisfac tion an d m ore n e ga tiv e e m o t io n s in IIs th an d o n on lon c ly in dividuals (H o n e y c u t t, Z aga c k i, e t al., 198 9). T h e s e results su gg e st th a t the te n d e n c y to h a v e IIs is affe cte d by various personality c h a ra c te ristic s, such as locus o f con trol, sensitivity to c o n v e rs a tio n s , an d c o m ­ m u n ication c o m p e te n c e (H o n ey cu tt, Edw ards, & Z agacki, 1 9 8 9 - 1 9 9 0 ; H o n e y c u t t et al., 1 9 9 2 - 1 9 9 3 ) . O n e re a so n th a t lonely in dividuals m ay h ave fewer IIs is t h a t they h av e fewer a c t u a l c o n v e r s a tio n s to review an d rehearse. T h e low n u m b e r o f a c t u a l i n te ra c tio n s leaves lonely in dividu als with few real re ­ s o u r c e s for c o n s tr u c tin g (or reviewing) later IIs. However, on e re source a v a il­ able to a lonely in dividual is to e n g a g e in a n im a g in e d d ialo g u e w ith a celebrity, thereby c re a tin g a p a ra so cia l relation ship t h a t is fostered th rou gh IIs.

GENERATING AND MAINTAINING R EL A TIO N SH IPS

69

N o t all im aginary relationships are associated with loneliness or dysfunc­ tional cognitions. R elated to the idea o f parasocial relationships are w hat have been referred to as im aginary-playm ate relationships am ong children. Im agi­ nary playm ates (IPs) are the partners in children’s im agined relationships in which they talk with a chim erical significant other, such as a m ake-believe friend, com pan ion, or m entor (Connolly, 1991). T h ere is also research on adults who report about the IPs they had while growing up. For exam ple, Connolly in­ terviewed 69 com m unity college students and discovered that 24 (34% ) adm it­ ted to having had an IP T h ose students who had had IPs had higher grades in school than those who had not had them . Connolly sum m arized studies that re­ veal positive profiles for children reporting IPs, suggesting that they are more self-reliant, are more socially cooperative, are less bored, are less im pulsive, smile more frequently, w atch less TV, and do not have greater or fewer em o­ tional and behavioral problem s than children without IPs. In addition, Singer (1979) found that children as young as 3 and 4 who have IPs arc happier, have more ad van ced linguistic skills, and exhibit more ability to con cen trate than children w ithout IPs. T h u s, as with m ost aspects o f hum an cognition, the IIs that accom pany IPs should be viewed as processes that are neither good nor bad and whose value can only be seen in the social con text that surrounds interper­ sonal com m unication. A F F E C T A N D IM A G IN E D IN T E R A C T IO N S IIs can help to m aintain relationships by allowing people to think about previ­ ous encounters and reexperience the positive em otions associated with them. People becom e closer to those they care about through m ental rehearsal and an ­ ticipation. Furtherm ore, pleasant em otions are associated with having more IIs that are sim ilar to actual encounters rather than being different from actual in­ teractions (H oneycutt et al., 1 9 8 9 -9 0 ). D ata collected using thought-sam pling research, in which individuals were given beepers and told to write down in a sm all diary w hat they were feeling at the time they were beeped, reveal that sub ­ je cts’ thoughts arc concerned with prcscnt-lifc concern s 67% o f the time and with the past or future concerns 24% o f the time. T h ough ts about the past tend to involve reviewing previous events and using critical evalu ation (Klinger, 1987). T h ough ts about the future tend to be in the form o f rehearsals and set­ ting up alternative scenarios for anticipated events. A ccordin g to Singer (1987), this process “ helps us to m axim ize the lessons we draw from past experi­ ences and to plan better ways o f dealing with upcom ing con tin gen cies” (p. 8). Sup port for K linger’s (1987) notion that em otion is con cern ed with current con cern s is provided in the findings o f additional research. For exam ple, Z agacki et al. (1992) had subjects evalu ate the level o f em otional intensity (1 = low intensity, 2 = m edium , 3 = strong) in a recently recalled II, the level o f em otional feeling associated with the II (1 = positive, 2 = neutral, 3 = mixed

70

CHAPTER 5

feelings, 4 = n e gativ e ), and the level o f co m m u n icatio n satisfactio n they felt with the II. A n alysis in d icate d th at highly in ten se IIs featu red rom an tic p a rt­ ners and fam ily m em bers, w hereas less-in ten se IIs featu red work partners. High intensity w as also asso ciated with II topics th at h ad to do w ith relation al c o n ­ flict. M edium intensity w as asso ciated with topics related to sch oo l, w ork, and sm all talk. S o it seem s th at the m ost prom in ent IIs are asso ciated with intim ate relation sh ips, even th ough they may atte n d a w ider range o f p o ten tial in te ra c­ tion co n texts. N e g a tiv e affe ct in IIs m a y b e lin ked w ith S h e rm a n an d C o rty 's (1 9 8 4 ) sim u ­ lation h eu ristic. A c c o rd in g to this h eu ristic, in d iv id u als w ho narrow ly fail to ach iev e c e rtain go als may find it e asie r to c o n stru c t c o u n te rfa c tu a l sc e n a rio s th a t w ould h ave led to th eir su c c e ss. To the e x te n t th a t re tro a ctiv e IIs can sim ­ u late earlier u n su c c e ssfu l e x p e rie n c e s, the in d ivid u al m ay im agin e the sam e e v e n ts w ith m ore su cc e ssfu l o u tc o m e s. It sh o u ld be n o ted , how ever, th at the c o n stru c tio n or re c o n stru ctio n o f sc e n a rio s th a t av oid failure m ay evok e stro n g n e gativ e affect b e ca u se o f the im p o rta n ce o f the issue (Z ag ack i et al., 1 9 9 2 ). People o fte n w onder, “ If only I h ad s a id .... ” an d find th a t su ch w ishful th in kin g resu lts in them m en tally kick in g th e m se lv e s for n ot h av in g the fo re ­ sigh t o f h in d sigh t. A n in trigu in g stu d y by K lo s an d S in g e r (1 9 8 1 ) re v e aled th at v ario u s in ­ d u ce d IIs elicited d ifferen t kin ds o f e m o tio n s on the su b je c t o f p a re n ta l c o n ­ flict. T h e re se arch e rs stu d ie d the d e te rm in an ts o f a d o le sc e n ts ’ o n go in g th o u g h ts follow ing sim u lated p a re n ta l c o n fro n tatio n s. T h e y ex am in e d the ef­ fe c t o f re so lv e d v e rsu s u n re so lv e d situ a tio n s w ith p a re n ts, as w ell as n o n co n flic t in te ra ctio n w ith p a re n ts v e rsu s c o n flict in te ra c tio n . T h e re ­ se arch e rs also in v e stig a te d in te ra c tio n s in w hich the p a re n ts’ a ttitu d e s were c o e rciv e or co llab o rativ e . T h e y p ro p o se d th a t ex p o su re th rough a sim u late d in te ra c tio n to th ese c o n d itio n s affected later recu rren ce o f sim u latio n -relev an t th o u g h ts a b o u t the p aren t. T h e su b je c ts’ in duced IIs were in on e o f six con d ition s: (a) collab orativ e d e ­ cision m akin g with the p aren t th at w as resolved, (b) collab orativ e decision m aking with the paren t th at w as u n resolved, (c) collab orativ e c o n fron tation w ith the p aren t th at w as resolved, (d) collab orativ e c o n fro n tatio n w ith the p a r­ en t th at w as u n resolved, (e) coercive co n fro n tatio n with the paren t th at w as re­ solved, an d (f) coercive c o n fron tation w ith the paren t th at w as un resolved. S u b je cts en gaged in sim ulated in teractio n s with one o f their paren ts, with a re ­ search assistan t readin g the p are n t’s part in a p redeveloped script ap propriate to e ach situ ation . C o e rciv e co n fron tation involved the paren t trying to win the argu m en t and n ot listen ing to the su b je ct’s view poin t. In collab orativ e con fro n tatio n , the p a r­ en t expressed his or her ow n view while trying to u n d erstan d the su b je c t’s view an d rem aining open to a m utually acce p tab le com prom ise. In collab orativ e d e ­ cision m aking, the paren t an d the su b ject w orked togeth er to find a solu tio n to

GENERATING AND MAINTAINING R EL A TIO N SH IPS

71

an interpersonal problem that they shared but that was external to their rela­ tionship. T h e resolution and nonresolution o f problem s were operationalized by having subjects either reach a solution or leave the dialogue unresolved at the end o f three im agined interactions. A fter these IIs, subjects were taken to anoth er room and over a period o f 20 m inutes thought sam ples were elicited. A buzzer was sounded 20 tim es at ran­ dom , and each time the subjects reported w hat they were thinking, feeling, or imagining. T h e thoughts were coded as sim ulation-related if they included d i­ rect references to or associations with the sim ulation conditions. A ffect was m easured before and after the sim ulations using Likert scales (1 = absence o f em otion; 5 = strong em otion) reflecting interest, anger, distress, joy, disgust, and contem pt. How m uch stress the subjects felt regarding their parents was m easured using item s that assessed the extent o f interpersonal conflict and the satisfaction o f needs such as acceptan ce, recognition, and support. T h e results revealed that after the sim ulations were over, anger was higher in the coercive conditions than in the collaborative con ditions. T h e thought-sam ­ ple intervals revealed that once exposed to a sim ulated parental conflict, stu ­ dents with a history o f parental stress devoted as m uch as 50% o f their later thoughts to things associated with the sim ulations. Klos and Singer (1981) su r­ mised that the reaw akening o f un pleasan t past experiences is enough to sustain arousal and recurrent thought, even if the conflict is resolved. It could be that the thoughts o f adolescen ts who have a history o f parental stress are frequently un pleasan t because many environm ental cues (e.g., television and film plots) trigger recurrent conflict thoughts. Perhaps it is reasonable to surm ise that the sam e could be true o f adults and their rom antic liaisons. U SE O F IM A G IN E D IN T E R A C T IO N S IN

L IN K IN G T O G E T H E R P R IO R C O N V E R S A T IO N S

Repetitive, stim ulus-relevant cognitions may be related to linked IIs in which m ultiple functions are served. In the case o f long-standing conflict betw een p ar­ ents and children or betw een rom antic partners, conflict may be kept alive and m aintained in the absence o f the other person by having retroactive and proactive IIs. Even though a retroactive II is experienced, it may be im m ediately linked with a proactive II (e.g., “ L ast time, I bit my lip. N ext time I see him, I am going to say exactly how I feel."). G iven that IIs tend to occur with significant others, it may be that many o f them arc linked and occur betw een en coun ters as a m eans o f reviewing and preview ing con versation s. Box 5.3 con tain s a sam ple protocol from a 21 - year-old wife in which she described a recent II. Sh e felt p os­ itive while im agining it, although the II was a reconstruction o f a prior con versa­ tion with her husband in which she felt ignored. T h e linking o f a series o f actual interactions through IIs helps explain why it is often difficult to counsel people in con flict-habituated m arriages. C onflict

72

CHAPTER 5

Box 5.3 Sam ple II Protocol Linking a Prior C on versation to an A nticipated O ne Gender: Female Age: 21 Relationship of other participant: Husband Length of conversation: 10 minutes Scene of II: home Topic (s) discussed: My expectations and his attitude toward me Self-reported emotions about the II: Felt better because I had an idea about what I was going to say. Me: You know, you really hurt my feelings by your comments a few minutes ago. Husband: Why? T h at’s stupid! They had nothing to do with you. You should­ n’t be so sensitive. Me: They had everything to do with me. W hen you snap at me like that, when I'm just being concerned, it hurts my feelings. It makes me feel like you have something to hide. I mean, I just asked you a simple question and you get all sarcastic. I don’t understand why you have to react that way.

m ay be kep t alive th ro u gh IIs in su c h a w ay th a t a c o n flict th em e e m e rg es w ithin the re la tio n sh ip . For e x am p le , o u t o f the p re se n c e o f a sp o u se , on e p a rtn e r m ay k eep c o n flic t alive by reliv in g th e c o n flic t sc e n e s an d re h e arsin g w h at he or sh e w an ts to say a t the n e x t e n co u n ter. T h u s, c o n flic t m ay pick up w here it left off. A t the n e x t e n co u n ter, c o u p le s in su c h m arriage s n eed to be in stru cte d a b o u t how to p ro d u c e m ore p o sitiv e im ag e s o f in te ra c tio n s w ith th eir sp o u se an d e n ­ a c t the p o sitiv e, im ag in e d m e ssag e s in an a c tu a l en cou n ter. A c ite lli (1 9 9 3 ) sp e c u la te d th a t m arried c o u p le s in c o n flic t are less likely to rem ain in co n flic t if th eir a c tu a l c o n v e rsa tio n s shift from in d iv id u al b lam in g to d isc u ssio n th a t is m ore re latio n ally o rie n ted . O n e w ay to do this is to w elcom e po sitiv e IIs an d to p rac tic e talk in g in the p lu ral, u sin g we, for e x am p le , an d sa y ­ ing, “ W e’ve g o t a p ro b le m ,” in ste ad o f “ You’ve g o t a p ro b le m .” In d o in g so, ro ­ m a n tic c o m b a ta n ts m igh t b e b e tte r ab le to focu s o n the in te rd e p e n d e n t n atu re o f re la tio n al c o n flic t w hile av o id in g the p e rso n alizatio n o f p ro b lem s th a t are typically ro o te d in th e d y n am ic b e tw e en the tw o p a rtie s. G iv e n the p e rce p tu a l b asis for IIs, how ever, this m igh t be e asie r said th an d o n e . R e s e a r c h h as re v e a le d th a t th e s e lf ta lk s m ore d u rin g IIs (E d w a rd s, H o n e y c u tt, &. Z aga ck i, 1 9 8 9 ). In IIs, p eo p le h av e e asie r a c c e ss to th eir ow n th o u g h ts an d know o u r ow n a ttitu d e s better. It is e asie r to th in k a b o u t th eir ow n a ttitu d e s th a n to ac c u ra te ly p re d ict a n o th e r ’s sp e e c h or a ctio n . In this regard, th ere is e v id e n c e th a t m arried c o u p le s often re e n v isio n e g o c e n tric a ttrib u tio n s as to w ho is resp o n sib le for v a rio u s b e h a v io rs in m a rriage . For e x am p le , in d iv id ­ u als ten d to assu m e m ore resp o n sib ility for givin g c o m p lim e n ts an d trying to re ­

GENERATING AND MAINTAINING R EL A TIO N SH IPS

73

solve problem s in their relationships com pared to how m uch credit they give their partners. T h om p so n and Kelley (1981) found that individuals reported re­ m em bering more inform ation about them selves than they recalled in stan ces o f their partners providing similar inform ation. A fter having gone through the d i­ vorce process, individuals often take more crcdit for positive events because this serves the function o f en han cin g their self-im age and presenting them selves in a favorable light. T h ese attributions have been explained in term s o f Tversky and K ah n em an’s (1974) availability heuristic, according to which it is easier for individuals to retrieve from memory instan ces o f them selves doing positive be­ haviors precisely bccausc those thoughts are more likely to have been dwelt on at the time o f enactm ent. T h e dom in ation o f the self in IIs is con sisten t with findings in attribution th e­ ory. A ttribution theorists (Kelly & M ichella, 1980; N isbett &. Ross, 1980; Ross, 1977) exam ined the fundam ental attribution error, in which there are actor-ob scrver differences in accoun tin g for the cause o f behavior. A ttribution al studies reveal that inform ation about an individual is more available to him- or herself than is inform ation about others, and that the individual is relatively un ­ able to take the perspective o f others. T h erefore, individuals process primarily their own roles and thoughts when im agining actions and dialogue with others. A s noted earlier, in addition to psychologically m aintaining relationships and linking a series o f interactions, IIs serve the functions o f catharsis and en ­ han cing self-understanding (H oneycutt, 1991). C ath arsis relieves tension and reduces uncertainty about an o th er’s actions during the im aging process. Indi­ viduals im agine interacting with others in such a way that m essages are e x ­ plored and tested for their effect on others. Individuals may feel better while im agining. T h e accoun t in Box 5.4 provided by a 22-year-old m ale who kept a journ al on IIs for a 7-day period, illustrates this point. T h e accou n t also reveals the discrepancy betw een an II and a real interaction.

G E N D E R D I F F E R E N C E S IN I M A G I N E D IN T E R A C T IO N S A N D M EM O RY T h ere are a num ber o f gender differences in the use o f IIs. Edw ards et al. (1989), found that women have m ore frequent and pleasan t IIs than do men. W omen also talk more in these im agined dialogues than do m en. Both genders tend to recall both the lines o f dialogue and the visual scenes o f IIs, rather than only the im agined dialogue. However, women reported that they were able to see the surroundings in their IIs and recall the scene in which the II took place much more often than m en did. M en were twice as likely to have IIs with fem ale p art­ ners rather than with other m en. Yet, due to the increased frequency o f IIs am ong wom en, w om en still were three tim es more likely than m en to have opposite-gender partners in their IIs.

74

CHAPTER 5

Box 5.4 Imagined Interaction Journal Accounts of a Man Encountering a Woman After a Long Absence L ast sum m er 1 m et a girl in Florida and we w rote each oth er for quite som e tim e. We both kept saying we w anted to see e ach other, but our plans n ever m a te ria l' ized. Finally, in S ep tem b er she was goin g to fly to N ew O rlean s to see me. From the m om en t she told she w as com in g to visit, I began im agining w hat it w ould be like w hen we saw each other. I figured we w ould em b race p assion ately a t the airport an d have a m illion things to say to e ach other. I figured we w ould go o u t Fri­ day night to the French Q u arte r and go to bars. Sh e had never b een to a bar before. A t the tim e the drinking age was 18 in N ew O rlean s and 21 in A la b am a (her hom e sta te ). Satu rd ay I plan n ed for us to go to the R iverw alk all day and then go o u t again that night. Su n d ay m orn in g I was supp osed to bring her to Biloxi, where she had a ride hom e to A lab am a. Well, w elcom e to reality. W h en she got o ff the plan e, we kind o f half-hugged each oth er and really didn ’t know w hat to say to each other. M o st o f our con versation w>as sm all talk. A fter we got to my house and show ered, we w ent to the French Q uarter. We probably didn ’t stay there any longer than an h our before we decided th at we were e xh au sted and ready to get som e sleep. Surprisingly, S atu rd ay was pretty m uch like I h ad p lan n ed. We spen t the w hole day at the R iverw alk and re ­ ally enjoyed ourselves. How ever, S atu rd ay night was a different story. We began the night as I had plan ned by going to bars. T h e n the real excitem en t b egan . A t ab ou t one o ’clock in the m ornin g she told me she had to m ake a ph one call. A fter she got o ff the p h on e, I w as inform ed th at she had to leave for Biloxi right then. In stead o f sp en d in g a nice even ing o ut w ith her, I spen t m ost o f the night goin g to M ississippi. T h is was definitely a good exam ple o f an im agined in teraction being quite different than the actu al experien ce. Fortunately, all o f my im agined in teraction s were not this disappoin ting. B ecau se my presen t girlfriend is living in N ew O rlean s this sem ester, I often h ave im agined in teraction s ab ou t the two o f us. For in stan ce, I often im agine us em b racin g and kissing w hen we see e ach other on Fridays. T h e se im agined in teractio n s are often fulfilled and then som e. I also im agine things we are goin g to say to e ach other and these dialogues are also fulfilled. We often tell e ach oth er how m uch we thought ab o u t each oth er and how m uch we m issed e ach other.

O f c o u r s e , t h e v i v i d n e s s a n d s p e c i fi c i ty o f w o m e n ’s IIs a r e large ly c o n s i s t e n t w it h o t h e r s t u d i e s r e v e a l i n g t h a t w o m e n t h i n k m o r e o f t e n t h a n m e n d o a b o u t r e l a t i o n s h i p p r o c e s s e s . W o m e n a r c m o r e a w a r e o f p r o b l e m s in a r e l a t i o n s h i p , are l e ss s u r p r i s e d w h e n a r e l a t i o n s h i p is t e r m i n a t e d , a n d h a v e m o r e v i v i d m e m o r i e s o f r e l a t i o n a l e v e n t s (H ill e t al., 1 9 7 6 ; R o s s & H o l m b e r g , 1 9 9 2 ) . E d w a r d s e t al.

GEN ERATIN G AND MAINTAINING R ELA T IO N SH IPS

( 1 9 8 9 ) s u r m is e d

t h a t w o m e n a r e m o r e s o c ia liz e d

75

to t h in k a b o u t th e

s o c io e m o tio n a l a s p e c t s o f r e la tio n sh ip s th a n are m e n . T h is is re fle c te d in II t o p ­ ics a b o u t d a tin g th a t are p le a s a n t. E d w a rd s e t al. fo u n d in th e ir sa m p le th a t th e p rim ary II to p ic fo r b o th g e n d e r s w as d a tin g . T h e y d e c id e d th a t o n e c a u s e o f g e n d e r d iffe r e n c e s in r e la tio n sh ip a w a re n e ss m ay b e th a t m e s s a g e s fo r in te r a c ­ tio n s are d e riv e d by o b se rv in g th e a c t u a l c o n v e r s a tio n s o f o th e r s, a fte r w h ich th e m e s s a g e s are in c o rp o ra te d in to IIs. A n o th e r p o ssib ility is th a t m e n an d w o m e n a p p r o a c h c o m m u n ic a tio n a b o u t re la tio n s h ip s d ifferen tly , a n d th a t th e se d iffe r e n t a p p r o a c h e s are re fle c te d in th o u g h ts a b o u t c o m m u n ic a tio n , w h e th e r in IIs o r in a c tu a l e n c o u n te r s. A c ite lli (1 9 9 3 ) e x a m in e d re la tio n sh ip a w a re n e ss in term s o f h ow c o u p le s p e r c e iv e th e e ffe c ts o f ta lk in g a b o u t th e ir re la tio n s h ip s o n th e ir fe e lin g s o f c o n ­ te n tm e n t. M a rrie d c o u p le s re a d sto rie s a b o u t c o u p le s in w h ich th e p a rtn e r s e i­ th e r ta lk e d o r d id n o t ta lk a b o u t th e ir r e la tio n sh ip in p le a s a n t a n d u n p le a sa n t s itu a tio n s . A fte r re a d in g e a c h story, re a l s p o u s e s ra te d th e fic tio n a l s p o u s e s ’ fe e l­ in gs. A c it e lii’s re su lts re v e a le d th a t fic tio n a l s p o u s e s w h o ta lk e d a b o u t th e ir re ­ la t io n s h ip m a d e r e a l s p o u s e s fe e l b e tte r , r e g a r d le s s o f th e to n e o f th e c o n v e r s a tio n . H o w e v e r, r e la tio n sh ip talk d u r in g p le a s a n t s itu a tio n s h a d m o re o f a p o sitiv e im p a c t o n w iv es th a n o n h u sb a n d s. M e n fe lt b e tte r a b o u t re la tio n a l ta lk in u n p le a s a n t s itu a tio n s th a n in p le a s a n t o n e s. S c o t t e t al. (1 9 9 1 ) s p e c u ­ la te d th a t w o m e n m ay b e likely to view th e ir c o n v e r s a tio n s a s r e la tio n s h ip - r e le ­ v a n t a n d to sto re th e c o n v e r s a tio n as a r e la tio n sh ip m em ory, w h e re a s m e n se e th e c o n v e r s a tio n s in te rm s o f th e issu e d is c u s se d . I f th is is c o rr e c t, th is h y p o th e ­ sis m ig h t a c c o u n t fo r th e r o b u stn e ss o f w o m e n ’s IIs, b e c a u s e p re su m ab ly , p e o p le h a v e im a g in e d c o n v e r s a tio n s w ith a p e r so n in a re la tio n sh ip a b o u t a n issu e ra th e r th a n w ith an issu e itself, a n d it is th o se in te rp e rso n a l d im e n s io n s th a t w o m e n te n d to fo c u s o n . A c it e lli (1 9 9 2 ) in te r v ie w e d m a rrie d c o u p le s a b o u t th e ir liv e s, a n a n a ly tic d e v ic e k n o w n as c o lle c tin g an o r a l h isto ry o f th e m a rria g e (G o t tm a n , 1 9 7 9 ). O n e o f th e b e n e fits o f th is k in d o f in te rv ie w is t h a t e v e n u n h a p p ily m a rrie d c o u p le s o fte n re liv e p le a s a n t e v e n ts t h a t o c c u r r e d in th e e a rly s ta g e s o f th e ir m a rria g e . C o u p le s w ere a s k e d to te ll th e sto ry o f th e ir r e la tio n s h ip fro m th e tim e th e y first m e t to w h a t th e y t h o u g h t th e ir fu tu r e w ill b e like. T h e s p o n t a ­ n e o u s e x p r e s s io n o f fe e lin g s o r n e e d s w h ile te llin g a sto ry w as c o n s id e r e d to be an e x p r e s s io n o f th e c o u p l e s ’ im p o r ta n t c o n c e r n s . A c it e lli c o d e d th e p a r t n e r s ’ r e s p o n s e s fo r r e la tio n s h ip ta lk . W iv e s ’ m a rita l a n d life s a t is f a c t io n w as p o s i­ tiv e ly a s s o c ia t e d w ith th e ir h u s b a n d s ’ r e la tio n a l ta lk a n d le ss w ith th e ir o w n r e la tio n a l t a lk . W iv e s te n d e d to t a lk m o re a b o u t th e ir m a r ita l r e la tio n s h ip s th a n d id th e ir h u s b a n d s . T h e y a ls o re p o r te d th in k in g m o re a b o u t th e ir m a r ­ r ia g e s th a n d id th e ir h u s b a n d s . A c ite lli (1 9 9 2 ) re p o rte d th a t r e la tio n sh ip talk in th e first y e a r o f m a rria g e is re la te d to r e la tio n sh ip q u a lity in th e th ird y e ar o f m a rria g e . S t a t e m e n t s r e fle c t­ in g o f r e la tio n sh ip a w a re n e ss (e .g ., “ W e w ere very m u c h in lo v e a t th a t p o in t.

76

CHAPTER 5

We w an ted to get alo ng b etter.” ) correlated positively with m arital stability and h app in ess in the third year o f m arriage. In ad d ition , the h u sb a n d ’s e ase, re ­ flected in lack o f ten sion , resen tm en t, and positive ad ju stm e n t to m arriage, was a m ediatin g facto r betw een the sp o u se s’ persp ective at the end of the first year togeth er and their opin ion s o f m arital quality in their third year. A direct effect betw een relation sh ip talk in the first year o f m arriage an d m arital w ell-being in the third year rem ained for w ives, in ad d ition to the effects the h u sb a n d ’s ease variable had for both partn ers. H en ce, A citelli co n clu d e d th at relation sh ip aw aren ess in fluen ces m arital quality only if it leads to the h u sb a n d s’ ease o f a d ­ ju stm en t. For w ives, this relatio n al aw aren ess h app en s, but need not occu r for the relationship p ersp ective to in fluen ce her m arital quality. M en value rela­ tion sh ip talk if it is in stru m en tal in solving a problem , w hereas w om en value re ­ lation sh ip talk in p le asa n t an d u n p leasan t situ ation s. T h e re are also gen der differen ces in using im agined in teraction s to m ain tain room m ate relation sh ips. H o n ey cu tt and P atterson (1 997) surveyed college ro om m ates ab ou t how they m ain tain ed sm ooth relation s in w hich they liked their ro om m ates an d the role o f IIs in m ain tain in g the relation s. T h ey found that w om en liked their ro om m ates m ore th an did m en and th at liking their ro om m ates w as asso ciate d w ith h avin g m ore IIs th at were p le asan t an d specific, as opp osed to b ein g filled with ab stract im ages. W om en also im agined m ore p o s­ itive ou tco m e s in their in tern al d ialogu es th an did m en. Liking o n e ’s room m ate w as asso ciate d w ith in clu ding the room m ate in social activities an d o ccasion ally disclosin g p erso n al in form ation ab ou t on e's feelings, fears, or in securities. W om en w ho im agined co n v ersatio n s w ith their room m ates ten ded to report actin g in warm , caring, an d em path ic ways. H o n ey cu tt an d P atterson (1997) also n oted th at w om en’s ro om m ate relation sh ips are n ot as likely to be seen as exp en d ab le com m od ities, com pared to m en’s ro om m ate relation sh ips; and that m ale ro o m m ates arc m ore d istan t with on e another. T h e finding th at w om en think ab ou t c o n v e rsatio n s with their ro om m ates than do m en is c o n siste n t with o th er research th at w om en m on ito r their personal relation sh ips m ore c o m ­ pared to m en an d think ab o u t relation al ev en ts or problem s (H arvey, Flannery, & M o rgan , 1986 ; H o n ey cu tt, 1993; 1995).

IM A G IN E D IN T E R A C T IO N T O P IC S W IT H IN M A R R IA G E A d d itio n al gen der differen ces in IIs and m em ory in m arriage h ave begun to a c ­ cu m u late. B ox 5.5 lists the 10 m ost frequen t II topics from a recently c o n d u cted survey, as well as the n um ber o f respon ses an d the rank orders for the topics, w hich were cod ed using a list o f categories th at com m on ly h ave been identified in m arital research as prob lem atic issu es in m arriage (Spanier, 1976). T h e re ­ sults are b ased on surveys issued to 136 cou p les. Interestingly, the topic d is­ cussed m ost often by the w ives w as how the couple co m m u n icated . T h e topics

GEN ERATIN G AND MAINTAINING R ELA T IO N SH IPS

77

Box 5.5 Rank Order of Spousal Imagined Interaction Topics Combined

Topics

Rank Orde r

H usband

Wife

Future plans and goals

1

1(12)

2 (7)

Sex life

r

2 (8)

4 (5)

How we

r

6 (4)

1 (9)

Financial m anagem ent

4

3 (6)

4(5)

O ur social life

5‘

6 (4)

3 (6)

O ur relationship

5'

3 (6)

6 (4)

C hildren

r

6 (4)

8 (3)

My job

r

5 (5)

10(2)

Feelings and em otions

r

9 (3)

6 (4)

Fantasies

10

9(3)

8(3)

com m unicate

N o te . N u m b e r s in p a r c t h es es re fl e c t ra w f r e q u e n c i e s * A s t e r i s k ( * ) d e n o t e s tics.

m o s t d i s c u s s e d by b o t h p a r t n e r s w ere fu tu re p la n s a n d g o a l s . T h e n e x t topic m o s t d i s c u s s e d by h u s b a n d s a n d w iv es w as s e x u a l re la tio n s , f ollow ed by how they c o m m u n i c a t e .

78

CHAPTER 5

Im a g in e d I n te r a c tio n s A m o n g E n g a g e d an d M a rrie d C o u p le s Giles and W iem ann (1987) in discussing the relationship betw een language and cognition, indicated that “our very m ouths influence our own cogn itions” (Giles &. W iem ann, 1987, p. 364). C ognition about talk also influences lan ­ guage and m essage production. H oneycutt and W iem ann (1999) conducted a study am ong engaged and married couples who were distinguished on the basis o f Fitzpatrick’s (1988) types o f m arriage. Fitzpatrick (1988) developed a polythetic classification schem e o f m arriage in which individuals are categorized according to their ideologies about m ar­ riage, degree o f sharing, and en gagem en t in conflict. T h ere are three m arital: traditionals, independents, and separates. Traditicmals have con vention al b e­ liefs about m arriage, such as em phasizing stability, sharing a lot o f activities, and arguing over serious topics. Independents have a m oderate am ount o f sharing, willingly engage in conflict over num erous topics, and endorse more con tem p o­ rary ideologies about m arriage, such as believing that marriage should not h in­ der an individual’s autonom y in any way. Separates are am bivalent about family values, share few activities, and tend to avoid conflict. T h e separates have been described as em otionally divorced due to the lack o f sharing. Little research has been con ducted exam ining how the functions o f talk are associated with characteristics o f im agined interactions am ong engaged and m arried couples. M any individuals report spending from 85% to 100% o f their time thinking about their partner (Fisher, 1994). Intrusive thinking involves IIs with the partner. G iven the strategic functions o f com m unication, such as pro­ viding inform ation, interpersonal influence, and im pression m anagem en t, IIs may be used to rehearse m essage strategies or replay prior m essages in order to prepare for future encounters. H oneycutt and W iem ann (1999) found that there was an association b e­ tween enjoying serious discussion, talking about the even ts o f the day, equality o f talk, and having frequent and pleasant IIs that followed expectation s with the relational partner. In his m arital interaction research program , G ottm an (1994) discussed how talking about the events o f the day reveals differences b e­ tween couple types. T h e discussion o f daily events was related to m etatalk or talk about com m unication and talk about love. Furtherm ore, the im portance of intrapersonal com m un ication is dem on strated through these findings because the functions o f talk are linked with specific characteristics o f IIs. H oneycutt and W iem ann (1999) also found that relational satisfaction was associated with being engaged and having pleasan t IIs. T h us, internal cognition in which an engaged individual im agines talking with his or her partner predicts happiness in this type o f relationship. T h is finding is im portant in term s o f social cognition because it reveals that a com m on outcom e o f close relationships, rela­ tionship happiness, is reflected in the m inds o f individuals internally in the form o f intrapersonal com m unication in which individuals imagine pleasan t interac-

GEN ER A TIN G AND M AINTAINING R EL A T IO N SH IPS

79

cions w ith relation al partn ers. H en ce, co m m u n icatio n occu rs internally as well as dyadically. It w as found th at e n gage d p artn ers h ad m ore IIs, IIs th at w ere p le a sa n t, and IIs th a t w ere used to c o m p e n sa te for the lack o f real in te ra c tio n th an did m a ri­ tal p a rtn ers. T h e se fin d in gs can be in te rp re ted in term s o f the old m axim , “ a b ­ se n ce m ak es the h ea rt grow fon der.” T h e re m ay be less re h e arsa l am o n g the en gage d p a rtn ers due to less co n flict in the h o n ey m o o n p h ase o f their r e la ­ tion al d e v e lo p m en t. H o n ey cu tt (1995) d iscu ssed how on e fun ction o f IIs is co n flict linkage, w hich explain s why con flict is kept alive in the ab sen ce o f a c tu al in teraction . (T h is theory is d iscu ssed in m ore detail in ch ap . 10.) In dividuals reh earse for the n ext episode w hich m ay reflect a self-fulfilling proph ecy insofar as an episode o f con flict is im agined an d co n flict-escalatin g state m e n ts are u ttered with the o u t­ com e bein g th at the con flict picks up w here it left o ff in a prior encounter. T h e con flict is kept alive ou tsid e o f real en co u n ters through im agined dialogue. H o n ey cu tt an d W iem ann (1999) also foun d that trad ition als reported that m o re-d iscrep an t IIs were used less for reh earsin g m essages for an ticip ated e n ­ cou n ters th an did in d ep en d en ts. B ecau se little reh earsin g is takin g p lace, there could be m ore discrep an cies in c o n v e rsatio n al o u tco m es from w hat w as e x ­ pected in an II. T h e research o f Sillars and his asso c iate s (1 987) revealed that trad ition als h ave m ore com m u n al or sharing th em es th at are reflected in their c o n v ersatio n s com pared to in d epen d en ts. H ow ever, trad ition als an d in d e p e n d ­ en ts also differ in in trap erso n al co m m u n icatio n p rocesses in sofar as the c h a ra c ­ teristics o f IIs are co n cern ed . O th er research foun d th at in dividuals w ho are sen sitive to c o n v e rsatio n s also see th em selves as h avin g a g reat d eal o f c o m m u ­ n ication co m p e te n ce (H o n ey cu tt et al., 1 9 9 2 - 1 9 9 3 ). In turn, com m u n ication co m p e te n ce is negatively asso c iate d w ith h avin g a lot o f discrep an t IIs, w hereas co n v e rsa tio n al sen sitivity is asso c iate d with a variety o f IIs that are specific and occu r after real en cou n ters. R e c all th a t in a d iscre p a n t II, a m essage th a t is im agin ed is n ot c o m m u n i­ c a te d d u rin g an a c tu a l en cou n ter. T rad itio n als m ay im agin e e n c o u n te rs w ith their p artn ers to reh earse m e ssage s th a t also inhibit m isin te rp re ta tio n , m isu n ­ d e rstan d in g, or co n fu sio n th at resu lt in ac tiv e c o n flic t. T rad itio n als e n gage in argu in g an d c o n flic tu a l e n c o u n te r s less th an in d e p e n d e n ts. F itzp atrick (1 9 8 8 ) review ed research in d ica tin g th a t trad itio n als ten d to av oid co n flict e x c e p t o v er serio u s issu es, w h ereas in d e p e n d e n ts are m ore likely to d isagree ab o u t a variety o f topics. H o n ey cu tt an d Brow n (1 998) also in v estigated the use o f IIs to reh earse the telling o f jok es in m arriage. T h ey found th at trad ition als used IIs to reh earse jok es and th at trad ition als reported a greater sense o f h um or c om pared to in d e ­ p en d en ts an d se p arate s. Furth erm ore, trad ition al w ives lau gh ed at their h u s­ b a n d s’ jok es m ore th an did the oth er m arital types. Perhaps, am ateu r co m ed ian s in m arriage m ay n ot feel a stron g need to reh earse jokes. In this regard,

80

CHAPTER 5

C raw ford (1989) show ed th at w ives ten d to laugh at their h u sb a n d s'jo k e s in o r­ der to sign al affiliation . Yet in order to allow a joke to realize its full im pact, the jok e-teller m ust reh earse the joke. T h is joke reh earsal m ust take the joke and m ove it from the u n con scio u s realm o f “O h , th at is a funny jo k e ” to the m ore co n scio u s realm o f “ How did th at pun ch lin e work so I can tell my h u sb a n d ?” Im agined in teractio n s are a form o f o p eran t th ough t, n ot resp o n d en t thought. M o vin g joke reh earsal from the level o f u n con scio u s th ough t to actively, m in d ­ fully reh earsin g jo k e s may in crease o n e ’s sen se o f humor. H u sb an d s im agined m ore joke telling th an did their w ives. T h e h u sb a n d s’ jok es are lau gh ed at by their w ives, w hich e n co u rage s m ore jokes. M en use h u ­ m or m ore for self-presen tatio n an d w om en use h um or to en h an ce intim acy (C raw ford, 1989). Zippin (1966) describ ed w om en's h um or as bein g at odds w ith c o m m o n c u ltu r a l d e fin itio n s o f fe m in in ity , in c lu d in g q u ie tn e s s , n o n p ro v o cativ e n e ss, an d self-con sciou sn ess. SU M M A R Y Im agined in teraction s (IIs) help cre ate relation al e x p e c tatio n s an d thereby con tribu te to p e o p le ’s m em ories ab ou t rom an tic pairin gs. E x p e ctatio n s reg ard ­ ing relation sh ips can be en vision ed as the know ledge or m em ory stru ctu res for relation sh ips. M em ory stru ctu res for relation sh ips help people m ake sen se o f b eh aviors th at they observe in o th er p e o p le ’s an d in their ow n relation sh ips, and they provide a sen se o f the trajectory relation sh ips are taking. IIs, con sequen tly, provide an im portan t bridge betw een rom an tic b eh avior an d the way in w hich those sta te m e n ts an d actio n s fu n ction in the sen se-m ak in g o f the m ind. A ro m an ce can be kept alive w hen the partn ers in a couple are away from e ach oth er by their thin kin g ab o u t it. In dividuals in lon g-d istan ce or com m u ter relation sh ips report th at they often think ab o u t their partn ers. In dividuals also h ave IIs con cern in g rom an tic partn ers they see every day. People im agine c o n ­ versatio n s w ith relatio n al partn ers in w hich they reh earse an ticip ate d e n c o u n ­ ters, replay prior en co u n ters, an d even keep in terp erson al con flict alive. IIs can bring up a variety o f e m o tio n s th at depen d on the ou tcom e o f the im agined c o n ­ v ersation . In ad dition to reh earsin g e v e n ts and keeping con flict o r relation sh ips alive, IIs serve a n um ber o f oth er fun ction s in clu ding e n h an cin g self-u n der­ stan din g, c ath arsis, an d co m p en satin g for a lack in the a c tu a l tim e spent with o n e ’s sign ifican t other. In som e c ase s, in dividuals h ave p araso cial relation sh ips in w hich they im agine talkin g with a celebrity or fab ricated asso ciate . H ow ever, m ost IIs o ccu r with sign ifican t oth ers, in clu ding relation al partn ers, family m em bers, and friends. Finally, w om en seem to produce m ore stalw art IIs than do m en, suggestin g th at their im agined in teraction s may exert a stron ger in flu­ en ce on the type o f co m m u n icatio n th at oc c u rs in ro m an tic relation sh ips. IIs help en gaged cou p les m ain tain the relation sh ip in term s o f intrusive thinking. H av in g positive in trap erso n al co m m u n icatio n in the form o f IIs helps

GEN ERATIN G AND MAINTAINING R ELA T IO N SH IPS

81

c o u p l e s m a i n t a i n their m a r r ia g e s , p a rtic u la rly th e t r a d it io n a l m a r i ta l types. J o k e tellin g a ls o is d o n e by t r a d it i o n a l s ; h u s b a n d s use i m a g i n e d in t e r a c t i o n s to r e ­ h e a r s e jo k e s w hile th e ir w iv es lau gh a t the jo k e s e v e n if they are n o t t h a t funny. H u m o r h e lp s to m a i n t a i n p e o p l e ’s re l a ti o n s h i p s in th e f a c e o f ad versity .

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 5.1 R e c a l l th e m o s t r e c e n t i m a g i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n (II) you h a v e h a d w ith a n i n d i v i d u a l w h o is ve ry i m p o r t a n t in y o u r life. W h e n w a s it? W h a t w as s a i d ? H o w d id y o u fe el a b o u t t h e II? W h a t p u r p o s e d id it s e r v e (e .g ., r e ­ h e a r s a l for an e n s u i n g e n c o u n t e r , c a t h a r s i s , e n h a n c i n g y o u r o w n u n ­ d e r s t a n d i n g , k e e p i n g c o n f l i c t aliv e , o r k e e p i n g th e r e l a t i o n s h i p a liv e in y o u r m i n d ) ? If th e II w a s b e fo r e a n a n t i c i p a t e d e n c o u n t e r , w h a t h a p ­ p e n e d in the e n c o u n t e r ? W a s th e II d i f fe r e n t f ro m o r s i m i la r to th e a c ­ tual en cou n ter? 5 . 2 D i s c u s s a n y r e c u r r i n g IIs y o u h a v e w it h l o n g - l o s t l o v e s o f t h e p a s t . H o w ofte n d o th ese o c c u r? W h y do you b elieve you rem in isce a b o u t th ese peop le?

APPLICATIONS 5 . 1 K e e p a daily jo u r n a l o f IIs for a 3 - d a y p e r io d . N o t e t h e tim e o f d a y the II o c c u r r e d , w h e r e you w ere w h e n you h a d the II, y ou r r e l a t i o n s h i p with th e d i a l o g u e partn er, the to p ic o f th e i m a g e d c o n v e r s a t i o n s , a n d h ow y o u felt a b o u t it. 5 . 2 In te r v ie w th ree c o u p l e s a b o u t their IIs w ith e a c h other. H o w o f te n d o they i m a g i n e t a lk in g with their p a r t n e r s ? D o they e n jo y th e IIs? W h a t p u r p o s e did the IIs s e rv e (e.g., k e e p i n g c o n f lic t alive , re p la y in g love s c e n e s , or relivin g p l e a s a n t m e m o r ie s ) ? A r e t h e re d if fe r e n c e s b e t w e e n p a r t n e r s o n the to p ic s o f the IIs a n d the v i v i d n e s s o f m e m o r y a b o u t the IIs? If the IIs w ere u s e d to re h e a r s e for a n t i c i p a t e d e n c o u n t e r s with p a r t ­ n e rs, are the IIs s im ila r to o r d iffe ren t fro m late r i n t e r a c t i o n s c e n e s ? 5 . 3 In te r v ie w t h r e e m e n a n d th ree w o m e n a b o u t i m a g in a ry p l a y m a t e s they re c a ll h a v i n g h a d as c h ild r e n . W h o were t h e s e p l a y m a t e s ? H o w old were they w h e n they i m a g i n e d th e p l a y m a t e s ? W h a t p u r p o s e s or f u n c ti o n s did th e im a g i n a r y p l a y m a t e s s e rv e (e.g., c o m p a n i o n s h i p , r e h e a r s e m e s ­ s a g e s for real-life o t h e r s, or e s c a p i s m ) ? H o w d id the re l a ti o n s h i p e n d (e.g., d id the p e r s o n sto p i m a g i n i n g the p l a y m a t e a t a c e r t a i n a g e or tim e p e r io d ) ? D id the im a g i n a r y p l a y m a t e t e a c h t h e m a n y t h i n g a b o u t h u m a n r e la tio n s h ip s ?

6 Development of Relationships: Stage Theories Versus Relational Memory Theory

Scholars studying personal relationships have m aintained that relationships de­ velop through a series o f phases or stages that reflect an individual’s different levels of intimacy with another, ranging from impersonal interactions to inti­ mate relations. Kelley et al. (1983) indicated that “ when a relationship changes markedly in a property, it is reasonable to say that it has moved to a new stage or level” (p. 38). T h e stages reflect different expectations for behavior in any pe­ riod in a relationship. For exam ple, an initiation stage occurs at an initial m eet­ ing and may consist of greeting rituals, small talk about innocuous topics such as the weather, and the discovery of shared interests. T h e individuals may see one another again and become acquaintances, develop friendship, or become ro­ mantically involved. A com m on elem ent o f these m odels involves an assum ption that there is system atic m ovem ent through stages o f interaction, even though there is diffi­ culty in accounting for alternating periods o f growth and decline over the life history o f relationships (Surra, 1990). M ovem ent may occur forward, b ack­ ward, and laterally. T h is assum ption has been ignored by critics o f stage m od­ els, who claim that the m odels posit linear m ovem ent in which individuals proceed from one phase to another in a regular sequence. However, stage 82

D EVELOPM EN T OF RELATIONSHIPS

83

m odels allow individuals to en h an ce intim acy and decrease intim acy at v a ri­ ous tim es and in a variety o f co n texts. For exam ple, opposing dialectic n eeds can be used to calibrate the intim acy th at is seen as com fortab le in a relation ­ ship at any tim e. If one person feels an oth er is com ing on too strong or being im pulsive, the person may d istan t him- or h erself h oping to set the intim acy at a lower level. Filters and phases are term s in the literature that are synonym ous with developm en tal stages. Th is chapter reviews a num ber o f stage m odels o f relationship developm ent, discussing their contributions and lim itations, and how the m odels have been revised. T h e chapter concludes with a brief discussion o f the role o f cognition in reflecting stages in the m inds o f individuals, follow ed by sam ple m ale and fe­ male expectation s about intim ate relationships. D E V E L O P M E N T A L M O D E L S O F R E L A T IO N S H IP S M any o f the lab els th at peop le use to d escrib e relatio n sh ip s (e.g., stran gers, a c q u a in ta n c e s, frien ds, best frien ds, lovers, fightin g cou p le, se p arate d c o u ­ ple, an d ex-partners) reflect sta g e s o f intim acy. In an e x am in a tio n o f 166 c u l­ tures, Jan k o w iak (1 9 9 5 ) foun d evid en ce o f ro m an tic love in 88% o f them . M oreover, there are also sy stem atic sta g e s o f ro m an ce in th ese cu ltu res. Fol­ low ing are two d e v e lo p m en tal m odels b ased on ph ysiology and c o m m u n ic a­ tion behavior, respectively. P h y sio lo g ic a l M o d e l C h apter 1 m entions the biochem ical work o f Fisher (1994), in which she argued that brain physiology drives rom antic stages. In this regard, she discussed three stages o f rom antic love that occur cross-culturally and that arc based on brain physiology associated with infatuation, attachm en t, and detachm en t that has evolved as part o f a prim ordial m ating system . T h e first stage, infatuation, b e­ gins the m om ent an oth er individual takes on special m eaning. T h is person may be an old friend viewed in a new light or a stranger. T h e characteristics o f this stage include intrusive thinking in which many individuals report spending from 85% to 100% o f their time thinking about their partners. N egative traits o f the beloved are overlooked, w hereas positive traits are aggrandized. M any em o­ tions arc felt at this stage, including elation, hope, apprehension, uncertainty, shyness, fear o f rejection, helplessness, irrationality, uncontrollability, and long­ ing for reciprocity. Tennov (1980) measured the distance from the m om ent that infatuation started to the m om ent of feeling o f neutrality. She found that this stage typically lasts from 18 months to 3 years. T h e end o f infatuation may be linked to brain physiology because the nerve endings in the brain becom e habituated to the n at­ ural stim ulants or the levels o f these am phetam ine-like substances begin to drop.

«4

CHAPTER 6

A s infatuation declines, the second stage o f rom antic love, attach m en t, b e­ gins. T h e end o f in fatuation may be linked to chan ges in brain physiology b e­ cause the nerve endings becom e h abituated to the level o f neurotransm itters in the brain. Fisher (1994) cited researchers who hypothesized that endorphins give partners feelings o f safety, peace, and stability. C on ten tm en t characterizes this stage. T h e duration o f attach m en t is not known. D etach m en t is the third stage o f rom ance. T h e physiology that accom panies detach m en t h as not been analyzed. However, Fisher (1994) suggested that the brain’s receptor sites for the endorphins or other neurochem icals becom e fur­ ther desensitized or overloaded after the decline o f attach m en t. T h is decline sets up the mind for separation from the partner. A s noted in chapter 1, Fisher (1994) proposed that there is a tendency for m en and women to pair and rem ain together for about 4 years, which reflects an an cestral reproductive strategy to cooperatively raise a single helpless infant. Fisher noted that in many cultures divorce occurs regularly during and around the fourth year o f marriage. M en and w omen tend to divorce in their 20s, the height o f their reproductive years. M en and women are more likely to abandon relationships that have produced no children or one dependent child. In addition, many divorced individuals o f reproductive age remarry. A ccording to Fisher (1994), the longer a m arriage lasts, the older spouses get, and the more children they have, the more likely they are to rem ain together. A lthough there are obvious exceptions, these characteristics persist across cultures regardless o f the standard o f living. T h e b rain physiology for stages o f ro m an ce m ay h ave evolved to fuel the h um an prim ordial m atin g system . Fish er (1 9 9 4 ) d iscu ssed the em ergen ce o f serial m onogam y m ore than 4 m illion years ago, w hen m ale h om in id s were un able to o b tain en ough food to su stain a harem , b ut could provide food and pro te ctio n for a single fem ale h om in id. T h is pair-bo n din g d u rin g the infancy o f a child was critical for h um an w om en and p rac tic a l for m en, an d m o n o g­ am y evolved . Fisher (1994) posited that as a couple aged, as the length o f their pair-bond increased, or as a couple bore successive young, the flexible neural circuits in the brain helped to sustain the pair-bond. W ith the expan sion o f the hum an c e ­ rebral cortex over 1 million years ago, hum ans began to build on the core o f pri­ mal cyclic em otions by adding other feelings; cultural rituals; and beliefs about attraction , attachm en t, and detachm en t. Fish er (1994) also d iscu ssed how cultu re plays an im p o rtan t role in in fat­ uation . By the tee n age years, peop le carry w ith them an u n c o n sc io u s m en tal tem p late or love m ap th at co n sists o f ph y sical, p sy ch o lo gical, an d b eh avioral traits th at an in d iv id u al finds attrac tiv e in a m ate. M e n tal tem p lates for r e la ­ tion sh ips arc d iscu ssed in d e tail in the ch a p tc r 7, in term s o f relation sh ip sc h e m a ta .

D EVELOPM EN T OF RELATIONSHIPS

85

A C o m m u n ic a tio n M o d e l O th er m odels o f relational developm ent con cen trate on the com m unication behaviors o f the individuals. In this regard, Knapp and Vangelisti (1996) defined relationship stages in term s o f the am ount o f repetitive com m unicative behaviors over time. For exam ple, physical affection, self-disclosure, and dating occurring within a time period reflects the intensification o f a relationship. T h eir m odel con tain s five stages o f com m unication growth. 1.

Initiating. Two individuals m eet and com m unication is stylized to allow the individuals to talk with little knowledge o f one another. 2. Experim enting. T h ere is the use o f sm all talk and interaction rituals in order to discover sim ilarities with one another. N orm s o f politeness characterize these interaction s and individuals present a desired image o f them selves. 3.

Intensifying. A close friendship develops, intim ate disclosure increases, and private symbols are used to identify the couple as a unique dyad. 4 . Integrating. Personalties fuse, social netw orks m erge, and the couple is seen as a couple by outsiders. A jointly con structed view o f the world em erges and plans are m ade with one an oth er in mind. 5.

Bonding. T h ere is a serious discussion about com m itm ent. T h ere arc public rituals that announce that the com m itm ents are formally c o n ­ tracted, such as exclusively seeing one another, becom ing engaged, or gettin g married.

K napp and Vangelisti also discussed five stages o f decay in which com m un i­ cation progressively becom es restricted and eventually, ceases to exist. 1.

2.

3.

D ifferentiating. Partners begin to remind one an oth er o f how different they arc. T h ere may be a repetitive cycle o f breaking up and m aking up, as partners m ove from bonding to differentiating, back to integrating, and so on. C ircu m scrib in g. T h e re is less co m m u n icatio n , both in term s o f the n um ber o f in te ra ctio n s an d the depth o f the topics d iscu sse d . Fam il­ iar ph rases are “ L et's n ot talk ab o u t this an y m o re ,” an d “ I h ave n o th ­ ing to say.” Stagnating. Com m unication is at a standstill. A s a result, there may be imagined interactions (IIs) about topics because they feel they know how the encounters will go. It is useless to com m unicate because the en coun ­ ters are perceived to be unproductive. Knapp and Vangelisti (1996) indi-

86

CHAPTER 6

4.

5.

catcd th at com m u n ication b cco m cs m ore stylized, difficult, rigid, hesitant, awkward, and narrow. A voiding. T h ere is a physical separation o f the partners. T h e other person is seen less, and reasons may be given about why one individual c a n ­ not see his or her partner. Term ination. Relationships can term inate immediately, after a greeting, or over many years. T h ere may be a sum m ary statem en t reviewing the relationship's history and providing the reasons for the ending o f the re ­ lationship.

A n ad ditional stage o f decay could be called post-term ination aw areness o f the ex-partner. T h is stage h appens when the individual thinks about the ex-partner or the relationship and recalls events in the relationship. Individuals are likely to be in this stage to the extent they have not found alternative interests, diver­ sions, behaviors, or partners that allow them to focus externally on other stim ­ uli. Even remarried individuals with children from a prior m arriage are aware o f their ex-partner through visitation en coun ters and reports from their children about the ex-partner. M ovem ent is basically sequential in the stage models, as individuals tend to progress through adjacent stages rather than skipping stages. Knapp and Vangelisti (1996) indicated that “ (1) each stage contains important presuppositions for the following stage; (2) sequencing makes forecasting adjacent stages easier, and (.3) skipping stages is a gamble on the uncertainties presented by the lack o f information that could have been learned in the skipped step. Som e social norms even help to inhibit skipping steps" (p. 53). For example, even though sexual intercourse may occur as an isolated event for individuals getting to know each other, it is often asso­ ciated with couples in an intensifying stage, due to its repetition. A lth ough m ovem ent tends to be orderly, it may occur at various speeds in various directions with a variety o f results (A ltm an, Vinsel, & Brown, 1981; Baxter, 1985; K napp & Vangelisti, 1996; Taylor &. A ltm an , 1987). In addition, there are m any paths on the road o f relational escalation and deescalation that may lead to the continual recalibration o f the relationship or to its ending. C o n ­ sider couples who argue a great deal com pared to couples who argue only in ter­ mittently. Repetitive arguing reflects the differentiating stage, in which the relational partners are distancin g them selves and stressing individual needs (K napp &. Vangelisti, 1996). Interm ittent arguing could be subsum ed under a n ­ other stage label, depending on what preem inent behaviors characterize the com m unication o f the relational partners. C o n t r ib u tio n s o f D e v e lo p m e n ta l M o d e ls T h e developm en tal m odels represent a relational life cycle symbolizing the ev o ­ lution o f different kinds o f relationships, from initial m eeting to final en coun ter

DEVELOPM ENT OF RELATIONSHIPS

87

in some cases. Different types of relationships are the result o f the progression toward or away from intimacy. Developm ental models have helped researchers to understand relationship dynamics by describing the role of com m unication (e.g., self-disclosure, reading one's partner’s nonverbal cues, sending clear non­ verbal cues, resolving conflict in constructive manners) in defining the current state or stage of a relationship (Knapp &. Vangelisti, 1996). T h e am ount of self-disclosure in a relationship reflects the importance and intimacy of the rela­ tionship as well as reducing the uncertainty about attitudes and roles (Baxter &. Wilmot, 1984; Berger &. Bradac, 1982). The developm ental theories are helpful in generating questions about stage identification. For exam ple, when does one stage end and another begin? W hat is the transition period between stages? How long does each stage last? W hat is the theoretical justification for the concept, other than the passage of time? These questions have led stage researchers to revise the assum ptions in their models to allow a recycling through stages (A ltm an et al., 1981). The developm ental theories have been helpful in marking the passage of time in relationships. For exam ple, family researchers have used the notion of the family life cycle for the past 40 years to describe temporal order in families. The family life cycle has assum ed the existence of an intact marriage. Other family forms, such as those with remarried individuals, single parents, or older couples with additional children who are younger than their grandchildren, have not been captured well by the stages of the family life cycle. For exam ple, older couples are in multiple stages o f the cycle. The developm ental models have great appeal because they help people to re­ duce uncertainty about the type of personal relationships people may find themselves in. Duck (1986) noted that these theories “draw our partner’s per­ sonality in finer and finer detail as the relationship deepens and develops” (p. 83). Yet the models have been criticized for emphasizing thinking about rela­ tionships and observing oneself and on e’s partner’s actions or reactions. O n the other hand, college students exposed to these m odels often report that they are able to recognize behaviors and make sense o f what is happening in their cur­ rent relationships or to attribute meaning to behaviors in their previous rela­ tionships. The recognition o f behaviors involves memory recall o f events in relationships. Relational schem ata are activated in order to make sense o f the progression of events, behaviors, or activities in personal relationships, and one way this is done is by conceptualizing relational developm ent in terms o f stages. Stage theories of relationship developm ent have been useful in helping indi­ viduals in relationships bring order to what otherwise may be seen as a series of unrelated events. Hinde (1979) noted that relationships are constantly devel­ oping and that it becom es a m atter for developm ental theorists to partition the concept o f personal relationships into smaller meaningful categories that pro­ vide an understanding of the properties and life cycle of relationships. Thus, the stage concept has been used to reflect relational properties in terms o f the o c ­ currence of repetitive behaviors (Honeycutt, 1993).

««

CHAPTER 6

T h e identification o f recurring behaviors and the categorization o f these b e­ haviors into categories reflecting developm en tal stages provides individuals with a vocabulary to assist in their understanding the m ovem ent and dynam ics of relational developm ent. For exam ple, increased dating may be categorized as the intensification o f a relationship if one w onders about reciprocal intim ate feelings from o n e ’s partner. R elationships may also intensify after partners over­ com e som e type o f relationship crisis, such as feeling insecure or jealous about one an o th er’s activities (Planalp & H oneycutt, 1985). H ence, developm ental m odels serve a critical function in symbolizing m otion in relationships. M o ve­ m ent is based on need, exch ange o f rewards, social background, and shared re­ lational memory structures based on sim ilar experiences. Duck (1990) discussed how m otion is the fundam ental property o f relation­ ships, rather than a steady state. However, couples often present an image to o th ­ ers o f orderly, routine, or predictable patterns o f com m unication in order to stabilize that perpetual motion. In addition, individuals often tell stories about re­ lationship events to provide order for tim e-ordered events (A skham , 1982). T h e provision o f order reflects a desire for structure and predictability. T h e ordering of relational events often reflects underlying stages that reflect the passage o f time. People’s m em ories o f relational events often reflect stage-like qualities b e­ cause individuals tell stories about m eeting for the first time, developing in ti­ macy, getting m arried, dealing with conflicts in the relationship, and ending prior relationships. Yet if som eone is asked to tell the story about his or her m ar­ riage, the person will look bewildered and may reply, “Well, w hat do you w ant to know about my m arriage; the story o f how we met, the wedding, the time we went to C an cú n , or the time we were both in the h ospital?” Stories about events bring order to the passage o f time and pun ctuate the relationship into a series o f identifiable events that often can be viewed as reflecting stages o f intimacy. In essence, the developm en tal m odels have ad vanced people’s understan din g o f the tem poral organization o f relationships. L im ita tio n s o f D e v e lo p m e n ta l M o d e ls C ritics o f stage m odels have argued that the stages are hard to identify, may be skipped, are arbitrarily defined, and simply represent the passage o f time in rela­ tionships. It is argued the stages do not really exist because m ovem ent through them is capricious and depends on the individual relationship. D espite the problem s o f precisely identifying stages, as well as the direction and rate o f m ovem ent through the stages, a variety o f m odels have been proposed. In fact, a saturation point seem s to have been reached with the diversity o f m odels (e.g., A irm an & Taylor, 197.3; Baxter, 1985; C olem an, 1977; D uck, 1982; K n ap p &. Vangelisti, 1996; Lee, 1984; Levinger, 1974; M urstein, 1974, 1986). Early m odels o f relational developm ent were simple. Levinger (1974) pro­ posed a three-stage aw areness model. In unilateral aw areness, the individuals

D EVELOPM EN T OF RELATIONSHIPS

89

are not aware o f each other in a reciprocal fashion; A may be aware o f B, but B is unaw are o f A . Bilateral aw areness involves sm all talk; relationships betw een a c ­ quain tan ces represent this type o f aw areness. M utual aw areness is more inti­ m ate and involves a shared dependency betw een the people. A dditional three-stage m odels have been proposed. For exam ple, D uck (1986) described a physical appearance stage followed by an assessm ent o f the other person’s atti­ tudes and one's com patibility with the other person’s personality. Levinger (1980, 1983) revised the three-stage aw areness m odel and pro­ posed a five-stage m odel that includes: (a) initiation and aw areness o f the other person, (b) building the relationship, (c) continued interaction that may lead to m arriage, (d) deterioration or decline o f the bond, and (e) ending o f the rela­ tionship through death or som e type o f separation. T h ese five stages correspond to three states o f growth, m ain tenance, and term ination. A three-stage m odel that has received a great deal o f atten tion and criticism over the years is the stim ulus-value-role (SV R ) m odel. T h e assum ptions o f this m odel were debated in research journ als (e.g., Leigh, H olm an , & Burr, 1987; M urstein, 1974, 1986, 1987; Rubin & Levinger, 1974; Step h en , 1987). M urstein (1987) proposed that individuals who initially en coun ter an oth er are in the stim ulus (S) stage in which an individual evalu ates an encountered per­ son in terms o f physical qualities and nonverbal inferences based on voice or clothing. T h e second stage, value (V ), is presum ed to exist when the individuals share basic attitudes regarding a variety o f opinions or beliefs on issues such as religious beliefs, politics, abortion, euthanasia, and so on. T h e final stage is the role com patibility (R) stage in which the partners evalu ate the functions o f roles that have evolved in relation to each other. For exam ple, individuals may per­ ceive them selves as co-equal decision m akers, supporters, lovers, guardians, and so on relative to one another. S V R theory has received continued atten tion even though the basic pre­ mises o f the theory have been questioned. Individuals may require inform ation about stim ulus, values, and roles continuously. It appears that the rate o f accel­ eration in which inform ation is acquired defines each stage. Steph en (1987) ar­ gued that a m odel that proposes that values and attitudes are created through com m un ication is a problem for stage theorists because com m un ication th eo­ ries assum e individuals can value different kinds o f inform ation unequally. Som e individuals value stim ulus inform ation above all else (physical ap pear­ ance) whereas others may exam ine role inform ation first. T h e S V R sequ en ce is not the sam e from in dividual to in dividual. Further, w hat h appen s if two in dividuals who m eet h ave different sequen ces? D ocs that relation ship end, do the individuals n egotiate sequ en ces, or does one per­ son follow the sequen ce preferen ces o f the other? T h ese qu estio n s are im por­ tan t becau se they define w hat h appen s in the d evelopm en t o f a relation ship in which the p articip an ts have different e xp e ctatio n s ab out the occurren ce or tim ing o f behaviors that may be indicative o f various stages. In dividuals arc

90

CHAPTER 6

likely to be more com patible w hen they have sim ilar e xp ectatio n s ab o u t rela­ tionship developm en t. A n o th er problem with the S V R m odel is role classification . W h at roles are partn ers assign ed to, friend, lover, best friend, an d so on? Leigh et al. (1987) had difficulty classifying in dividuals in the value and role stage s using M u rstein ’s (1986) m odel. T h e recognition o f this difficulty in classification h as resulted in an attem p t to set m ore precise stan d ard s for categorization . M urstein (1987) in dicated that “ inform ation on all classes o f variables a c ­ crues continuously, with the rate o f acceleration determ inin g the three stages ... Inform ation ab ou t valu es accu m u lates during the R stage, but not to the exten t it did during the V sta g e ” (p. 93 1 ). T h e problem s associated with the S V R m odel apply to other d ev elo p m en ­ tal m odels. Lewis (1973) posited a stage sequen ce in w hich individuals in i­ tially n otice sim ilarities to on e another, d evelop rapport and begin to sclf-disclosc, and cast them selves into roles vis-à-vis one another. Finally, the bond betw een the partn ers is crystallized or cem en ted. Yet the m ovem en t may n ot be sequ en tial b ecause individuals can develop rapport and then notice d issim ilarities from one another. In addition to these problem s associated with the SV R model, the develop­ m ental m odels present a view o f relationships as being relatively predictable, or­ derly, and rational to the extent that individuals progress through stages. This view o f relationships has been referred to as the linear assumption o f the develop­ ment of relationships. T h e linear assum ption has been criticized by a number of researchers on the basis that individuals seemingly skip some stages, do not prog­ ress through all the stages or have different rates o f m ovem ent through the stages. King and C h risten sen (1983) m odeled relation ships using a G u ttm an sc ale — an ad ditive scale in w hich the en dorsem en t o f certain item s is n e c e s­ sary before other item s can be endorsed. T h a t is, a G u ttm an scale presum es that an individual will endorse the item “ We have spen t a w hole day with ju st each o th e r” and “ I like you" before reporting “ I love y o u ,” and th at a d isc u s­ sion ab out becom ing en gaged or gettin g m arried will occu r before a discussion about living together. King and C h risten sen ’s scalc has six stages o f relational growth: (a) expres­ sion o f m utual attraction in term s o f the am ount and variety o f interaction in­ creasing, (b) identification by the social netw ork o f the individuals as a couple, (c) increase o f em otional investm ent as the participants identify their feelings as love and avoid rival rom antic involvem ents, (d) projection o f their relationship into the future while considering com m itm ent and m axim um levels o f interd e­ pendence, (e) coordination o f time, money, and activities for the benefit o f joint interests, and (f) com m itm ent to the perm anence and exclusiveness o f the rela­ tionship through engagem ent, living together, or m arriage. Som e o f these stages are sim ilar to the social-penetration escalatin g-stages m odel discussed by A ltm an and Taylor (1973) and K n app and V angelisti (1996).

D EVELOPM EN T OF RELATIONSHIPS

91

Th ere are a num ber o f exam ples in the literature o f n onsequential m ove­ m ent through the stages o f decaying relationships, the stages o f breaking up or relational disillusionm ent. Lee (1984) proposed a five-stage dissolution model: (a) discovery o f dissatisfaction, in w hich a problem , conflict, or dissatisfaction threatens the con tin uan cc o f the relationship, (b) exposure, in which dissatis­ faction is discussed with friends or the partner, (c) negotiation, which begins when serious discussion occurs concerning issues o f dissatisfaction, (d) resolu­ tion, which takes place when one or both partners reach a decision about the re­ lationship and any action to be taken, and (e) final transform ation, in which a change actually takes place. O th er researchers have found support for the om ission o f stages, calling the linear assum ption into question. For exam ple, Lee (1984) analyzed su b jects’ m em ories about 112 relational breakups and found that only 17% o f d isen gag­ ing relationships w ent through all o f the stages. C om plex scenarios or m ixed for­ m ats involving stage recycling included 31% o f the cases. O th er scenarios involved om ission o f the discussion o f dissatisfaction (26.8% o f c a se s). Lee con ­ cluded that although the ending o f relationships may be messy or uncontrolled, the in dividual’s retrospective memory recall suggested that the dissolution pro­ cess occurs in regularities. T h ese regularities include a high association betw een the dim ensions o f term ination (length o f the ending, and the con clusiveness or finality o f the ending) and the lack o f intim acy in the couple. T erm ination ch aracteristics were also asso ciated with n egative affect d u r­ ing a breakup, such as con fusion and fear, as well as in post-breakup behaviors w hen en cou n terin g the ex-partner. Lee (1984) also found that individuals re­ porting little or no com m u n ication ab out issues o f dissatisfactio n had shorter, less inten se relationships that also had less com m itm ent and were m ore su per­ ficial. Little or no com m u n ication during a breakup represents the om ission of the exposure and n egotiation stages in his m odel o f disen gaging relation ships. T h e om ission o f stages highlights the difficulty in identifying tran sition s b e­ tw een a d ja c en t stages.

Problem s in Identifying Stage Transitions.

T h e boundary points betw een

stages have been called into question. D uck (1988) indicated that although som e sequen cin g o f stages has been dem on strated in a num ber o f m odels, “ no precision or specificity as to their exact operation has been ad v an ce d ” (p. 73). He viewed proccss as the essential state o f all relationships and apparen t stab il­ ity as only a tem porary equalization o f opposing forces. Conville (1991) argued that developm ental m odels have not provided an adequate view o f relationship transitions because they fail to give priority to re­ lational partn ers’ personal narratives. O n the oth er hand, C onville believed that the m odels seem to grant priority to relationship dissolution when relation­ ships are placed in the arenas o f intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social interac-

CHAPTER 6

92

cion. Further, chere is no precision or specificicy as co che exacc operarion o f che transition betw een the stages. T h e lack o f precision about stage transitions is revealed in a study by Flays (1984) in which he exam ined the developm en t o f friendship over a 3 -m onth p e ­ riod am ong m ale and fem ale collcgc students. Stu d en ts were given a series of self-report behavior checklists as the year progressed asking their ratings o f indi­ viduals whom they believed might becom e good friends. D yads that developed into close relationships showed more intim acy o f disclosure and more talking about a variety o f topics. In the successfully progressing friendships, the num ber o f superficial and casual behaviors engaged in slightly increased from time 1 to time 2 and then decreased until time 4 was assessed. T h e num ber o f affection behaviors, as revealed in the expression o f positive or negative sentim ent to ­ ward the partner, rem ained relatively stable as the m onths passed. However, there was a gender difference: women engaged in more affection and casual com m un ication behaviors with their friends than did men. Finally, behaviors such as providing goods, services, or support were the best predictors o f the in­ tensity o f the friendship at the end o f the 3-m onth time period. Hays (1984) concluded that som e o f his findings supported the social pen e­ tration m odel o f relational developm ent. T h e initial interaction o f friends was found to correspond to a G uttm an-like progression from superficial talk to in­ creasingly intim ate levels o f behavior. Yet the em ergence o f intim ate behaviors was not gradual. A fter only 6 weeks, the dyads reached their peak in the re ­ ported num ber o f intimace behaviors perform ed, a pattern no different from that o f their nonintim ate exchange o f behaviors. It was interesting that after 3 weeks o f acq u ain tan ce, the activity o f doing things together was more related to friendship ratings than assessm ents o f how intim ate the com m unication was in the dyad. However, as time passed, the intim acy levels o f the dyads' interactions em erged as equally and, in som e cases, more associated with ratings o f friend­ ship com pared to the variety o f topics that were discussed. T h ese findings sug­ gest that as friendships develop, individual expectation s about and standards for evalu ating friendship may change. R E L A T IO N A L D IA L E C T IC M O D E L S T h e criticism s about linearity and stage definition have resulted in con tem p o­ rary developm en tal theorists revising the m odels. T h eir goal was to reflect the dialectic view that relationships never really achieve a particular stage or a steady state because there is continual negotiation and recalibration. A ltm an et al. (1981) argued for a dialectic m odel in which the form ation o f relationships is characterized by cyclicity in that relationships have elem ents o f stability and change that are cyclical. T h us, sequen tial m ovem ent is insufficient to explain the developm en t or decline o f relationships (A ltm an et al., 1981; Baxter, 1985; Taylor & A ltm an , 1987).

D EVELOPM EN T OF RELATIONSHIPS

93

T h e re is c o n tin u a l re c a lib ra tio n o f re la tio n sh ip ro les. R e latio n sh ip recalibration may be passive or active. For exam ple, spouses who achieve a cer­ tain level o f intim acy may give little thought to intensifying the relationship ex­ cept after argum ents or squabbles. O n the other hand, a person who wishes to m aintain a datin g relationship at an existing stage o f intimacy, although his or her partner w ants to intensify the intimacy, may withdraw from relationship a c ­ tivities and inform his or her partner o f the person’s hesitancy in escalatin g the intim acy in the relationship. V anLear (1987) found support for dialectic behaviors in the developm en t o f college friendships. He audiotaped 15 dyads that initially had no history o f in­ teraction. T h e dyads m et once a week for 30 m inutes over a 6-week period. They were given no instructions on w hat to talk about in order to create an e n ­ vironm ent for naturally occurring conversation. O v er time, V anLear found that private personal disclosures tended to increase, w hereas public (sm all talk and dem ographics) and sem iprivate disclosures (attitudes and opinions) revealed no system atic trend, reflecting an increase or decrease in these disclosure areas. R eciprocity o f disclosure at the sam e level o f intim acy was the rule rather than the exception from period to period. Reciprocity o f sem iprivate disclosure was more frequent and stronger than reciprocity o f public or private disclosure. Self-disclosure occurred in concurrent cycles o f reciprocal sm all talk and sem iprivate disclosures. T h u s, relational developm en t was not a strict linear process regarding the am ount and type o f disclosures. R esearch has revealed that dialectic behaviors (e.g., one partner discloses, but the other withdraws from the interaction) often reveal system atic patterns o f in teraction. T h is was referred to as the punctuation problem in com m unicative encounters by W atzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967). C urren t behaviors (e.g., H e ’s w ithdrawn.) are the result o f preceding behaviors by a relational p art­ ner (e.g., H e ’s nagging bccausc she was asking him personal questions about an issue he did not want to discuss. From her perspective, she asked him questions because he was n agging); the cause o f a given response is the effect o f a preced­ ing m essage. H ence, m essages are linked, and cause and effect are arbitrary la­ bels applied at particular times. In term s o f relational dialectics, Jo h n may be trying to escalate intim acy in a relationship bccausc he believes that M ary is w ithdrawing. O n the other hand, Mary is w ithdrawing because she sees Jo h n as m oving too fast. A t one level, these behaviors may seem to be uncoordinated actions and random m ovem ent in different stages o f a relationship, with one person escalatin g and the other de-escalatin g. Yet the dialectics are inherent in relationships because individual needs may be contrasted with relational obli­ gations or desires. D ialectic behaviors in relationships reflect changing interpersonal needs. In­ deed, Sch u tz’s (1958) classical interpersonal needs theory stressed that individ­ uals h ave n e e d s for in c lu sio n , c o n tro l, an d a ffe c tio n in a variety o f circum stan ces. G iven individual n eeds at specific times, m ovem ent may occur

94

CHAPTER 6

w ithin stages, such as an in dividual in creasin g physical affection b ut the partn er redu cin g the level o f affection in order to stabilize the relation sh ip at a p a rtic u ­ lar level o f intim acy. A lth ou gh m ovem en t seem s to be ran dom , there is the a s­ su m ption o f m ovem en t generally occurrin g through ad ja c e n t stages. Yet if relation sh ips arc dynam ic organ ism s, then how are o n e-n igh t stan d s, holiday ro m an ces, and life-long p laton ic friendships classified in term s o f sequ en tial m ovem en t? R esearch ers m ay be d ealin g w ith apples an d o ran ges an d referring to them as relation al fruit. T h e varying m ovem en ts through stages m akes the stage (or filter or ph ase) c o n c e p t difficult to apply with com plete con fid en ce. How d ocs o n e acc o u n t for m ovem en t backw ard to earlier stages? D ue to the re ­ pository o f m em ory an d exp erien ces, one can n ever go b ack to “ T h e Way We W ere," despite the title o f the m ovie. It is im possible to go b ack to earlier stages o f intim acy after reach in g a m ore intim ate stage b ecau se m em ory o f prior intim ate scen es affects how new in for­ m ation is p rocessed . C on ville (1991) argued th at b ecau sc o f m em ories the sam e even t can n o t occur. H u m an experien ce is presen ted as a spiral. D ue to memory, w henever on e rep eats an experien ce an d recognizes th at on e h as return ed to the experien ce, the fact o f recogn ition proves that one h as n ot returned to the sam e exp erien ce. In essen ce, m em ory is the e lem en t th at individuals b rin g b ack to the sam e place to ack n ow ledge th at it is n ot the sam e placc. R ep eated even ts are n ot the sam e even t; rather, rep eated ev en ts are even ts o f the sam e type (C on ville, 1991). A lt h o u g h a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t m o v e m e n t m a y b e d i a l e c t i c an d n o n seq u en tial, som e th eorists argued th at the d ecline o f relation sh ips o ften fol­ lows a reversal o f stages th at the partn ers progressed through w hile developin g the in tim ate bond (K n ap p &. V angelisti, 1996). Yet there is com pellin g eviden ce ag ain st this reversal h ypoth esis for d eclinin g relation sh ips (Baxter, 1985; D u ck &. L ea, 198 3 ). O n the on e h an d , B a x te r and M ontgom ery (1 996) review re ­ search th at foun d su pp ort for declin in g d isclosure for in dividuals reporting on the d isen gag em en t o f a recen t relation sh ip. H ow ever, she did n ot find supp ort for the reversal h ypoth esis on co m m u n icatio n c h aracte ristics regarding social know ledge o f o n e ’s partner. O th er research revealed that the diversity o f strategics for relation sh ip grow th is greater th an the num ber o f d isen gagin g strategies (B a x te r & M o n t­ gomery, 1996). T h e begin n in g o f a relation sh ip requires the agreem en t o f both partn ers in order to su cceed , w hereas d isen gag em en t m ay be accom p lish ed by on e party. B a x te r (1 985) argued th at the reversal h ypothesis is less useful as one shifts aw ay from em otio n -b ased featu res o f co m m u n icatio n to m ore c o g n i­ tion -based featu res. S ta g e s o f d isen gag em en t such as discovery o f d issatisfac­ tion, seein g o ne an o th er less often , and spen din g less tim e togeth er (e.g., K n ap p &. V angelisti, 1996; L ee, 1984) do not m irror stage s o f relation al grow th. In ­ stead , love an d d istan ce are con tin ually bein g n egotiated in relationships. In di­ viduals need v arying am o u n ts o f love or in d ep en d en ce, d epen din g on n eeds and circu m stan ces.

DEVELOPM ENT OF RELATIONSHIPS

95

Com m unication provides a mechanism for labeling feelings of love and de­ tachment. Yet, the early stage models have been criticized not only for ignoring dialectic needs but for following what Stephen (1987) referred to as a lock-and-key view of development that ignores communication as an ongoing, dynamic proccss in which roles emerge through interaction and negotiation. R e­ searchers have typically chosen to treat matching characteristics among individ­ uals as traits rather than as being relationally defined through social interaction. C ritic ism s o f R e la tio n a l D ia le ctic M o d els Criticism s o f dialectic models have also surfaced. First, they have been criticized for overstating the sequential argum ent at the expense of ignoring an assum p­ tion of developm ental models that allows for nonsequential movement. S e c ­ on d, the m odels h ave been criticized for m isre p re se n tin g the social construction o f reality by assuming that this only occurs through the negotia­ tion of meanings at a dyadic level and not within the individual. Berger (1993) disagreed with dialectical theorists who argue that develop­ m ental models do not adequately represent process and change and that dialec­ tical approaches are better able to explain nonsequential m ovem ent in relationships, as contrasted with smooth trajectories of growth and decay. Berger (1993) also criticized the belief of dialectical theorists that develop­ mental models focus on the individual and thus are not capable of explaining relationship-level phenom ena as the negotiation of m eaning and m utual understanding. From a dialectic view, the negotiation of mutual understanding is a dyadic and not an individual phenom enon. Individuals negotiate meanings to determine their appropriate roles in their relationships and the level of affect that is preferred. Recall from chapter 1 that Stephen (1994) discussed happy couples sharing a relationship worldview; he was not clear if this sharing is inci­ dental or negotiated. He indicated that people's conceptions of relationships are transformed by what is brought into the relationship and exposure to one another’s constructions of reality. In contrast, Berger (1993) argued that what people commonly call mutual understanding may arise from the joining of indi­ vidual systems o f knowledge. H ence, there is no negotiation, but instead a meeting point or juncture of experiences. This argum ent applies to happy couples sharing expectations for the devel­ opm ent and m aintenance o f their relationships, which is an assum ption o f the relational memory-structure approach, discussed in the next section and in chapter 8. Berger (1993) claimed that “ what appear to be ‘negotiated m eanings’ for relationships may in fact simply be the result o f overlap o f knowledge repre­ sentation systems that persons bring with them to relationships" (p. 54). T hese systems of knowledge include memories about relationships and cor­ responding expectations for how relationships develop, can be m aintained, or die; and they vary in complexity depending on one’s experiences or exposure to informational sources. Recall from chapter 1 that much o f this knowledge is

CHAPTER 6

96

know ledge o f failed relation sh ips (e.g., soap opera view ers m ay ex p e ct rom an ce to be w h im sical w ith infidelity a rule, not an e x cep tio n ). S O C IA L C O G N IT IO N : T H E M E M O R Y -ST R U C T U R E A P P R O A C H A s n oted in ch a p te r 2, it is im p ortan t to exam in e p e o p le ’s e x p e c tatio n s ab out the rise and dem ise o f rom an ce as part o f how they in terpret e v e n ts and co m m u ­ n ication in close relation sh ips. R elatio n sh ip s are sta te s o f m ind derived from prior experien ce, w hich organizes the p rocessin g o f inform ation . A n d ersen (1 993) w rote, “ We collab orativ ely can think relation sh ips into an d o u t o f e x is­ ten ce. B ecau se these relation al cogn itio n s exist for both partn ers and rarely m atch exactly, relation sh ips are tricky, dynam ic, an d som etim es fru stratin g" (p. 29). In deed, the study o f co m m u n icatio n and h u m an relation sh ips is intriguing b ecau se it takes two people to form on e, w hereas on e person alone can dissolve the relation sh ip. D u ck (1 9 8 6 ) argu ed th at re la tio n sh ip s sh o u ld be regard ed as ch a n gin g m e n tal an d b e h a v io ra l c re a tio n s o f p a rtic ip a n ts, w hich play a cru c ia l role in c re a tin g an d su sta in in g re la tio n sh ip s. Sim ilarly, B erger and R o lo ff (1 9 8 2 ) d is­ c u sse d th at the d e v e lo p m e n t o f re la tio n sh ip s can b est be u n d e rsto o d in term s ot in d iv id u als' e x istin g or e m e rg en t scrip ts th at en ab le the a n tic ip a tio n o f w hat is likely to h ap p en in a re latio n sh ip . For ex am p le , on e in d ivid u al m ay h ave a script for o p e n in g lin es to in tro d u ce o n e se lf to the o p p o site gen d er (K ellcrm an n et al., 1 9 8 9 ). E x p e c ta tio n s for ro m an tic rela tio n sh ip s cou ld in ­ clu d e b eh av io rs such as w alking in a p ark , p erio ds o f tou ch in g, in tim ate c o m ­ m u n ic atio n , an d an en d le ss array o f ac tio n s. T h e c o n c e p t o f stage has utility from a cogn itive p ersp ective. People have m em ory stru ctu res th at c on sist o f prototy pical b eh aviors th at they ex p e ct to o c ­ cur in e scalatin g an d d e -e sca latin g relation sh ips (H o n ey cu tt, 1993). T h e order o f the b eh aviors reflect stages for relation sh ips; thus, the c o n ce p t o f stage may be useful for exam in in g in d iv id u als’ p ercep tion s or beliefs ab ou t w hat should occu r during the course o f relation sh ips. M arriage th erapists often co n ten d th at a m ajor facto r in the decay o f m ar­ riages is the erron eous e x p e ctatio n s th at never-m arried people bring to their m arriages. H igh e x p e c tatio n s before m arriage may result in u n satisfactory o u t­ com es (Sab atelli, 1988). For e xam ple, never-m arried in dividuals tend to e xp ect higher levels o f sexu al activity, in terest in sex, d iscu ssion o f sexu al issues, c o m ­ pan ion sh ip, an d affection from their partn ers. T h e re are sim ilar e x p e ctatio n s w hen com parin g m arried and never-m arried individuals ab ou t d ealin g with con flict over daily d ecision s, recreation , and friends; regardin g the am o u n t o f arguin g over petty issues, agreem en t on lifestyle, the freedom to pursue frien d­ ships, jealou sy expressed by partner, an d the degree o f privacy. S a b a tc lli (1988) su ggested that a réévalu ation o f e x p e ctatio n s should take place after m arriage if

D EV ELO PM EN T OF RELATIONSH IPS

97

cou ples are to c on tin u e to be satisfied with their relation sh ips. T h e réévalu ation reflects an acc o m m o d atio n o f e x p e ctatio n s in order to ad ju st to new e x p e ri­ en ces in the m arriage. T h e m em ory structure ap p ro ach places im portan ce on the m en tal creation s o f relation sh ips based on m emory, talk, and e x p e c tatio n s th at su stain in d iv id u ­ als in everyday living. In ad dition , curren t relation al exp erien ces affect the re­ co n stru ctio n o f prior ev en ts in relation sh ips. R ecall from ch ap ter 3 that recon stru ctive m em ory is lon gitu din al— curren t feelings affect how ev en ts are recalled in a relation ship. A person w ho is currently angry is unlikely to recall m any positive e v e n ts from his or h er relation sh ip. T h e dev elo p m en tal m odels serve as a heuristic an ch or for p rocessin g rela­ tion sh ip b eh aviors (H o n ey cu tt, 1993). T h ey help people in terpret prior even ts in relation sh ips an d prescribe su b seq u e n t even ts. O th e r research also revealed th at prior e x p e ctatio n s may in fluence how people view curren t behaviors (N isb ett & R oss, 1980). Prior e x p e c tatio n s arc im portan t in decidin g w hat b e ­ h aviors are likely to c o -o cc u r together. For exam ple, if an older couple is o b ­ served eating lunch, h oldin g h an d s, an d kissing in a park, they m ay be initially seen as m arried by a stranger. Yet the couple m ay be h avin g an affair! T h e o b ­ served b eh aviors may be asso ciated m ore w ith a quality m arriage th an with a ro ­ m an tic affair b ecau se the b eh aviors o f d e m o n stratin g p h ysical affection arc part o f the o b se rv e r’s script for m arriage.

G E N D E R D IF F E R E N C E S IN I N T I M A T E R E L A T I O N S H I P S C R I P T S

T h e re are gen der differen ces in the com plexity o f relationship scripts. C o n sid er the excerpts in Box 6.1. T h e first is provided by a 24-year-old w om an w ho in di­ cate d h er e x p e ctatio n s for an in tim ate relation sh ip in a jo u rn al entry; the se c ­ ond is a jo u rn al ac c o u n t from a 28-year-old m arried m an . T h e se two stu d en ts were en rolled in an in terp erson al com m u n ication course an d kept c o m m u n ic a­ tion jou rn als for a 2-m on th period. T h e se excerpts were in response to a q u e s­ tion con cern in g person al e x p e c tatio n s for in tim ate relation ships. T h e stu d en ts were not exposed to the idea o f sc h e m a ta or scripts at the tim e o f their jou rn al keeping, and the excerp ts rep resen t the stu d e n ts’ th ou gh ts before bein g e x ­ posed to any theory o f relation al develop m en t. T h e ir e x p e ctatio n s reflect re­ c o n stru ctio n s o f m em ory ab ou t p revious relation sh ips. For exam ple, the w om an w rites ab o u t how her e x p e c tatio n ab ou t a p a rtn e r’s h onesty has been ch an ged by m em ories ab o u t relation sh ip activities from a prior relation ship. T h e italicized w ords in the jo u rn al e x trac ts in B ox 6.1 rep resent keyw ords that reveal a portion o f the w om an’s and m an ’s scripts or e x p e c tatio n s for an in­ tim ate relation sh ip. H er e x p e c tatio n s include com m itm en t, w illingness to in ­ vest in the relation sh ip, m u tu al respect, and equal division o f labor. T h e se

B o x 6.1

S a m p l e M e n ’s a n d W o m e n ’s E x p e c t a t i o n s for I n t i m a c y a n d R e l a t i o n s h i p s

Woman’s Expectations I have many expectations for intimacy. These expectations have been developed throughout my lifetime and have been derived from my own relationships, the in­ fluence of other's relationships, and my basic morals and beliefs. Basically, an inti­ mate relationship should establish a commitment from two people to continue to develop a deep, em otional tie which will stimulate and bring happiness to the cou­ ple. A nother expectation o f intimacy I have is the willingness to try, or give and take. 1 learned this the hard way. My boyfriend would always say, “You’re only happy when things go your way.” I was willing to try, but only enough to satisfy my own needs. Two people are not going to agree on every issue. Therefore, sometimes one person must accept what he doesn’t agree with and go on with matters. D isagree­ ments shouldn’t always be a battle with one opponent emerging as the “winner" and the other as the “ loser.” A nother expectation which ties into the idea o f trying is mutual respect. If there is m utual respect in a relationship, each person can un­ derstand the other’s beliefs and ideas without necessarily agreeing with them. The following expectation I hold, may have been influenced by the fact that I live in a small town where this is often seen. The old-fashioned stereotypical roles of the man as the “leader” and the woman as “passive” is an idea which I totally dis­ agree with. I believe in roles being equal. Th e following is an example of this notion. O ne day a married friend and I went shopping. She repeatedly said she had to be home at a certain time to fix her husband’s supper. This is only one example of people still conforming to stereotypical roles. I also feel that my friend probably would think she was not being a “good wife’’ if she did not conform to these behav­ iors. My belief on housekeeping is that all duties should be divided equally if both partners are employed. I would be willing to invest whatever it took (time, patience, em otional support, etc.) to make a relationship work, to the extent that my own identity was not lost in the process. Also, my efforts would be greatly affected by the honesty and sin­ cerity of the other person. Including this idea as well as others I hold have been changed by various memories about relationship activities while being involved in a six-year relationship. Although I may not know exactly what to expect o f a rela­ tionship such as marriage, I do have a more firm grip on what not to expect. M an ’s Expectations I have a number o f expectations for relationships. With the divorce rate so high, it is evident that very severe problems exist between men and women and society today. Those engaged couples arc constantly being reminded of the divorce rate as 9 8

DEV ELO PM EN T OF RELATIONSHIPS

99

they prepare to em bark on a life-long en cou n ter o f their ow n. A t this phase in my life, 1 thought, “ W e’re different. W e're older and m ore m ature than m ost couples. We share a lot o f common interests and we really love e ach other.” My wife and 1 have been m arried for 2 years and we h ave experien ced few argum en ts in th at time. M o st peop le w ould say th a t c o n stitu te s a good m arriage. I feel like my wife an d I have a good m arriage; however, I think th at m any relation sh ips exist w here there are con flicts an d there is still h app in ess b ecau se they can communicate with each other without being defensive. A ttitu d e s arc im portan t in determ in in g the quality o f a relation sh ip. You m ust learn to recognize stren gth s and w eakn esses in y ou rself and your partner. T h e m ost im portan t poin t for any two people to realize is th at conflict is inevitable. N o m atter how well you think you know a person, you will alw ays be surprised by som eth in g th at is said or by som e b eh avior th at they en gage in from tim e to tim e. Two people are goin g to h ave opp osin g ideas on certain issues. 1 think the key to su ccess is to know your partn er and be sympathetic to their n eeds. I look at rela­ tionships optim istically. My p aren ts h ave a good m arriage an d this is probably the reason I feel the way I do ab ou t the institution. M y views on life in gen eral today are very sim ilar to those o f my paren ts. 1 can also see resem b lan ces betw een my w ife’s b eh avior and the b eh avior o f her p aren ts. N ev erth eless, 1 think th at under­ standing is the key to a su ccessfu l m arriage an d this can only be ach ieved through effective communication.

a p p e a r t o b e key i n g r e d i e n t s o f a s a t i s f y i n g m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p for t h is w o m a n . T h e m a n ’s e x p e c t a t i o n s i n c l u d e s h a r i n g c o m m o n i n t e r e s t s , c o m m u n i c a t i n g e f ­ fe ctively, e x p e c t i n g c o n f l i c t , b e i n g s y m p a t h e t i c , a n d b e l i e v i n g t h a t o n e u n d e r ­ s t a n d s his o r h e r p a rtn er . T h e w o m a n ’s e x p e c t a t i o n s s e e m t o b e m o r e d e t a i l e d t h a n t h e m a n ' s e x p e c t a ­ t io n s . T h i s is c o n s i s t e n t w ith r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t i n g t h a t w o m e n m o n i t o r t h e ir p e r ­ s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s m o r e c l o s e ly t h a n d o m e n a n d a r e m o r e a w a r e o f e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g t h e life c y c l e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( R u b i n , P c p l a u , &. H ill, 1 9 8 1 ) . T h e w o m a n m e n t i o n s l e a r n i n g a b o u t r e l a t i o n s h i p s f r o m a w id e v a r i e t y o f s o u r c e s , w h e r e a s t h e m a n m e n t i o n s o n l y h is p a r e n t s . T h i s is c o n s i s t e n t w it h p r e ­ vi o u s l y r e p o r t e d g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s in r e p o r t e d s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t r e ­ latio n sh ip s. A l t h o u g h b o th g e n d e r s rep o rt le arn in g a b o u t re la tio n sh ip s from p a re n ts as a m a jo r so u rce , w o m e n h a v e re p o rte d le arn in g m o re a b o u t r e la tio n ­ s h i p s f r o m s i b l i n g s t h a n d o m e n ( H o n e y c u t t , C a n t r i l l , &. G r e e n e , 1 9 8 9 ) . T h i s h a s r e s u l t e d in s o m e s o c i a l - l e a r n i n g t h e o r i s t s a r g u i n g t h a t m o d e l i n g s a m e - g e n d e r b e h a v i o r is e a s i e r fo r w o m e n t h a n for m e n d u e t o t h e l e s s e r a v a i l a b i l it y o f f a ­ thers (A rliss, 19 9 1 ; Lynn, 1 9 6 9 ). O t h e r theorists h a v e s p e c u la te d th a t m e n m ay u s e t h e i r m o t h e r s as c o u n t e r - r o l e m o d e l s o n c c t h e y r e a liz e t h e i r m o t h e r s b e l o n g to t h e o p p o s i t e g e n d e r a t b e t w e e n 2 4 a n d 3 6 m o n t h s a f t e r b irth .

CHAPTER 6

100

T h e them es in the journal entries in Box 6.1 reflect the com pon en ts o f the various developm ental theories discussed in this chapter. T h e w om an in the journal entry is in a prem arital-engaged stage, w hereas the m an is in a stage o f the family life cycle referred to as young, childless, m arried couples (O lson et al., 1983). Social-exch an ge profits and resources arc reflected in the w om an’s jo u r­ nal entry. T h e w om an refers to her boyfriend’s believing that she was only happy when her needs were satisfied. In addition, the w om an refers to equal division o f housekeeping duties, as well as m aking references to investing time and em o­ tional support in the relationship. T h e w om an refers to the satisfaction o f her own needs. T h is statem en t reflects interpersonal needs theory in which there is an em phasis on the satisfaction o f interpersonal needs, which may include d e­ sires for affection, control, and being recognized as a unique individual with self-worth (Schütz, 1958). T h e journal entries are com patible with existing research on gender differ­ ences in recall about relational events. W omen have more vivid m em ories o f re­ lationships events than do men (Harvey, Flannery, et al., 1986). Women are socialized to be more concerned with relationships and to be more aware of the feelings o f others than are m en (D eaux, 1976), which suggests that they think about relationships differently or have different expectation s about them . T h e w om an notes that she learned about giving and taking “ the hard way” and cites a specific m essage. Traditionally, the two genders have been socialized differently in terms o f gender-role orien tation in ways that affect perceptions o f relationships. For ex­ am ple, w omen have been socialized to be cooperative, nurturant, and support­ ive, and to seek self-identity in term s o f their relationships with others, w hereas men have been socialized to be com petitive, independent, aggressive, and less expressive o f em otions (Pearson, Turner, & .T odd-M anchillas, 1991). M em ories and expectation s about relationships as a function o f gender are likely to reflect differences in gender-role socialization by parents, peers, and the m edia. SU M M A R Y Th ere is a long legacy o f research in developm ental com m unication based on the idea o f relationships developing through a series o f stages. D evelopm ental m odels have been criticized for problem s in stage identification; specifying the direction, speed, and rate o f m ovem ent; and using a researcher’s im posed view o f w hat the stages are. A fact that has been ignored by critics is that early a s­ sum ptions in these m odels allowed for n onsequential m ovem ent. A s a result o f these criticism s, developm en tal m odels were m odified and expan ded. A cognitive approach addresses som e o f these problem s by looking at the role o f expectation s for the developm en t o f rom ance. R elationships are initially cre­ ated in people's minds, even though it is com m unication and observable b eh av ­ ior that constitute the relationship (D uck, 1993). T h ere is evidence o f gender

D EVELOPM EN T OF RELATIONSHIPS

101

differences in relational expectation s. Women have a greater recall o f relational events and more detailed expectation s for relational developm ent than do men. D espite their lim itations, developm ental m odels have extended researchers’ understanding ot com m unication across the lifespan o f rom antic relationships. C om m u nication varies over the course o f relationships and serves different functions, such as bonding, increasing intimacy, decreasing intimacy, and rein­ forcing the relationship. Individuals often ask them selves, “ W here is this rela­ tionship h ead ed ?” T h e m odels have provided a fram ework in which to understand where relationships may be headed in term s o f a trajectory. D IS C U S S IO N Q U E S T IO N S 6.1 D iscuss your expectation s about the following relationships: dating, sam e-gen der best friend, mentor, p aren t-ch ild , and m arriage, (a) How com plex are these expectation s? (b) H ave your relationship e x p ecta­ tions changed or been relatively stable over the years? 6 .2 How is m otion the fun dam en tal property o f relationships? Why can ’t couples just walk off into the sunset and live happily ever after? 6 .3 How can high levels o f expectation s for close personal relationships af­ fect satisfaction with the relationship? Would you counsel individuals to have high or low levels o f relational expectation s, or no expectation s at all, when entering into new relationships? A P P L IC A T IO N S 6 .1 Interview three m en and three wom en. A sk them about their e x p e c ta­ tions for a rom antic and for a platonic relationship. C om pare the m en’s responses with the w om en’s responses. D oes one group have more or less articulated expectation s? 6 .2 D iscuss Fish er’s (1994) physiological love stages o f infatuation, atta c h ­ m ent, and detach m en t with a group containing m en and women. A sk a m ixed-gender group w hat they think about the idea o f love being h ard­ wired in the brain’s neurotransm itters.

7 Memory Structures for Developing Relationships

Stu dies o f memory structures for escalatin g rom ances have unearthed an inter­ esting array o f behaviors that characterize their developm ent. T h is chapter re­ ports on the results o f a series o f studies that reveal the variety in the am ount o f repetitiveness found in generating lists o f expectation s for relational growth. First, that som e individuals restate action s, w hereas others m ention only unique behaviors, is discussed. T h is redundancy may be associated with having sim ple expectation s for evolving relationships. Individuals cite recurring b e­ havior such as sharing time together and ignore a variety o f other behaviors that may have been infrequently or only once, such as m eeting parents for the first time. Secon d, the results o f a study con cerning the con ten t o f escalatin g m etam em ory structures as a function o f the num ber o f personal relationships an individual reports having had and his or her general beliefs that relationships follow a set pattern arc reported. Th ird, the correspondence betw een the likeli­ hood o f a sub ject’s m entioning certain behavioral expectation s and the num ber o f intim ate relationships the person has been in is exam ined. T h us, serial lovers can be unm asked by knowing w hat expectation s predict m ultiple relationships. Following this discussion, there is an exam in ation o f differences in the typicality and necessity o f expected behaviors. Som e behaviors may be more or less typical and necessary in order for a relationship to develop. For exam ple, engaging in sexual intercourse before marriage may be typical but not necessary for intim acy to develop. Typicality and necessity ratings o f relational behaviors are also ex­ am ined for their ability to predict individual beliefs that relationships follow a 102

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S KOR D EVELOPIN G R E L A T IO N SH IP S

103

set pattern. N ext, the tem poral ordering o f behaviors is analyzed to assess the degree o f agreem ent about their sequen cin g and determ ine if the tem poral o r­ der o f the behaviors reflects the stages o f relational growth discussed in chapter 6. T h e ad ditional results o f a story segm en tation study are reported as an alter­ native m ethod o f discovering where individuals separate clusters o f relational actions. Finally, gender differences in these studies are reported. R E D U N D A N C Y A N D T H E C O M P L E X IT Y O F E S C A L A T IN G M EM O R Y S T R U C T U R E S Early studies o f script generation m ade the assum ption, in term s o f inform ation theory, that the statin g o f action s is relevant and non redundan t. For exam ple, subjects were told to write a list o f expected actions for a given situation with each line representing one action. T h ere were individual differences in the num ber o f gen erated actions, with som e subjects writing more actions. T h e dif­ ferences were interpreted as the degree o f experience in the con textu al area. However, coun ting the num ber o f action lines may not be a good representation o f the com plexity o f the m em ory-structure action s. Individuals may repeat a c ­ tions in a num ber o f lines and this repetition o f actions may reflect the recycling o f action s throughout a relationship and the enduring pervasiveness o f the a c ­ tions. For exam ple, arguing may occur throughout the history o f a relationship. Yet subsequent argum ents will be influenced by the memory o f previous argu­ m ents; therefore, the sam e exact event does not occur because o f this memory. B ccau sc o f memory, w henever in dividuals go around in a circle o f even ts (e.g., recurren t co n v ersatio n s ab out the sam e topic) and seem to wind up where they started, the fact they recognize th at they have returned in dicates that they have n ot really returned to the sam e place. T h is type o f recollection is reflected in statem en ts like, “ W e’ve discussed this m any tim es b efo re.” C on ville (1991) added, “T h e ‘p la c e ’ is now grow n over with m em ories. M em ­ ory is the one thing that we bring back to the ‘sam e ’ place th at keeps it from b e ­ ing the sam e p la ce" (p. 65). Even th ough peop le may recycle e x p e c ta tio n s for the d e v e lo p m en t o f re­ latio n sh ip s, the recyclin g also m ay reflect an in ability to ge n e ra te a diversity o f actio n s. T h is lack o f diversity could be in terp reted as reflectin g sim plistic e x p e c tatio n s. B u rn e tt (1 9 9 0 ) b elieved th at in d iv id u als are n ot very m indful or brigh t ab o u t w hat is goin g on in their re latio n sh ip s; peop le often do not pau se to reflect on their relatio n sh ip s. B u rn ett asked su b je cts to think ab o u t relatio n sh ip s they recen tly h ad th o u g h t a lot ab o u t. N e g a tiv e life even ts such as like illn ess and p erio ds o f tran sitio n were e v e n ts th at stim u late d re la ­ tio n al th ou gh t. T h e a c c o u n ts revealed th at p erso n al relatio n sh ip s are th o u g h t ab ou t frequen tly b ut su p erficially ; they w ere in the form o f sum m ary sta te m e n ts an d lack ed detail. B u rn e tt ev en w on dered ab o u t the e x te n t to w hich p a rtic ip a n ts were b iased by the study to the e x ten t they felt they had

104

CHAPTER 7

to c o m e up w ith s o m e t h i n g for th e e x p e r im e n t e r . A d d i t i o n a l d a t a r e v e a l e d t h a t s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d th e d iffic ulty o f t h i n k i n g o f a reply to a q u e s t i o n a b o u t w ritin g to a frien d a b o u t “ w h a t y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p with X is li k e ? ” T h u s , re c y ­ c lin g m a y r e v e a l th e in ab ility to c ite a v a r i e t y o f d i s t i n c t a c t i o n s a n d i n a t t e n ­ tio n to r e l a t i o n a l e v e n t s . B o x 7.1 c o n ta in s s a m p le s m e n ’s an d w o m e n ’s e s c a la t in g m e m o ry structures t h a t highlight differen ces in redu nd an cy . N o t e d th a t these m e m o ry structures are different in term s o f their stru c tu re an d c o n t e n t from the sa m p le m arriage s c h e m a in c h a p t e r 6. R e la t io n a l s c h e m a t a do n ot reflect b e h a v io rs in a tim e-ord e re d s e q u e n c e , as d o c s the m e m o r y structure. T h e re lation al m e m o r y s tr u c ­ ture is a type o f s c h e m a th a t reflects t im e - o r d e re d b e h a v io rs in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a relation ship. A t first g la n c e , the m a n ap p e a r s to m e n ti o n 20 action s, w h e rea s his partner, the w o m a n , refers to 14 action s. R e s e a r c h reveals that w o m e n m e n tio n m ore un iqu e a c tio n s th a n d o m e n in term s o f their e x p e c t a ­ tio n s for d e v e lo p in g re la tion sh ips (H o n e y c u t t, Can trill, et al., 1 9 8 9 ). H owever, in the sa m p le m a le m e m o r y structure, n o te th a t s o m e o f his a c tio n s are r e d u n ­ d a n t , such as callin g (a c t io n lines 3, 10, an d 11). A c t i o n lines 4, 5, an d 7 c o n ­ c e rn go in g out. T h e r e is a difference in specificity; simply go in g o u t (line 4) is m ore v a g u e th a n go in g to a b ar (line 5). T h e w o m a n ’s m e m o ry stru c tu re reveals less r e d u n d a n c y (a ctio n lines 4 an d 5). T h e m a n ’s e x p e c t a t i o n s in B o x 7.1 refer to c y clical p a t t e r n s o f ar g u in g an d g e t tin g b a c k t ogeth er. O n the o t h e r h a n d , b o th m e m o r y s tr u c tu r e s refer to in i­ tial m e e tin g , s h a r in g tim e together, th e e xc lu siv ity o f the d e v e l o p i n g r e l a t i o n ­ ship, o v e r c o m i n g crisis (e.g., a r g u m e n t s , p a r e n t a l i n te rf e re n c e , a n d b re a k in g u p ), a n d e n d i n g the r e la tio n s h ip or g e t ti n g m a rrie d . T h e s e a c t i o n s re flect c o m m o n e v e n t s t h a t a n u m b e r o f i n d iv id u a ls m e n t i o n in their m e m o r y s t r u c ­ tures. T h e s e s a m p l e s h ig hlig ht the d i a l e c t ic s o f e s c a l a t i o n in te r m s o f c o n flic t a b o u t re l a ti o n a l p r o b le m s. A l t h o u g h there is a p r o g r e ss io n to w a rd intimacy, there is also the d ia l e c t ic o f the re l a ti o n s h i p possibly e n d i n g (see a c t i o n lines 20 an d 14 in the tw o m e m o r y s tr u c tu r e s ). Further, a l t h o u g h ar g u in g is a c o m ­ m on ly m e n t i o n e d b e h a v i o r for d e - e s c a l a t i n g m e m o r y s tr u c tu r e s , it is p a rt o f r e l a ti o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e m e ta m c m o r y - g e n e r a t io n i n stru ction s a s s u m e G r i c e ’s (1 9 7 5 ) m a x im s o f re le v a n ce an d n o n re d u n d an c y , in which in dividuals write or s p e a k in o rd e r to be in fo rm ative w ith ou t b e in g too re d u n d a n t. A prob lem with these a s s u m p ­ tions, d i sc u sse d by R o s c h , M ervis, Gray, J o h n s o n , an d G r a e m (1 9 7 6 ) , is th a t in ­ dividuals use a c t io n - s u m m a r y term s (e.g., “ H e kissed her,” to in d ica te physical affection ) ra th e r th a n discrete, m ic ro s c o p ic term s th a t s e g m e n t ac tio n s (e.g., “ H e a p p r o a c h e d h er with his eyes fixated on her lips. H e t o u c h e d his lips to her lips. H e o p e n e d his m o u t h an d e x t e n d e d his to n g u e to her t o n gu e . T h e interface be tw e e n lips an d ton gu e c o n ti n u e d for a few s e c o n d s . ”). T h e a c t io n -s u m m a r y term s are m ore likely to be r e d u n d a n t, w h e rea s discrete term s are m ore specific a n d less likely to repeat. A s n o te d previously, this is a p p a r e n t in a c tio n s four an d five o f the m a n ’s e x p e c t a ti o n s in B o x 7.1, in w hich a c t io n 4 (g oin g out) is m ore ab s t ra c t t h a n ac t io n 5 (goin g to a bar).

B o x 7.1

S am p le Escalatin g M em ory Stru ctu re s Illustrating R e d u n d a n t A ction s M a n 's E sc a la tin g E xp ectation s

P articip ant: 1 8 - y e a r- o ld m a n , b e e n in t h r e e to fiv e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t a l k e d a b o u t r e l a t i o n s h i p s with friends an d p aren ts 1. P a rty — m e e t a t frie n d s 2. G e t t h e ir p h o n e n u m b e r 3. C a l l th e n e x t d a y C. 4. G o o u t t h a t n i g h t G. 5. G o to a b a r G 6. D o n ’ t ta lk a b o u t a n y t h i n g i m p o r t a n t 7. G o to a p a r k , e t c . G_ 8 . M e s s a r o u n d (a little) 9. G o h o m e 10. C a l l th e n e x t d a y C 11. T h i s g o e s o n for a w hile C. 12. U n t i l o n e day, th e y fin d t h e y ’re c o m m i t t e d . 13. F o r g e t a b o u t t h e ir frie n d s 14- S e e e a c h o t h e r e v e r y d a y 15. B r e a k - u p a n d m a k e - u p p a t t e r n s 16. A r g u e gr e a t ly b u t a l w a y s s e e m to g o b a c k to e a c h o t h e r 17. By n o w t h e y h a v e g o t t e n i n to h e a v i e r t h in g s 18. P a r e n t s ar e a n n o y e d 19. W a n t to finally b r e a k t h e m up 2 0. E v e n t u a l l y t h e y d o & it ’s o v e r W om an's E sc a la tin g E xp ectation s P articip ant: 1 8 - y e a r- o ld w o m a n , b e e n in o n e to t w o r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t a l k e d a b o u t r e l a t i o n s h i p s w ith frie n d s 1. M e e t e a c h o t h e r — a t a party, in c l a s s , o r s o m e s o rt o f s o c i a l g a t h e r i n g 2. B e c o m e i n f a t u a t e d or f a s c i n a t e d w ith e a c h o t h e r 3. B e g in to ta lk re g u l a r l y / s e m i- r e g u l a r l y 4. G o to a pa rty o r s o c i a l e v e n t t o g e t h e r G 5. G o o u t in o n e - o n - o n e s i t u a t i o n s G_ 6. S t a r t to b e c o m e e m o t i o n a l l y i n v o l v e d w ith o t h e r ’s fe e l i n g s a n d t h o u g h t s 7. S o m e fo rm o f i n t i m a t e c o n t a c t 8 . D e c i d e to h a v e a r e l a t i o n s h i p 9. R e l a t i o n s h i p i n t e n s i f i e s / e n j o y e a c h o t h e r ’s c o m p a n y 10. R e a c h a p l a t e a u — s o r t o f a b o r i n g t im e in r e l a t i o n s h i p 11. S t u m b l e o n a p r o b l e m in r e l a ti o n s h i p / o c c a s i o n a l l y b r e a k u p b u t n o t p e r m a n e n t l y 12. B a c k o n t ra c k 13. K n o w e a c h o t h e r very well 14. E v e n tu a lly b re ak u p or m arriage d e p e n d i n g upo n w hich way the re la tion sh ip g o e s Note. Redundant actions arc indicated by the underlined abbreviations: C, calling, G, going out.

103

106

CHAPTER 7

T h e m e m o r y - stru c tu re g e n e r a ti o n p r o c e d u re also a s s u m e s th a t G r i c e ’s (1 9 7 5 ) m a x im o f n o n r e d u n d a n c y le ads in dividu als to d escrib e activities at a p ­ p roxim ate ly the s a m e level an d th a t the n atu re o f the g e n e ra tin g task m o t iv a t e s them to re ve a lin g “ norm ally b orin g details within a script" (B o w e r et al., 1979, p. 183). T h e c a lc u la tio n o f a r e d u n d a n c y c oefficient re ve a ls th a t this a s s u m p ­ tion is n o t totally s u p p o rte d (H o n e y c u t t, C an trill, et al., 19 8 9 ). T h e coefficient is c a lc u la te d in s u c h a way t h a t h igher v a lu e s reflect less re d u n d a n c y ; the ratio o f the n u m b e r o f u n iq u e a c tio n s divided by the tota l n u m b e r o f ac tio n lines a pe rso n records in the g e n e ra tio n task. T h e m e a n r e d u n d a n c y for e sc alatin g m c t a m c m o r y stru c tu re s is 0 .7 0 , w hich i n d ica te s a slight de gre e o f re p etitiven ess (H o n e y c u t t, C an trill, et al., 19 8 9 ). T h e co rr e latio n c oe ffic ie n t may ran ge from - 1 . 0 to 1.0 an d re p re se n ts the de gre e o f a s s o c ia t io n b e tw e e n two variables, in this c a s e r e d u n d a n c y an d the n u m b e r o f total ac tio n s. A score o f 1.0 w ould be perfect n o n re d u n d an c y , in w hich the n u m b e r o f n o n r e p e a te d a c tio n s e q u a ls the total n u m b e r o f listed ac tio n s. A s the n u m b e r o f ac t io n lines in creases, so doe s the probability o f re du nd an cy . T h e c orre latio n (r) or as s o c iatio n b e tw e e n the len gth o f a n e s c a la t in g m e m o r y stru c tu re an d r e d u n d a n c y is sign ifican t (r = - 0 . 5 4 , p < .0 01; H o n e y c u tt , C an trill, et al., 1989). A prob lem with the r e d u n d a n c y m e a s u r e is t h a t n u m b e r o f a c tio n s t h a t a pe rso n lists is n o t re v e a led in the ratio. For e x a m p le , a p e r so n listing only on e st a t e m e n t w ould h a v e n o r e d u n d a n c y (1/1 = 1.00) w h e reas a person listing four an d five u n iq u e tota l s t a t e m e n t s w ould h a v e m o r e r e d u n d a n c y (4/5 = 0 . 8 0 ) . A pe rso n m e n tio n in g 20 ac tio n s, in w hich 15 are un ique , w ould h av e the lowest sc ore o f the three (0 .7 5 ). T h e s e are isolated e x a m p le s. People m e n tio n an a v e r ­ ag e o f 11.53 a c tio n s (ran ge: 3 - 2 0 ac tio n s, sta n d a r d d e v ia t io n = 3 . 9 3 ). T h e m e a s u r e is va lid b e c a u s e a p e rso n m e n tio n in g only o n e a c tio n is n ot r e d u n d a n t, but is simplistic. R e d u n d a n c y is n ot m e a n t to reflect the le n gth o f a person's m e m o r y structure. However, a pe rso n listing m o r e a c tio n s with low r e d u n d a n c y has a m ore c o m p l e x set o f e x p e c t a ti o n s th a n a pe rso n listing o n e ac tion . T h e d a t a p r e se n t e d in this c h a p t e r an d in c h a p t e r 8 on the n u m b e r o f re lation al a c ­ tions g e n e ra te d by m e n a n d w o m e n take the a m o u n t o f r e d u n d a n c y for e a c h in­ dividual into a c c o u n t in c o m p u t i n g the n u m b e r o f g e n e r a te d ac tio n s. F ollow ing arc the results o f a c o n t e n t analysis o f e s c a la t in g m e m o ry structures.

C O N T E N T O F E S C A L A T IN G M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S

T h e r e arc differen ces b e tw e e n in dividu als w ho h a v e n e v e r b e en in a n in tim ate r o m a n c e an d those w ho h av e b e e n in at le ast o n e , in term s o f believin g t h a t r e la ­ tion sh ips follow a c o n s ist e n t p a tte rn . In dividuals w ho h a v e n e v e r b e e n in a p r e ­ vio u s in tim a te re la tion sh ips re port fewer e x p e c t a ti o n s a b o u t w hat s h o u ld o c c u r in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a relation ship c o m p a r e d to in dividuals w ho h a v e b e en in ­ vo lv e d in re la tion sh ips (H o n e y c u t t, C an trill, c t al., 19 8 9 ). O n the o t h e r h an d,

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S KOR D EVELOPIN G R E L A T IO N SH IP S

107

the two groups generate approxim ately the sam e num ber o f actions that are per­ ceived to characterize a developing relationship. A sam ple o f 102 men and 120 women from introductory speech com m un ica­ tion classes at the U niversity o f Illinois were asked to write a list o f up to 20 a c ­ tions that were typical in developing an intim ate relationship and put them in the order in which they occur (H oneycutt, Cantrill, et al., 1989). T h e students ranged in age from 17 to 25, with an average age o f 18.24. They had not been e x ­ posed to the academ ic literature associated with relational developm ent and com m un ication . Previous studies used a form with 20 blank lines in order not to m ake the task cum bersom e (Bower, et al., 1979; Pryor & Mcrluzzi, 1985). In ad ­ dition, pilot studies in which no limit was specified revealed that no individual generated more than 20 actions. From the sam ple o f 217 individuals, the av er­ age num ber o f actions listed was 12 and the range was from 3 to 20 actions. However, only five individuals used all 20 lines. Box 7.2 presents the list o f actions and underlying phases that characterize a developing rom ance, coded from the stu d en ts’ lists. T h e students were asked to begin the list with two individuals m eeting for the first time and end the list with the individuals expressing a long-term , serious com m itm ent to each other. They were instructed to report behaviors (e.g., saying hello) and avoid inferences (e.g., reporting feeling or e m o tio n s). T h e reason for distinguishing betw een b e­ havioral activities and inferences is that inferences often are an outcom e o f a se­ ries o f underlying behaviors. For exam ple, a person listing as an action “Feeling inseparable, more in tim ate” is reporting on feelings that may be associated with several underlying behaviors such as self-disclosure, displays o f physical affec­ tion, and sharing activities together. A s revealed in Box 7.2, the m ost frequently listed activities were m eeting, calling, sm all talk, show ing physical affection, datin g, en gaging in inform al a c ­ tivities, self-disclosure, m eeting paren ts, giving gifts (bonding ritu a l), m aking a com m itm ent, sexu al in tercou rse, m aking oth er-orien ted statem en ts, and getting m arried. E ach o f these action s were m entioned by 25% or m ore o f the p articipan ts. Box 7.2 also reveals actions m entioned less often. O vercom ing a relational cri­ sis (jealousy, uncertainty, arguing) was listed by 13% o f the sam ple. Talking about the future in terms o f a couple or “ we” orientation was m entioned by 16% o f the participants. In this regard, Knapp and Vangelisti (1996) discussed that individu­ als use the plural pronoun “ we” in referring to future activities. T h e verbal expres­ sion o f love was m entioned by 18% o f the sample, whereas 7% reported living together (cohabitation) as an expectancy for relational developm ent. Bower et al. (1979) used a decision rule o f 25% o f subjects m entioning an a c ­ tion for its inclusion into a prototypical m etam em ory structure. T h is rule was based on exam ining the distribution o f the frequency o f responses and deter­ m ining where a distinct gap existed. U sin g the 25% decision rule, a distinct gap was evident in this study betw een two behaviors m entioned by 26% o f the sub ­

I OK

CHAPTER 7

je cts an d the n ext m ost frequently m en tion ed b eh avior a t 18% . O n this b asis, 13 actio n s co n stitu te the prototypical m em ory structure. S o m e o f the esc alatin g m em ory-structure actio n s h ave been reported as turn in g poin ts in developin g ro m an tic relation sh ips. B a x te r and Bullis (1986) defined a turning point in a relation sh ip as any even t th at is asso ciate d with ch an ge in the relation sh ip. T h e y surveyed ro m an tic college cou ples and asked them to identify all o f the turn in g poin ts in their relation sh ips since their first m eeting. Fou rteen turn in g p oin ts w ere identified, several o f w hich ap pear in the study presen ted in B ox 7.2. “ G e ttin g to know the o th e r” occu rs in m any o f the m em ory-structurc activities, su ch as initial m eeting, sm all talk, datin g, sharin g tim e together, self-disclosure, an d overco m in g crisis. “Q u ality tim e ,” w hich in ­ cluded m eetin g the fam ily an d sp ecial o ccasio n s, is an o th er o f the identified m em ory-structure actio n s. “ P assio n ,” w hich referred to e v e n ts in volving physi­ c al or em o tio n al affection betw een the partn ers; and in tercou rse, kissing, and saying “ I love you” reflect the m em ory-structure actio n s o f ph ysical affection an d verb al expression o f love. “ E xclusivity,” w hich con sisted o f a jo in t decision to be rom an tically in volved with only one an o th er as well as b reak in g any ro ­ m an tic liaisons with others excep t o n e ’s p artn er is reflected in the “ verbal c o m ­ m itm e n t” m e m o ry -stru c tu re e x p e c tan c y . “ S e rio u s c o m m itm e n t,” w hich reflected living togeth er or gettin g en gaged, ap pears as c o h ab ita tio n ,a n o th e r o f the esc alatin g m em ory-structure actio n s. “ S a crific e ,” w hich in volved offering assistan ce to o n e ’s partn er w hen he or she is experien cin g p erso n al problem s as well as giving gifts or favors, m irrors the bon din g-ritual exp ectan cy in w hich re ­ lation al partners exch an ge m em en to s an d gifts. It is in terestin g th at direct talk ab ou t the relation sh ip w as in volved in the turning poin ts o f exclusivity, passion , and serious com m itm en t. T h u s, d isclo ­ sure ab o u t sta tu s o f the relation sh ip w as im portan t in turn in g poin ts. T h is is re­ flected in the escalatin g m em ory-structure e x p e c tatio n s in the sep arate action s o f self-disclosure an d verb al com m itm en t. A n um ber o f the oth er m em orystru ctu re actio n s also reflect direct talk ab o u t relation sh ip statu s, such as the use o f p artn er-orien ted sta te m e n ts reflectin g in terest in the oth er person ’s goals an d talkin g ab ou t future plans as a couple. O bviously, the sta te m e n t “ I love you” reflects the m em ory stru ctu re e x p e c tatio n o f verbal exp ression s o f love. B a x te r an d Bullis (1986) in d icated th at relation sh ip d ev elo p m en t can be seen as a series o f d iscrete ev en ts acco m p an ied by positive or n egative in d ica­ tions o f com m itm en t. S u ch e v en ts may be self-con tain ed p ack ag es o f im portan t b eh aviors th at are easier to recall th an sub tle, in crem en tal ch an ge s in re latio n ­ ships. T h e se ev en ts m ay be salien t b ccau sc they provide useful story lines to rem inisce or presen t a c o u p le ’s relation sh ip to oth ers. T h e specific turn in g poin ts identified by B a x te r and B ullis p rovide som e in sights in to in d ivid u al’s im ­ plicit theories ab ou t relation sh ip d ev elo p m en t. For exam ple, the quan tity o f tim e may be an im portan t early in d icato r o f ro m an ce, w hereas quality tim e b e ­ com es m ore critical for intim acy to d evelop. Further, the turning p oin t e ven t e x ­ clusivity show s the salien ce o f loyalty an d fidelity in im plicit theories o f ro m an tic relation sh ips.

Box 7.2

Behavioral Expectations for Escalating M etam em ory Structure

B eh av io ral E x p e ctatio n *

Percen tage of

S o cial-p en etratio n

S u b je cts

Stage/P h ase

M e n tio n in g A c tio n 1. M e e t f o r f i r s t t i m e

97%

In itiatin g

(party, c la s s , o ffic e , e tc .) 2 . A s k f o r o t h e r ’s p h o n e

57%

n u m b e r an d call later 3. S m a l l talk

69%

(d isc u ss w eath er, s c h o o l, e tc.) 4- F o r m a l D a t e

92%

E x p erim en tin g

(d i n n e r , m o v i e , c o n c e r t , e t c . ) 5. S h o w p h y s i c a l a f f e c t i o n

43%

(k iss, h u g, t o u c h , e tc .) 6 . E n g a g e in j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s

64%

(in fo rm a l tim e sp e n t to g e th e r) 7. S e lf - d is c lo s u r e o f

52%

In ten sify in g

8. S e x u a l in te r c o u r s e

26%

In tegratin g

9. M e e t p a r e n t s or in -law s

26%

10. B o n d in g ritu al

30%

in tim ate in fo rm atio n

(g iv in g flo w e r s, g ifts, jew elry, m e m e n to s, se n tim e n ta l ob jects) 11. O t h e r - o r ie n te d

54%

statem en ts* (co m m u n icate i n t e r e s t in e a c h o t h e r ’s o r ie n ta tio n s , g o als, e tc.) 12. V e rb al c o m m i t m e n t *

49%

(b o th p a r tn e r s talk a b o u t a lon g-term relatio n sh ip ) 13. M a r r ia g e

28%

14. C o h a b it a t i o n

7%

15. O v e r c o m e crisis

13%

B o n d in g

(jealo u sy , u n c e rtain ty , argu in g) 16. T a lk a b o u t fu tu re p la n s

16%

17. V e rb a l e x p r e s s i o n o f love

18%

18. M i s c e l l a n e o u s b e h a v i o r s

21%

" A s te ric k (*) in d ic a te s p r o to ty p ic a l m e m o r y - s t ru c t u re a c t i o n s in w hich 25% or m ore o f p a rt ic ip a n ts m e n t i o n e d the e x p e c t a t i o n .

109

CHAPTER 7

110

E ach actio n in the esc alatin g m etam em ory structure rep resents a d iscrete m em ory-structure e x p e ctatio n in an d o f itself. So m e o f these actio n s m ay be re ­ called as turn in g poin ts in the d ev elo p m en t o f a relation sh ip. T h u s, a m em ory structure for relation al esc alatio n could include scen es o f m eetin g at a party, class, video d a tin g service, office, an d so on . In the accessed sccn cs, there may be scripted lines o f d ialogue (e.g., “ H i, my nam e is Jo h n . D o you think you will like this course in family co m m u n icatio n ? I am takin g it as an e le c tiv e .”). R ecall from c h ap ter 3 th at in dividuals ten d to h ave co n v e rsatio n al e x p e c tatio n s for initial e n co u n ters regardin g the c o n te n t and orderin g o f state m e n ts. C asu a l speech such as the initial en co u n ters co n ta in s speech acts o f gettin g an d d is­ cu ssin g in form ation, e v alu atin g it, providing e xp lan atio n s, and possibly d isc u ss­ ing in ten tion s (K ellerm an n et al., 1989). T h e re is m ore flexibility in the structure and ordering o f topics for individuals who know each other from prior en coun ters. For exam ple, there may be a wide variety o f ways to com m un icate com m itm ent, including verbal statem en ts and nonverbal action s. B axter and W ilm ot (1984) discovered that individuals use a variety o f tech niques designed to test the intim acy o f a relationship. M any o f the tests are un stated action s, such as testing com m itm ent by creatin g a situation in which an individual h as to drive a long ways over a holiday in order to be with the partner. A lth ou gh som e o f the actions, such as statin g a verbal com m itm ent, may be seen as a characteristic o f developing rom an ces, it is in terestin g that the per­ cen tage o f participan ts m entioning such action s was low. Indeed, com m itm ent is often signaled through action s and behaviors, not sim ple statem ents.

P R E D IC T IN G M U LT IP LE R E L A T IO N S H IP S : T H E U N M A S K IN G O F D O N JU A N OR CA SAN O V A , AN D ROM EO

T h e frequency with w hich actio n s such as statin g a c o m m itm en t arc m en tion ed in the grow th o f a relation sh ip is im portan t b ecau se e x p e ctatio n s o f variou s b e ­ h aviors could be related to som e previous o u tcom e, su ch as h avin g b een in m any or few relation sh ips. It is possible that in dividuals w ho h ave been in few relation sh ips m en tion differen t e x p e c tatio n s th an to those w ho h ave been in m ore relation sh ips. To put it an o th er way, do the e x p e c tatio n s o f a R om eo differ from the e x p e ctatio n s o f a D o n Ju a n or C a sa n o v a? R c c a ll the legen d ary c h a ra c te rs o f D o n Ju a n an d R o m e o . D o n Ju a n w as a S p a n ish n o b lem an w ho w as know n for his ab ilities to ch arm n u m ero u s lovers. O n the o th e r h an d , the S h a k e sp e a ria n c h a ra c te r o f R o m e o w as the ferven t an d e x clu siv e lover o f Ju lie t. T h e se c h a ra c te rs reflect p ro to ty p es o f m ultip le an d e x clu siv e lovers, respectively . In d iv id u als m ay lean tow ard on e o f th ese p ro to ty p e s as sh ow n by the n u m b er o f in tim ate re la tio n sh ip s in w hich they h ave b een in v o lv ed .

M E M O R Y STR U C T U R E S FOR DEVELOPING RELA TIO N SH IPS

111

H o n e y c u tt an d C a n trill (1 9 9 1 ) e x am in e d the n u m b er o f re la tio n sh ip s th at in d iv id u als rep ort h av in g b een in an d how this is affe cte d by the c o m p lexity o f th eir m em ory stru ctu re s for the d e v e lo p m en t o f p e rso n al re la tio n sh ip s. In d i­ v id u a ls w ho h ave n e v e r b een in a re la tio n sh ip h av e few er e x p e c ta tio n s o f w hat sh o u ld o cc u r in the d e v e lo p m en t o f a re la tio n sh ip th an do in d iv id u als w ho h ave b een in v o lv ed in a re la tio n sh ip (H o n e y c u tt, C an trill, et al., 1 9 8 9 ). H o w ­ ever, it is o f in te re st to d eterm in e if sp e cific e x p e c ta tio n s are related to a p e r­ so n ’s h av in g b een in re latio n sh ip s. If c e rtain e x p e c ta tio n s o f b e h a v io rs are fou n d to p re d ict a p erso n ’s h av in g b een in zero or few re la tio n sh ip s, th en th e r­ ap ists m ay be in a b e tte r p ositio n to c o u n se l in d iv id u als w ho h av e th ese e x p e c ­ tatio n s in the ad v a n c e m e n t o f m ore h elp fu l an d re alistic e x p e c ta tio n s for re la tio n al d e v e lo p m en t. T h e sta tistical tech n iqu e logistic regression allow ed the prediction o f the n um ber o f relation sh ips a person had been in, b ased on his or her m en tion in g or n ot m en tion in g the variou s m em ory structure activities listed in B ox 7.2 (H o n ey cu tt & C an trill, 1991). A series o f three logistic regression m odels w ere tested com parin g in dividu als with zero w ith on e to two, zero w ith three to five, an d on e to two w ith three to five relation sh ips. A n intriguing profile ap peared for individuals gen eratin g e x p e c tatio n s o f re ­ lation al actio n s in light o f relation al h istories. W h en com parin g individuals w ho h ad n ever been in a close relation sh ip with in dividuals who reported h av ­ ing b een in one or m ore relation sh ips, the n on exp erien ced in dividuals h ad few e x p e ctatio n s o f w hat should h ap p en in a developin g relation sh ip, m en tion ed the use o f sm all talk, an d e xp ected th at m arriage w as the criterion o f a close re­ lation ship. N o n e x p e rie n ce d in dividuals did n ot m en tion talkin g ab ou t future plan s, did n ot m en tion the display o f physical affection to their partn ers, an d did n ot m en tion a verbal sta te m e n t o f love, co m p ared to m ore experien ced rela­ tional partn ers. N o m em ory-structure actio n s distin gu ish ed individuals rep ort­ ing o n e to two relation sh ips from those reporting three to five. T h u s, it ap pears th at in dividuals w ho report zero relation sh ips are different from the o th er two groups to the ex ten t th at relation al experien ce results in differen t raemory-structure ex p e ctatio n s. It m ay be cou n terin tu itive th at the only two un ique m em ory-structure b e­ h aviors m en tion ed m ore by in dividuals w ith zero relation sh ips w ere sm all talk an d m arriage. H o n ey cu tt an d C an trill (1 991) were un able to d eterm in e from their d a ta if the n on exp erien ced p articip an ts e x p ected too m uch sm all talk and experien ced daters do n ot ex p e ct en ough . Furth erm ore, the om ission o f m ar­ riage by in dividuals w ith a relatio n al history m ay reflect an inability to se p arate a poten tial m arital relation sh ip from oth er datin g relation sh ips. T h u s, this re­ flects the co n trast betw een the D o n Ju an and R om eo prototypes. It is in terestin g th at the two m em ory-structure e x p e c tatio n s (talkin g ab o u t future plan s an d verb al d e claratio n o f love) th at em erged as predictors o f a rela­ tion al history were n ot part o f the prototypical, escalatin g m etam em ory stru c ­

112

CHAPTER 7

ture identified using the card-sorting technique. In the study in Box 7.2, talking about future plans was m entioned by only 16% o f the subjects and expressing love was m entioned by 18%. However, the subjects who m entioned these e x ­ pectation s were more likely to have had a history o f prior relationships. In d ivid u als rep ortin g one to two and three to five relatio n sh ip s vary on a co n tin u u m o f re la tio n al ex p e rie n ce s. B aldw in (1 9 9 2 ) d iscu sse d the differ­ en ces b etw een sc h e m a tic an d asc h e m atic in d iv id u als. It is rare for a person to be truly aschem atic, with no re p re se n tatio n o f re la tio n al d e v e lo p m en t, b e ­ cau se o f the p e rv asiv e n e ss o f m ovies, so ap o p e ras, ad v ice -g iv in g n ew sp aper colu m n s, and m agazines th at presen t re latio n sh ip s e volvin g through a series o f crises or sta g e s. M o vies such as When H arry Met Sally, About L ast Night, Sum m er o f '42, and Love Story provide fictio n al m odels o f re latio n sh ip s fo rm ­ ing an d deterio ratin g. A few television gam e show s h ave b een b ased on e x ­ p e c ta tio n s for d atin g (e.g., The D ating G am e, Studs, and Love C on nection ). T h e re arc also show s ab o u t re la tio n al d e terio ra tio n (e.g., Divorce C o u rt). A l­ though few peop le are truly asc h e m atic b e ca u se o f the w id esp read a v a ila b il­ ity o f these show s, it can be argued th at in d iv id u als w ith little direct exp e rie n ce in relatio n sh ip s, who w atch m ovies or television p ortray als o f p erso n al relatio n sh ip s, reflect c u ltu ral e x p e c ta tio n s w hen they sta te their ow n e x p e c tatio n s. T h e in d iv id u al e x p e c ta tio n co n ta in s e lem en ts in co rp o ­ rated from cu ltu ral e x p e c ta tio n s. In this regard, B aldw in (1 9 9 2 ) d iscu ssed th at few peop le in a given d o m ain are highly sch e m a tic or asc h e m atic ; m any peop le are in an in te rm ed iate group, in w hich sc h e m a ta are n ot im m ediately acce ssib le in the daily p ro ce ssin g o f so c ial in fo rm ation , but b eco m e av ailab le after som e th ou gh t.

D I F F E R E N C E S IN T Y P I C A L I T Y A N D N E C E S S I T Y O F E S C A L A T IN G A C T IO N S Even though individuals m ention a variety o f behaviors that characterize devel­ oping relationships and are related to history o f rom ances, som e o f the b eh av ­ iors may be more typical than necessary for a relationship to grow in intimacy, as well as to decline. Simply having individuals generate a list o f action s and using this inform ation to predict the num ber o f relationships a person h as been in do not reveal how typical or necessary the action s are. Indeed, behaviors that are seen as necessary but less typical for a developing rom ance reflect expectation s that are not fulfilled. G raesser et al. (1979) found that scripted action s frequently m en tion ed during free gen eration o f lists often differ in typicality and necessity. In ad d i­ tion, activities that are seen as very necessary may be inferred in script p a s­ sages even w hen they are not there. Pryor and M erluzzi (1985) found that su b jects rated action s for gettin g a date as roughly equal in typicality, con tra-

M E M O R Y ST R U C T U R ES FOR DEVELOPING RELA TIO N SH IPS

113

d ie tin g w h a t th e re se a r c h e r s kn ew e m p iric a lly b e fo r e h a n d — th a t th e re w ere d iffe re n c e s in th e fr e q u e n c ie s th a t th e se a c tio n s w ere m e n tio n e d in a m e m ­ o ry -stru c tu re fre e - g e n e ra tio n ta sk . For e x a m p le , sm ilin g w as m e n tio n e d by on ly 2 0% o f s u b je c ts w h en they liste d b e h a v io rs. Yet w h e n o th e r su b je c ts w ere ask e d to ra te th e ty p ic a lity o f th e a c tio n , th ey ra te d it as b e in g ju st as ty p ic a l as o th e r b e h a v io rs th a t h a d a c tu a lly b e en m e n tio n e d m o re o fte n in th e sc rip t g e n e ra tio n ta sk (P ryor &. M erluzzi, 1 9 8 6 ). H o n e y c u tt an d C a n trill su rv ey ed 61 m en an d 60 w om en w ho w ere re cru ite d from u n d e rg ra d u a te c la sse s in c o m m u n ic a tio n stu d ie s a t L o u isia n a S t a t e U n i­ versity. T h e ir av e rag e age w as 2 0 .7 0 , w ith th eir ag es ran g in g from 18 to 32. T h e su rv ey c o n ta in e d a d e sc rip tio n o f e a c h o f th e e sc a la tin g a c tio n s th a t are listed in B o x 7.2. T h e su b je c ts w ere ask e d to in d ica te if e a c h scrip te d a c tio n w as r e la ­ tively typ ical (e.g., o v e rco m e crisis, talk a b o u t future p la n s as a co u p le , or say “ I love y o u ”), re g ard less o f w h eth er th e a c tio n h ad ac tu ally b e en freq u en tly m e n ­ tion ed in the sc rip t-g e n e ratio n task (recall th a t th is h ad b een d o n e by a d ifferen t se t o f su b je c ts). T h e stu d e n ts in d ica te d th a t all o f th e b e h a v io rs w ere typ ical, c o n tr a d ic tin g th e a c tu a l d iffe ren ce s in th e fre q u e n c ie s o f o c c u rre n c e o f the a c ­ tion s w hen they w ere c o lle c te d . R e c a ll from B o x 7.2 th at the m o st-freq u en tly m e n tio n e d e sc a la tin g a c tio n is in itial m e e tin g follow ed by d a tin g . O v e rc o m in g crisis an d talk in g a b o u t fu tu re p la n s as a c o u p le w ere the le ast-o fte n -m e n tio n e d e sc a la tin g ac tio n s; how ever, b o th a c tio n s w ere ra te d by su b je c ts as highly typical an d necessary . T h e r e are in te r e s tin g d iffe r e n c e s w h e n c o n tr a s t in g th e ty p ic a lity ra tin g o f a n e s c a la t in g a c t io n w ith th e re p o rt o f how n e c e s s a ry th e a c tio n is. S m a ll t a lk , sh o w in g p h y sic a l a ffe c tio n , d a tin g , m e e tin g p a r e n ts , t a lk in g a b o u t f u ­ tu re p la n s a s a c o u p le , e x c h a n g in g g ifts (b o n d in g r it u a l), v e rb a l c o m m it ­ m e n t, liv in g to g e th e r, h a v in g in te r c o u r s e , s ta tin g in te r e s t in o n e a n o t h e r ’s g o a ls , a n d m a rria g e w ere p e r c e iv e d by s u b je c t s as b e in g m o re ty p ic a l o f th a n n e c e s s a ry to an e s c a la t in g r e la tio n s h ip . T h e o n ly e x c e p t io n to th is p a tt e r n is s e lf- d is c lo s u r e , w h ich p a r t ic ip a n ts b e lie v e d w as le ss ty p ic a l o f b u t m o re n e c ­ e ssa ry fo r th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f an in tim a te r e la tio n s h ip . A b e ls o n (1 9 8 1 ) te rm e d th e se d iffe r e n c e s g a p - fillin g , in w h ic h in d iv id u a ls re p o rt t h a t a g iv e n a c t io n is ty p ic a l o n se e in g it lis te d , e v e n th o u g h it is n o t fre q u e n tly m e n ­ tio n e d in a g e n e r a tio n ta sk . T h e gap -fillin g p h e n o m e n o n re p re se n ts the av ailab ility h eu ristic b e c a u se th e b ase ra te s o f the p re v io u s re sp o n se s are in c o n g ru e n t w ith su b se q u e n t ratin gs o f typicality. In sta n ce s o f th e ac tio n m ay be e asie r to recall, av ailab le in m em ory, d u e to re c o g n itio n o f th e a c tio n . T h e gap -fillin g p h e n o m e n o n is im p o rta n t in e x p la in in g how a n in d iv id u a l re la te s to a n o t h e r ’s p e r so n a l e x p e r ie n c e s (H o n e y c u tt, 1 9 9 3 ). T h u s , m em ory stru c tu re s for re la tio n sh ip s a lso e x ist for re c ­ o gn izin g a c tio n s as w ell as g e n e ra tin g b e h a v io ra l e x p e c ta tio n s. W ith th is in m in d, it is p o ssib le to p re d ict b eliefs a b o u t re la tio n al d e v e lo p m e n t on th e b asis o f th e typicality an d n e c essity ratin gs.

114

CHAPTER 7

U n d e r ly in g D im e n s i o n s o f R e l a t io n a l D e v e l o p m e n t

T h e ratings o f how typical a n d n e cessary v a rio u s ac tio n s are c a n be used to i d e n ­ tify un derly in g clusters o f ac tio n s. N o b e h a v io r o c c u rs in a v a c u u m i n d e p e n d e n t o f oth e r b e haviors. B e h a v io r s m a y o c c u r s im u lta n e o u s ly or in q u ic k su c c e ssion . C o n se q u e n tly , s o m e ac tio n s are m o r e easier i n te rc h a n g e d th a n others. For e x ­ am ple, the display o f physically a ffe c tio n ate b e h a v io rs is m ore re lated to c o n ­ s u m m a ti o n th an is m e e tin g o n e a n o t h e r ’s pa re n ts. T h e underlying dim e n s io n s re p re se n t c o n c e p t u a l clusters o f c o - o c c u r r i n g be h a viors. T h e id e a t h a t s o m e a c t i o n s ar e m o r e e asily e x c h a n g e d t h a n o t h e r s is a f o u n d a t i o n o f F o a a n d F o a ’s ( 1 9 7 6 ) i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e s o u r c e theory, in w h ic h r e s o u r c e s s u c h a s lo v e are m o r e e asily e x c h a n g e d a n d the e x c h a n g e s a n c ­ t io n e d t h a n t h e e x c h a n g e o f d i s p a r a t e r e s o u r c e s s u c h as l o v e for m on ey . T h e y a r g u e d t h a t the e x c h a n g e o f p a r t ic u l a r i s t i c r e s o u r c e s (e.g ., r e s o u r c e s t h a t c a n o n ly be o b t a i n e d fro m p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s s u c h as lo v e , s e r v i c e s , a n d s t a t u s ) a n d the e x c h a n g e o f u n i v e r s a li s t ic r e s o u r c e s for a n o t h e r (e.g., r e ­ s o u r c e s t h a t c a n be o b t a i n e d from a v a r i e ty o f s o u r c e s , s u c h a s m o n e y , i n fo r ­ m a t i o n , a n d g o o d s ) are m o r e likely t h a n th e e x c h a n g e o f p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c a n d u n i v e r s a li s t ic r e s o u r c e s . For e x a m p l e , i n f o r m a t i o n t e n d s to b e e x c h a n g e d in k in d . M o r e i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n v o l v e e x c h a n g e s o f l o v e , s t a t u s , i n fo r ­ m a t i o n , a n d s e r v i c e s r a t h e r t h a n g o o d s a n d m o n e y ( F o a & F o a , 1 9 7 6 ) . It is h a r d e r to e x c h a n g e p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c r e s o u r c e s for u n i v e r s a li s t ic r e s o u r c e s u n ­ less t h e re is a rule or c o n t r a c t for this e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s (e.g ., i n ­ t e r c o u r s e for m o n e y ) . T h e un derlying typicality an d n ecessity d im e n s io n s re p orte d by H o n e y c u tt (1 9 9 5 b ) are listed. H e fo u n d four d im e n s io n s for e a c h category.

Typicality D im ensions.

T h e first d i m e n s io n c o n t a i n e d a c t i o n s o f the

b o n d i n g ritual. V erb al te r m s o f e n d e a r m e n t s u c h as saying, “ I lo v e y o u , ” g e t ­ tin g m a rrie d , e x c h a n g i n g gifts, a n d ta lk in g a b o u t futu re p la n s as a c o u p le s o rt e d on this d i m e n s io n . T h e s e ite m s w ere a v e r a g e d to form an in d e x o f b o n d i n g ritual. T h e s e c o n d d i m e n s io n re fle c te d a n o r ie n t a t io n to o n e ’s p a r t ­ n e r ’s n e e d s . S h a r i n g in fo rm a l tim e togeth er, t a lk in g to o n e ’s p a r t n e r o n the p h o n e ; t a lk in g w ith o n e ’s p a r t n e r a b o u t a n e x c lu s iv e c o m m i t m e n t ; a n d c o m ­ m u n i c a t i n g an i n te re st in o n e ’s p a r t n e r ’s g o als, v a lu e s, a n d n e e d s s o rte d on this d i m e n s io n . T h e third d im e n s io n c o n s ist s o f r e fle c te d p h y sic a l i n v o l v e m e n t a n d c o n ­ siste d o f s e x u a l in te r c o u r s e an d d isp lay in g p h y sic a l a ffe c tio n t h r o u g h kissing a n d hugg in g . T h e final typicality d i m e n s i o n signified p e r so n a l c o m m u n i c a ­ t ion a n d c o n s i s t e d o f a c t i o n s s u c h as s m a ll talk, se lf- d isc lo su re o f i n ti m a t e i n ­ f o r m a ti o n , a n d o v e r c o m i n g a crisis s u c h as j e a lo u s y or h ig h u n c e r t a i n ty from s o m e e v e n t.

M EM O R Y STR U C T U R ES FOR DEVELOPING RELATIONSH IPS

115

Necessity D im ensions. T h e initial necessity dim ension reflected family bonding and consisted o f m eeting parents, sm all talk, and getting m arried. T h e second factor was an orientation to o n e ’s partn er and con tain ed engaging in join t activities together; calling on e’s partner; and discussing one's partn er’s goals, values, and personal attitudes. T h e third factor was datin g and co h ab ita­ tion (or living togeth er). T h e final necessity dim ension was physical involve­ m e n t an d in c lu d e d d is p la y in g p h y sic a l a f f e c tio n , in te r c o u r s e , an d com m unicating statem en ts o f love.

Typicality V e rs u s N e c e s s i t y in P r e d i c t i n g B e lie fs A b o u t R elatio nal D ev elo p m e n t G en der and the typicality-necessity activity ratings can be used as predictors o f relational developm en t in regression analyses that correlate sub ject’s b elief that relationships follow a set pattern, that there are expectation s about w hat should occur in the developm ent o f an intim ate relationship and that relationships can be thought as developing through a series o f stages (H oneycutt, 1995b). In ad ­ dition, data were gathered on the num ber o f intim ate relationships that individ­ uals reported having had. Th is analysis was different from the results presented earlier, in the discus­ sion o f R om eo or C asa n o v a types. In that study, subjects indicated only if they had been in zero, one to two, three to five, or m ore than five relationships and their various escalatin g memory structure actions. In this secon d analysis, a dif­ ferent sam ple o f individuals was asked to report the exact num ber o f close per­ sonal relationships the individuals had ever been involved in. M ost individuals reported having been in two relationships. T h e num ber o f relationships ranged from zero to nine, although few individuals reported h aving been in more than three relationships. G en der was initially entered in the regression m odels as a control variable to see w hether m en and women differed in m entioning any o f the escalatin g activ ­ ities that, in turn, might be associated with the num ber o f reported relation­ ships. T h ere were no gen der differences in predicting developm en tal beliefs. However, there were significant typicality and necessity predictors, as revealed in the following. T h e num bers in paren th eses are stan dardized b eta coefficients, ranging from 0 to 1. S c o res close to 0 show no association , w hereas scores aroun d 1 show perfect predictability. H en ce, these coefficients reflect the m agn itude of association am on g each o f the e scalatin g relationship activities and beliefs ab out relation sh ips. T h e positive or negative sign precedin g each activity re ­ veals if the predicted relation ship betw een the behavior and b elief is positive or negative.

116

CHAPTER 7

Typicality Ratings Relationships tend to follow a set pattern = Show physical affection (0.22) - Sclf-disclosurc (0.19) I have a lot o f expectations o f what should occur in the developm ent of an intimate relationship = Other-oriented statem ents (0.27) + Show physical affection (0.19) I believe that relationships can be thought of as developing through a sc­ ries of stages = O vercom e crisis (0.26) + D ating (0.21) N um ber of relationships = Show ing physical affection (0.22) - G etting married (0.18) Necessity Ratings Relationships tend to follow a set pattern = N o predictors I have a lot o f expectations o f what should occur in the developm ent of an intimate relationship = Other-oriented statem ents (0.25) I believe that relationships can be thought about as developing through a series o f stages = Other-oriented statem ents (0.27) N um ber o f relationships = Talk about future plans as a couple (-0 .2 6 )-M e etin g parents (0.25) + Self-disclosing intimate and per­ sonal information (0.19) It is interesting that self-disclosure was negatively related to the belief that relationships follow a set pattern while it was positively related to the number of relationships an individual reported being in. This is consistent with the earlier finding that self-disclosure is viewed as more necessary, yet less typical, in a de­ veloping relationships and that it emerges as a separate phase in the develop­ ment of relationships (H oneycutt, Cantrill, et al., 1989). Other-oriented statements emerged as a predictor in three of the equations. Becoming relationally oriented and communicating this to one’s partner is associ­ ated with having a lot of expectations about relational development. T h e emer­ gence of a joint identity as a couple can be enhanced by communicating interest in one’s partner’s interests, opinions, activities, and goals. Further, other research on variables that predict marital happiness revealed that actively signaling atten­ tiveness to what one’s marriage partner is saying is related to effective communi­ cation, which, in turn, is related to one’s spouse’s belief that one understands him or her (Honeycutt, 1986). Consequently, communication effectiveness and per­ ceived partner understanding predict the level of marital happiness. It is interesting that the typicality of overcoming a relational crisis was related to the belief that relationships follow through a series of stages. Overcoming a cri­ sis in the development of a relationship reflects the dialectic view discussed in chapter 6, in which relationships evolve cyclically to the extent that there is con­

M EM O R Y STR U C T U R ES FOR DEVELOPING RELATIONSH IPS

117

tinual negotiation about roles (Baxter, 1985). If one person desires a more inti­ m ate rom ance, whereas the other person does not, the nondesiring partner may spend less time with the escalating partner or have to inform the partner o f his or her desire not to get any closer. In addition, other strategies designed to com m u­ nicate the reaction to the potential escalation o f rom ance may be used. From a dialectic perspective, overcom ing a crisis in a relationship could reflect the disengaging o f the relationship that has been redefined and the acquisition of memory structures and associated scenes and scripts for relational deescalation. Support for this interpretation is found in a study by Planalp, Rutherford, and Floneycutt (1987), who reported that some relationships becam e eloser after a period o f time when uncertainty was temporarily increased by some behavior or event ranging from negative events such as discovering one’s partner’s infidelity to positive events such as discovering that a friend believed the relationship was closer than one originally believed and the feeling was reciprocated. In addition, there is additional data in which subjects report more often having expectations about what occurs in the developm ent o f rom ance than believing that relation­ ships follow a set pattern (H oneycutt, 1995b). T h ese expectations are not n eces­ sarily linear to the extent that individuals are expected to systematically progress through a series o f phases while developing intimacy. Rather, the expectations may reflect dialectic periods o f bonding or separation. T h e display o f physical affection is an im portant activity. It is associated with believing that relationships follow a set pattern, having a lot o f expectation s of what should occur in the developm en t o f relationships, and the num ber o f in ti­ m ate relationships a person has been in. R ecall that m entioning physical affec­ tion as a quality o f an escalating relationship also characterized D on Ju an individuals who reported having had one to five intim ate relationships, com ­ pared to individuals having had zero close relationships. T h e typicality and necessity ratings for escalatin g actions arc intriguing in light o f the foregone opportunity to generate any ad ditional actions. T h e partic­ ipants also were instructed to write down any addition al action s that they b e­ lieved were typical or necessary but that were not on the survey. Ninety-five percent o f the participants did not m ention any ad ditional actions. T h e 5% who wrote additional actions produced paraphrases o f already-listed actions. T h e lack o f detailed relational memory structures is related to the speculation by Burnett (1990) discussed in the beginning o f this chapter that relationships tend to be thought about frequently but superficially. U N D E R L Y IN G S T A G E S A N D T H E P R O T O T Y P IC A L E S C A L A T IN G M EM O R Y S T R U C T U R E O n e o f the outcom es associated with having a memory structure for a develop­ ing rom ancc is the ability to rccognizc the action s and arrange them in a sequ en ­ tial order. T h e sequential ordering o f expected actions may reflect stages from a

CHAPTER 7

UK

n u m b e r o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l m o d e l s d i s c u s s e d in C h a p t e r 6. G i n s b u r g ( 1 9 8 8 ) indic a t e d t h a t t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t h e s t e r e o t y p i c a l a c t i o n s e q u e n c e s in a g i v e n ty p e o f s i t u a t i o n in a p a r t i c u l a r ty p e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p w o u l d f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h e r ’s u n d e r ­ s t a n d i n g o f t h e i n t e r n a l d y n a m i c s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d t h e w id e v a r i e ty o f f o r m s in w h i c h r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e m a n i f e s t e d . A l t h o u g h in d ivid u als c a n g e n e ra te m e m o ry stru c tu re s for an e s c a la tin g r o ­ m a n c e , t h e m e m o r y - g e n e r a t i o n p r o c e d u r e is li m i t e d in te l l i n g r e s e a r c h e r s if i n ­ d iv id u a ls agree o n the o rd e r o r se q u e n c in g o f the activities. For e x a m p le , s o m e i n d i v i d u a l s m a y e x p e c t m e e t i n g t h e o t h e r p e r s o n ’s p a r e n t s to o c c u r b e f o r e a lo n g - t e r m c o m m i t m e n t h a s b e e n m a d e , w h e r e a s o t h e r s m a y c x p e c t a c o m m i t ­ m e n t t o o c c u r b e f o r e m e e t i n g t h e o t h e r p e r s o n ’s p a r e n t s . S o m e i n d i v i d u a l s m a y b e l i e v e t h a t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e c o m e s early, w h e r e a s o t h e r s b e l i e v e it c o m e s l a t e r in th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p .

C a rd -S o rtin g Exp erim en t P a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e g i v e n a d e c k o f i n d e x c a r d s in w h i c h e a c h o f t h e a c t i o n s in B o x 7 .2 t h a t h a d b e e n m e n t i o n e d b y a t l e a s t 2 5 % o f t h e s t u d e n t s in t h e r e l a t i o n a l s c h e m a g e n e r a t i o n s t u d y w e r e lis te d . E a c h a c t i o n w a s d e s c r i b e d o n a s e p a r a t e card . T h e p a rtic ip a n ts w ere g iv e n the follow in g in stru ctio n s.

We may have expectations for how a romantic relationship should develop. For exam ­ ple, you may believe that there is a typical sequence of behaviors that reflects an esca­ lating relationship. Enclosed in your envelope is a set o f 13 index cards that list various relational behaviors. T h e cards are in a random order. We want you to sort the cards in what you believe is a logical order and then to record how long it took you to sort the deck. (H oneycutt, Cantrill, et al., 1989, p. 75) A s a m p l e o f 71 m e n a n d 7 8 w o m e n s t u d e n t s , in c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t u d i e s c o u r s e s a t L o u i s i a n a S t a t e U n iv e r s it y , w e r e t e s t e d . T h e y r a n g e d in a g e f r o m 17 to 3 2 , w it h a n a v e r a g e a g e o f 2 0 . 4 2 . T h e s t u d e n t s w e r e g i v e n r e s p o n s e s h e e t s o n w h i c h t o r e c o r d t h e r a n k o r d e r i n g o f t h e 13 p r o t o t y p i c a l b e h a v i o r s . T h e y w e r e i n s t r u c t e d t o o p e n t h e e n v e l o p e s a t a s p e c i f i e d t im e , s o r t t h e c a r d s , r e c o r d h o w lo n g it t o o k t o c o m p l e t e t h e t a s k (in s e c o n d s ) , a n d w rite t h e i r o r d e r i n g s o n t h e resp o n se sheet. O n the resp o n se sheet, su b je cts in d ica te d h ow m a n y in tim ate r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h e y h a d b e e n i n v o l v e d in. T h e t i m e it t a k e s t o s o r t t h e e s c a l a t i n g a c t i o n s is a m e a s u r e o f a p e r s o n ’s a b i l ­ ity t o a c c e s s a r e l a t i o n a l m e m o r y s t r u c t u r e a n d u s e it t o r e c o g n i z e a c t i o n s . S o r t i n g t im e is c o r r e l a t e d w it h p r e v i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p history, s u c h t h a t t h o s e w h o h a d b e e n in m o r e r e l a t i o n s h i p s s e e m e d to t a k e less t im e s o r t i n g t h e c a r d s . T h u s , t h e y c o u l d m o r e e a s ily r e l a t e t o t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t i o n s t h e y s e e o n t h e c a r d s a n d a r r a n g e t h e m in a n i n t u i t i v e order.

M E M O R Y STR U C T U R E S FOR DEVELOPING RELA TIO N SH IPS

119

T h e p ro to ty p ical ord erin g o f the 13 a c tio n s is m eetin g (0 .5 4 ), sm all talk (0 .5 2 ), c allin g (1 .4 7 ), d a tin g (1 .7 5 ), sh ow in g p h y sical affe ctio n (2 .0 0 ), sh a r ­ ing tim e to g e th e r (2 .0 4 ), se lf-d isclo su re (2 .1 8 ), se x u al in te rco u rse (2 .1 7 ), m e e tin g p a re n ts (2 .3 2 ), sh a rin g gifts or b o n d in g ritu al (1 .9 6 ), m ak in g o th e r-o rie n te d sta te m e n ts (1 .8 8 ), sta tin g a c o m m itm e n t (2 .4 0 ), an d m arriage (2 .4 4 ). T h e n u m b ers in p a re n th e se s are sta n d a rd d e v iatio n s th a t reveal the e x te n t o f d isag re e m e n t o r d isp ersio n on the p la c e m e n t o f a giv en actio n . T h e y are critical in b egin n in g to d e m o n strate the e x iste n c e o f u nderlyin g sta g e s for d e v e lo p in g re la tio n sh ip s th at e xist in the m inds o f in d iv id u als. T h e h igh er the sta n d ard d e v iatio n , the m ore in d iv id u als d isag ree on the o r­ d e r for a given actio n . For ex am p le , stu d e n ts ag ree le ast on the o rd erin g o f v e r­ b al co m m itm e n t an d m arriage, w h ereas there w as w ide a g re e m e n t on the in itial ord erin g o f m eetin g, sm all talk , an d callin g the o th e r p erso n o n the te le ­ p h on e. T h e sta n d ard d e v ia tio n s also reflect the degree o f in te rch an g e am on g ac tio n s. For e x am p le , the ord ers o f su ch ac tio n s as sm all talk an d m ak in g a v e r­ bal c o m m itm e n t are less easily in te re x ch an g e d , show n by th eir low er sta n d ard d e v iatio n s, co m p a re d to sh arin g tim e togeth er, d isclo su re , in te rco u rse , and m eetin g p a re n ts, w hich h av e h igh er sta n d ard d e v iatio n s. C u t- o ff p o in ts b etw een clu ste rs o f a c tio n s w ere d e term in ed by co m p u tin g a d ja c e n t m e an d ifferen ce sc o re s an d n o tin g in stan ce s o f h igh er d iffe ren ce s b e ­ tw een a d ja c e n t a c tio n s. A c tiv itie s c o n sid e re d to c o n stitu te a c lu ste r h ave low er w ith in m ean differen ce sco re s co m p a re d to the d ifferen ces b etw een a d ­ ja c e n t ac tio n s lo c ate d a t the e n d p o in ts o f re sp e ctiv e clu ste rs (H o n e y cu tt, C an trill, et al. 1 9 8 9 ). A n ex am p le is the m ean d ifferen ce (d ) b etw een show in g ph y sical affe ctio n an d callin g (ti = 1 .8 2 ). T h is differen ce is h igh er th an the differen ce betw een sm all talk an d callin g (d = 1.03). T h is an aly sis rev eals five un derly in g p h ase s. P h ase on e co n sists o f m eetin g, callin g, and sm all talk . T h e ac tiv itie s are grou p ed m ore closcly to g e th e r and form a clu ste r th at reflects in itiatio n or c om in g to ge th e r (H o n e y c u tt, C an trill, et al., 1 9 8 9 ). S m a ll talk is c h a ra c te ristic o f w hat K n ap p an d V an gelisti (1 9 9 6 ) calle d the e x p e rim e n tatio n stage . D u rin g this sta g e , p o te n tia l re la tio n al p a rt­ ners e x p e rim e n t u sin g d ifferen t to p ics in o rd e r to d eterm in e if m ore in tim ate c o n v e rsa tio n c a n d e v e lo p in p a rtic u la r to p ical are as. T h e se c o n d p h ase c o n ­ sists o f d atin g, sh ow in g p h y sical affe ctio n , an d sh a rin g tim e togeth er. D isc lo ­ sure also em erges as a se p arate sta g e in the sto ry -read in g p ro ce d u re for iden tifyin g sta ge s, d isc u sse d late r (H o n e y c u tt, C an trill, et al., 1 9 8 9 ). T h e fou rth p h ase c o n sists o f in te rc o u rse , m eetin g p a re n ts or in-law s, an d e x c h a n g ­ ing gifts or m e m e n to s. T h e fifth p h ase c o n sists o f o th e r-o rie n te d sta te m e n ts, verb al co m m itm e n t, an d g e ttin g m arried. T h e se p h ase s are sim ilar to K n ap p an d V an g elisti’s (1 9 9 6 ) so c ia l-p e n e tra tio n grow th sta g e s o f in itiatio n (m e e t­ in g), e x p e rim e n tatio n (d atin g, sh ow in g a ffe c tio n ), in ten sify in g (d isc lo su re ), in tegratin g (m eetin g in -law s), an d b o n d in g (m arriage).

120

CHAPTER 7

Q -S o rt Procedure Th ere is addition al evidence o f a prototypical, escalatin g m etam em ory stru c­ ture with stages using the Q -sort procedure.

The Procedure.

T h e Q - s o r t p r o c e d u re w as u se d by S t e p h e n an d

M arkm an (1983) to identify agreem ent betw een random ly paired dyads o f b e­ liefs about relationships. They used a questionnaire called the Relationship World Index (R W I), w hich con tain s 60 statem en ts such as “ Relationships should be oriented toward fun, A relationship is a place to escape ch aos and strife in life, Both partners should contribute equally to a relationship, Partners don’t have to talk about their relationship in order for it to be a good o n e ” (S te ­ phen &. M arkm an, 1983, p. 19). In using the Q -so rt proced u re, su b je c ts were given in dex card s, each c o n ­ tain in g a sta te m e n t ab o u t re la tio n al beliefs. T h e in d iv id u als were in stru cted to sort the sta te m e n ts in to piles in an ord er th at rep resen ted th eir beliefs ab o u t the im p o rtan t a sp e c ts o f an in tim ate or p o ten tially co m m itted love re ­ latio n sh ip . T h e sta te m e n ts were sorted in to piles b ased on how m uch the su b je cts strongly d isag reed to how m uch they stron gly agreed with them (S te p h e n , 1984). For exam p le, if on e strongly d isagreed with the b e lie f that relatio n sh ip s e x ist only to the e x te n t th a t there are e xcitin g thin gs to do, one w ould place this sta te m e n t in a pile with o th er beliefs w ith w hich one stron gly d isag re e d . T h e re w ould be ad d itio n al piles reflectin g in creasin g a g re e m e n t (e .g ., m o d e ra te d isa g re e m e n t, m in or d isa g re e m e n t, u n d e ­ c id e d — n e ith er ag reem en t or d isag re e m e n t, m inor ag reem en t, m od erate ag reem en t, stro n g ag re e m e n t). T h is procedure m easures con vergen ce or agreem ent in in d ivid u als’ o rien ­ tation s to relation sh ips. R elationsh ip con vergen ce is m easured by com putin g the correlatio n betw een each relation al p a rtn er’s rank orderings. E ach rank order is assum ed to reflect a sortin g pile. S tep h en and M arkm an (1983) claim ed that the correlation coefficient is used “ as index o f sym bolic in terd e­ pen den ce, the exten t to w hich partners h ave con stru cted a shared view o f the w orld” (p. 18). T h ey found a correlation o f 0.31 betw een random ly paired stran gers. T h ey indicate th at “ this suggests a generalized social reality to which m ost are aligned in thought and th at precedes the d evelopm en t o f a re­ lationship world view ” (p. 22). K now ledge ab out relationships is organized at the societal and individual levels. T h ey found agreem en t ab ou t relationship beliefs to a fun ction o f in creasin g intim acy in couples. Engaged couples agreed more on relation al beliefs (r = 0.52) than did steady daters (r = 0.49) and daters (r = 0 .4 1 ). T h u s, couples con verge in their beliefs ab ou t relation sh ips as intim acy in creases (Steph en & M arkm an , 1983).

M E M O R Y ST R U C T U R ES FOR DEVELOPING RELA TIO N SH IPS

Q -so rt a n d S ta g e s .

121

H o n e y c u t t a n d C a n t r i l l u s e d t h e Q - s o r t p r o c e d u r e to

d e te r m in e the a m o u n t o f a g r e e m e n t a m o n g su b je c ts a b o u t the o rd e rin g o f p r o t o t y p i c a l m e m o r y - s t r u c t u r e e x p e c t a t i o n s . R e c a l l t h a t in t h e c a r d - s o r t i n g exp e r i m e n t e a c h s u b j e c t w a s g i v e n a d e c k o f 13 i n d e x c a r d s t h a t c o n t a i n e d d e ­ s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e e s c a l a t i n g a c t i o n s a n d w a s i n s t r u c t e d t o s o r t t h e c a r d s in a n i n t u i t i v e l o g i c a l order. A f t e r t h is, a Q - s o r t w a s c o n d u c t e d by r a n d o m l y p a i r i n g m e n ’s r a n k e d o r d e r s w it h w o m e n ’s r a n k e d o r d e r s , r e s u l t i n g in 71 c o u p l e s , a n d c o m p u t i n g a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . T h e r e w a s a n e x c e e d i n g h ig h l e v e l o f ag r e e m e n t at the .001 a lp h a level b e tw e e n the g e n d e r s o n the ra n k e d o rd erin g o f the actio n s

(r=

0 .8 4 ). T h u s , ra n d o m ly paired in dividuals agree o n a

proto ty pical s e q u e n c e o f e sc alatin g actio n s, e v e n th o u g h in dividuals m ay h av e m o r e o r l e ss c o m p l e x m e t a m e m o r y s t r u c t u r e s , m a y h a v e r e d u n d a n t b e h a v i o r s , a n d e x p e c t so m e b e h a v io r m ore th a n others.

S to ry -S e g m e n tatio n A n aly sis

F u r t h e r e v i d e n c e o f u n d e r l y i n g s t a g e s e x i s t e d in p e o p l e ’s r e l a t i o n a l c o g n i t i o n s w a s r e v e a l e d u s i n g a s t o r y - r e a d i n g p r o c e d u r e ( H o n e y c u t t , C a n t r i l l , e t al., 1 9 8 9 ) . A s i n d i c a t e d in c h a p t e r 2, m e t a m e m o r y s t r u c t u r e s s u b s u m e m e m o r y s t r u c t u r e s t h a t c o n t a i n s u b s c e n e s , w it h e a c h s u b s c e n c c o n t a i n i n g s p e c i fi c s c r i p t s ( S c h a n k , 1 9 8 2 ) . T h e s e q u e n c e o f s c r i p t e d a c t i o n s in a s u b s c e n e c a n b e su m m arize d

in

term s o f a su p e ro rd in ate

actio n

(R u m e lh art,

1976).

M e t a m e m o r y s t r u c t u r e s s h o u l d c o n t a i n g e n e r a l lin e s o f a c t i o n t h a t r e f l e c t a b ­ stract stages o f a relation ship. H ere, the su p e ro rd in ate ac tio n rep resents a b r e a k p o i n t in a n e s c a l a t i n g r o m a n c e . T h e t y p ic a l w a y t o m e a s u r e th is is t o h a v e i n d i v i d u a l s r e a d a s to r y c o n t a i n i n g a c t i o n s a n d s e g m e n t t h e s to r y i n t o n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g s c e n e s (e.g ., B o w e r e t al., 1 9 7 9 ; P r y o r & M e r lu z z i, 1 9 8 5 ) . T w o s t o r i e s w e r e w r i t t e n c o n t a i n i n g 13 s e n t e n c e s e a c h , w it h e a c h s e n t e n c e rep resen tin g a p ro to ty p ical m eta m e m o ry -stru c tu re

action

(H o n ey cutt,

C a n t r i l l , e t al., 1 9 8 9 ) . T h e s e a c t i o n s w e r e t h e a c t i o n s in B o x 7 .2 t h a t w e r e m e n ­ t i o n e d by a t l e a s t 2 5 % o f t h e s u b j e c t s . T w o s t o r i e s w e r e u s e d t o e x a m i n e t h e g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f r e s u l t s f r o m s to r y t o story. A s a m p l e o f 8 9 w o m e n a n d 8 8 m e n , s t u d e n t s a t L o u i s i a n a S t a t e U n iv e r s it y , w a s s u r v e y e d . T h e a g e s r a n g e d b e t w e e n 18 a n d 3 0 , w it h a n a v e r a g e a g e o f 2 0 . 1 8 . E ig h t y - f i v e s t u d e n t s r e a d o n e r o m a n t i c s to ry a n d 9 2 r e a d a s e c o n d story. T h e r a t i o o f w o m e n a n d m e n r e a d e r s w a s b a l ­ a n c e d fo r b o t h s to r i e s . R e a d e r s w e r e g i v e n t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s . Below is a brief story abo ut Jo h n (or Linda) and Veronica (or Tom) who are involved in a d evelo ping and escalating r o m an ce th at en ds in marriage. S o m e people feel that r o­ m an tic stories like these may be divided into se veral natu ral parts or stages . We would like you to carefully read the story and decide w hether this story may be divided into

122

CHAPTER 7

di ff e r e n t p ar ts . If you th in k t h a t th e se n a t u r a l s t a g e s ex is t p l e a s e identify' t h e m by p la c ing a sl a sh m a r k (/) a t th e e n d o f e a c h s e n t e n c e t h a t yo u th in k e n d s a p ar t. T h e s e s la s h e s are to i n d i c a t e t h e b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n p ar ts . ( H o n e y c u t t , C a n t r i l l , et al., 1 9 8 9 , p. 84 )

B ox 7.3 reveals the p ercen tag e o f su b jects m arking a boundary after e ach a c ­ tion in the two stories. B ou n dary m arks w ere exch an ged betw een se n te n c e s 2 an d 3 in the two sto ries. M ore in dividu als in dicated a boundary after the se n ­ ten ce ab ou t d iscu ssin g a biology course (sm all talk) in the story ab o u t L in d a and Tom , w hereas readers o f the Jo h n an d V eron ica story p laced a boundary after the se n te n ce ab o u t calling for a d ate . In ad dition , m ore readers o f the L in d a and Tom story in d icated a boundary after the se n te n ce ab ou t co n tin u al dating. A sta tistic al analysis o f the d istrib u tion o f the slash -m ark lo catio n s in each story revealed th at there w ere sign ifican t b oun dary poin ts, an d therefore rela­ tion sh ip stage s could be iden tified. T h e first ph ase in b oth sto ries c o n sists o f m eetin g and sm all talk. T h e secon d ph ase reflects datin g, the display o f physical affection , an d doin g inform al activities together. T h e third ph ase reflects self-disclosure. T h e n ext action , sexu al in tercou rse, w as view ed as a sep arate unit by a sizable p ercen tag e o f the readers o f the Jo h n and V eronica story, c o m ­ pared to readers o f the L in d a and Tom story. T h e fifth ph ase con sists o f m eetin g paren ts, exch an gin g m em en to s, oth er-orien ted state m e n ts, and statin g a c o m ­ m itm en t to the relation sh ip. T h e final ph ase is m arriage. T h e se stage s an d the action s w ithin each ph ase are sim ilar to the p h ases iden tified in B ox 7.2. T h e difference in the p e rce n tag es d e m arcatin g in tercou rse as a sep arate ph ase m ay be due to lan guage use an d the social desirability o f the expression , “ sleep in g togeth er.” A lth o u gh this expression is a euph em ism for the act o f in ­ tercourse, “ sexu al in terco u rse” sou n d s m ore biological or clinical and may not signal p assio n ate em otio n , w hereas “sleep ing to g e th e r" h as a m ore intim ate c o n n o tatio n . B ecau se o f this co n n o tatio n , sleep in g togeth er slides the re la tio n ­ ship into the ph ase reflecting the in ten sification or in tegration o f the re latio n ­ ship, as o p p osed to being a separate ph ase in itself. T h e b o u n d a ry p e r c e n ta g e s rein fo rce the p h ase s id e n tifie d u sin g the card -sortin g procedure. T h e first ph ase reflects the social-p en etratio n stages o f in itiation and exp erim en tatio n . T h e secon d ph ase resem bles the p en etration stage o f intensifying. T h e third p h ase, self-disclosure, w as discu ssed as part o f the intensifying stage (K n ap p & V angelisti, 1996). S e x u a l in tercou rse is a se p a ­ rate ph ase in the stories, w hereas the fifth ph ase ap p ears to rep resen t a com b i­ n ation o f intensifying an d integrating. T h e final ph ase, m arriage, sim ply reflects a legal-bon din g stage in w hich w edding vow s arc exch an ged . M E SSA G E S U SE D T O E SC A L A T E IN T IM A C Y R e latio n al m em ory stru ctu res determ in e w hat can be said in a given scene b ased on previous exp erien ce, in stru ction from others, or o b servation o f others.

M EM O R Y ST R U C T U R ES FOR DEVELOPING RELA TIO N SH IPS

B o x 7 .3

12 3

P h a s e s W ith in the P ro to ty p i c a l E sc a la t i n g M e t a m e m o r y S t r u c t u r e

J o h n a n d Veronica

John met Veronica for the first time at a party. (8.2%) They engaged in small talk such as com m enting on how nice the party was, who they knew at the party as well as learning a little about where each one was from. (24.7%) John asked Veronica for her phone number and if he could call her later to see about going on a date. (81.2%) The first date went well and so they continued dating. (20%) They held hands, kissed, and hugged each other. (20%) They also did informal activities to­ gether such as watching TV, studying together, playing tennis, and going to lunch. (69%.4) John and Veronica self-disclosed to each other and revealed personal in­ formation such as likes and dislikes, successes and failures, values, and the like. (58.8%) They had sexual intercourse. (64-7%) Veronica took John on a weekend trip to her hometown to meet her parents. (28.2%) They gave each other candy, “ love cards,” and jewelry. (28.2%) They became more interested in each other's goals and lives since they felt like they needed each other and had an exclusive re­ lationship. (49.4%) They made a verbal com m itm ent so they could make the rela­ tionship long-term and stable. (57.6%) They got married. (100%)

L in d a a n d Tom

Linda met Tom in a biology lab during the fall semester. (19.6% ) They talked about the course, their majors and what they wanted to do after gradua­ tion. (66.3%) Tom asked Linda if he could call her and see about going on a date to one o f the home football games. (38.0% ) They enjoyed the game and continued going to games as well as having other dates. (43.5%) They held hands and kissed each other. (21.7%) They did informal activities together such as studying, biking, and jogging. (51.1%) They disclosed personal infor­ mation about such things as family history, failures, and fantasies. (69.6%) They slept together. (47.8% ) Tom invited Linda to visit his hometown and meet his parents. (27.2%) They exchanged little gifts and favors such as jew­ elry and candy. (20.7%) They talked about the other’s needs and how to help each other whenever they could. (48.9%) They told each other they were ex­ clusively committed to each other. (63.0%) They got married. (100%) N o te . N u m b e r s in p a r e n t h e s e s in di ca te the p e r c e n t a g e o f su b je c ts m a r k i n g b o u n d a r i e s .

D isc o n firm in g e x p e r ie n c e s m ay result in the m o d ific atio n o f an in d iv id u al’s ini­ tial d a tin g e x p e c t a tio n s . A s a result, d istin ctive m e s s a g e s m ay be d i sc u sse d in e n s u in g d a te s . Two stud ies h av e e x a m in e d the m e s s a g e s t h a t m e n an d w o m e n e x p e c t to o c c u r at t ran sition a l poin ts in relation ships. T h e s e stu d ie s are d i s ­ c u s s e d in term s o f the desire to e n h a n c e in tim acy an d c o n c e r n for se c o n d ary

12 4

CHAPTER 7

goals such as fear o f a rebuff and not w anting the desire for intim acy en h an ce­ m ent to backfire. Individuals use a variety o f com m u n icative strategies to determ ine the inti­ m acy statu s o f a relation ship and where it may be h eaded. B ax te r and W ilm ot (1984) found that questio n in g was not used as often as were other indirect strategies by individuals w anting to find out how in tim ate their relation ship was, such as h inting ab out m ore intim acy, determ in in g how m uch the partn er will endure in term s o f p resen tin g o n e ’s bad side to o n e ’s partner, using je a l­ ousy tests such as talkin g ab out old boyfriends or girlfriends, or in troducing o n e se lf and o n e ’s partn er to outsid ers as a couple. T h e se strategies were used more often than direct strategies, such as self-disclosure about the desire for a more in tim ate rom ance or qu estio n in g the partn er about how he or she felt ab out a closer relationship. T h e con ten t o f escalatin g m em ory-structure m essages at transitional points in a relationship was analyzed by H oneycutt, Cantrill, Kelly, and Lam bkin (1998). They con structed scenarios that took individuals up to a certain point in a developing rom ance. T h ese researchers surveyed 538 students from N o rth ­ ern M ichigan U niversity and L ouisiana S tate University. T h e students ranged in age from 18 to 52, with an average age o f 21.81. T h e sam ple consisted o f 43% m en and 57% women. Th e study exam ined the (a) effect o f knowing where the relationship was cur­ rently in terms o f the developm ent o f intimacy and the effect o f the relationship type (self-involvement or personal relationship vs. reading about som eone else’s or a typical relationship) on the prediction o f the next action to occur in the d e­ velopm ent o f rom ance, (b) the use o f com pliance-gaining strategies intended to advance a relationship to the next stage, and (c) the justification o f secondary goals (why subjects chose the strategies they did as opposed to other alternatives). To determ ine the affect o f relationship type, the students read two stories in which a relationship was developing and were asked to consider where the rela­ tionship stood at a particular point at which the story stopped. T h e stories dif­ fered in term s o f personal or typical relationships and the differences in expectation were exam ined. In this regard, W ish et al. (1976) found that indi­ viduals distinguished their own relationships from typical (or oth ers’) relation ­ ships in term s o f intensity and cooperation. O n e story was a typical relationship about two characters, Linda and Tom, who m et and reached various stages o f relational developm ent. T h ese are the sam e characters in the stories in Box 7.3. A secon d story was a developing per­ sonal rom ance, in which the subjects im agined they were involved. T h e order of the typical and personal stories were coun terbalan ced in the surveys. Each story ended at a particular point in the relationship and the students were queried as to the next m ajor thing they thought would happen in the relationship and what they or the story characters would say if developing the relationship was desired. A n open-ended question asked the students why they thought they or

M E M O R Y STR U C T U R E S FOR DEVELOPING RELA TIO N SH IPS

125

the c h aracte rs w ould say this in stead o f som eth in g else. T h is q u estio n w as p osed to determ in e secon dary go als. T h e poin ts at w hich e ach story ended w ere d e ­ rived from the stories p resen ted in Box 7.3, co n tain in g the prototypical rela­ tion al m em ory stru ctu re action s. T h e results revealed that m ost stu d en ts m en tion ed at least two en suin g a c ­ tion s, two com p lian ce strategies, an d co n cern w ith one secon dary goal. A n e x ­ am ple o f a su b je c t’s listing four en suin g actio n s is the case o f a 2 1 -year-old w om an w ho read a story ab o u t a person al relation sh ip in w hich the story en ded with sexu al in tercou rse. (T h e un derlin ed w ords rep resent the label for the coded e scalatin g m em ory-structure action .) S h e w rote th at the n ext m ajor thing th at w ould h ap p en w as, “ I think our relation sh ip w ould grow stron ger (in­ feren ce o f relation sh ip grow ing c lo se r). We w ould con tin u e to see each other; we w ould go to ch u rch together, spen d m ore free tim e togeth er (sharin g in for­ m al activ itie s), an d disclose m ore ab ou t ou rselv es (self-disclosure o f in tim ate in fo rm atio n ). We m ay even con sid er m ovin g in togeth er (c o h ab ita tio n ) .’’ S tu d e n ts w ho read stories th at en ded after initial m eetin g (in itiation stage) ex p e cted teleph on e callin g and d atin g to occu r in b oth typical an d p erso n al ro ­ m an tic develop m en t. S tu d e n ts w ho read stories th at en ded in the intensifying stage, with the story ch aracters dating, e x p ected m ore sh arin g o f activities in story 1 as well as ex p e ctin g sexu al in tercou rse as the n ext action in b oth stories. Furth erm ore, stu d e n ts who read sto ries th at en ded with d isclosure o f personal valu es an d failures (disclosure stage) also ex p e cted in tercou rse to en sue. T h e m ost p op ular strategies to en h an ce intim acy were in gratiation , direct re­ q u e st, an d e x p la n atio n . A p ro to ty p ical e x am p le o f th ese strate g ie s is a 26-year-old m an w ho read a story ab ou t personal ro m an tic in volvem en t. (T h e strategies are u n derlined.) H e delivered his m arriage p roposal by saying, “ W e’ve been togeth er so long. I c a n ’t im agine life w ith out you (e x p la n atio n ). I love you (in g ra tia tio n ). W ill you m arry m e (direct request) In gratiation is m akin g sta te m e n ts o f love as well as com plim en tin g o n e ’s p artn er an d givin g gifts or m em en to s to o n e 's partner. In gratiation as d efin ed by S ch en k -H am lin et al. (1 982) also in clu ded supp ortive listen ing an d show ing love or affection . M any o f the scripted actio n s for rom an tic d ev elo p m en t d is­ covered by H o n ey cu tt, C an trill, et al. (1989) reflected S ch cn k -H am lin ’s et al.'s (1 982) in gratiation : e xch an gin g gifts, using o th er-o rien ted state m e n ts to e x ­ press an in terest in o n e ’s p a rtn er’s valu es and go als, verb al expression s o f love, an d show ing ph ysical affection th rough touching, hugging, an d kissing. It is intriguing th at H o n ey cu tt et al. (1998) also foun d th at a n um b er o f p a rt­ ners reported they w ould d o n oth in g to e scalate intim acy. In c ase s su ch as these, the persons may be reactive, as opp osed to proactiv e, an d may w ait for verbal or n on verb al cu es from their partn ers before reinforcin g th ose cues. In a sen se, these in dividu als may sim ply be w aiting for things to h app en . Individuals also reported a secon dary ch o ice o f strategies. T h e m ost pop u lar follow up strategy w as hinting. A n exam ple o f h inting is a p artn er using h um or or

126

CHAPTER 7

jokes to indicate his or her desire to pursue more intimacy. H inting offers cover from rejection, unlike direct request. Individuals in early stages o f relational developm ent used fewer strategies to escalate intim acy than do individuals in m ore-developed relationships. T h is re­ inforces the observation by K n app and Vangelisti (1996) that there is more flex­ ibility in com m unicating intim acy in m ore-developed relationships. T h ere is more rigidity in the early stages o f rom ance because individuals have not learned a variety o f nonverbal m eans to com m un icate em otion, and so they m ust be more explicit in order not be m isunderstood. In term s o f secondary goals, the d ata revealed that students reported more identity goals than other types o f secondary goals as a justification for not using alternative strategies in order to enhance intim acy at various stages o f relational developm ent. Identity goals are defined as attem pts to enhan ce an individual’s self-concept. C odes o f con duct, ethics, and values symbolize identity. Personal preferences for appropriate behavior arc em phasized. O th er secondary goals arc interaction, resource, and m anaging arousal. Interaction goals concern the d e­ sire to create a favorable im pression. Individuals want to avoid threatening an ­ other person’s self-concept and to ensure sm ooth com m unication (D illard, Segrin, &. H arden, 1989). R esource goals concern increasing relational assets in the form o f personal rew ards that arise from being in a relationship, increasing m aterial assets such as m oney and goods, and physical assets reflecting health concern s that m ight be jeopardized in pursing the primary goal (e.g., a person decides after m eeting som eone when and how to disclose that he or she has som e health condition ). A rousal m anagem en t goals concern avoiding strate­ gies that they believe will arouse anxiety or negative em otions when seeking com pliance. A ccordin g to discrepancy-arousal theory, individuals evalu ate their arousal as pleasan t or unpleasant depending on the status and attractiv e­ ness o f an interaction partner (Burgoon &. LcPoire, 1993). In terms o f the effect o f personal versus typical relationships, participants cited identity goals when reading about personal rom antic developm ents and less used when reading about typical relationships. However, interaction goals were reported when reading about typical relationships and less used when reading about personal relationships. G E N D E R D I F F E R E N C E S IN G E N E R A T I N G A N D P R O C E SSIN G E SC A L A T IN G MEM ORY ST R U C T U R ES

Th ere are significant differences betw een m en and w om en in generating and processing escalatin g memory structures. T h ese differences concern the initia­ tion and term ination o f relationships. Rubin et al. (1981) found that m en tend to initiate relationships, w hereas women end them . W omen also see a breakup com ing sooner than do men. M en are more rom antic in their beliefs about rela­

M EM O R Y S TR U C T U R ES FOR DEVELOPING RELATIONSH IPS

127

tionships because they are more em otionally depen den t on relationships (Frazier & Esterly, 1990). Traditionally, m en have placed more em phasis on sex, gam e-playing love, and agape love (all-giving, selfless, altruistic love) because they have been m ore econom ically independent, while being em otionally d e ­ pendent on the relationship. C olem an and G an on g (1992) found that women expected prospective h usbands to m ake more money; have higher education al ach ievem ents; and be more intelligent, successful, and better able to handle things than the women them selves. In contrast, men expected their prospective wives to be relatively sim ilar to the m en them selves. W omen arc socialized more than m en to value interpersonal relationships for their inherent worth. B axter and W ilm ot (1983) analyzed individual diary a c ­ counts about specific encounters betw een relational partners over a 2-week p e ­ riod. They found that w omen attributed greater im portance to en coun ters in relationships that were characterized as no-grow th, com pared to low- and high-grow th relationships. Fem ales talked m ore and associated more pcrsonableness, satisfaction , and effectiveness to encounters. Burnett ( 1990) found that m en reported thinking less about relationships, as well as being less involved in com m un ication about relationships. W omen were more willing to participate in a relationship study about telling a friend about a relationship with X . M en were less likely to write to a confidant, had difficulty explaining relationships, preferred not to analyze personal relationships, and were more silent regarding talk about relationships. Burnett (1990) also found that w om en were more concerned with the assess­ m ent o f relationships than men, w hereas men were more con cern ed with the business o f forming, keeping, and m aintaining relationships in the basic sense of m eeting and m aking con tact. It appears that men were bothered about the practical aspects that m akes relationships possible, regardless o f w hat w ent on in them , w hereas w om en cared m ore about m onitoring and evalu ating the in­ trinsic relational events. W omen also claim ed to think, as well as know and talk, more about their closest relationship, even though both sexes claim ed to care equally about the relationship. Harvey, Flannery, et al. (1986) also found that wom en reported more vivid m em ories o f events from their m ost em otionally significant past relationship. T h e gen der differen ces in reflecting on relationships an d w illingness to com m u n icate ab out relation ships are related. If individuals are unlikely to d is­ cuss som eth in g, “ they may be sim ilarly blocked in their thoughts ab o u t it” (B u rn ett, 1990, p. 8 9 ). T h erefore, the sim pler m em ory stru ctu res ab ou t rela­ tion al developm en t for m en arc revealed in thought and com m un ication ab ou t relation ships. M en are more deeply affected by the term ination o f relationships than are women (R u b in et al., 1981). A lo ng this line, Rubin (1970) reported that women make more discrete distinctions betw een liking a m an as opposed to loving a m an. Rubin et al. (1981) believed that w om en think about their relationships

128

C H A P TE R 7

m o r e c a r e fu l l y t h a n m e n d o . C o n s e q u e n t l y , w o m e n ’s c r i t e r i a fo r fa l l i n g in l o v e a n d f o r s t a y i n g in l o v e m a y b e m o r e r i g o r o u s t h a n m e n ’s. W o m e n ’s d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n li k i n g a n d l o v e a r e a l s o s u p p o r t e d by d a t a r e ­ p o r t e d in a s t u d y o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s a m e - g e n d e r f r i e n d s h i p s . O n t h e o n e h a n d , D u c k a n d W r i g h t ( 1 9 9 3 ) f o u n d t h a t b o t h g e n d e r s m e e t w it h s a m e - g e n d e r f r i e n d s m o s t o f t e n j u s t t o t a l k fo r t a l k 's s a k e , f o l l o w e d by w o r k i n g o n s o m e t a s k , a n d , l e a s t o f t e n , to d i s c u s s r e l a t i o n a l i s s u e s . A n e x a m p l e o f m e n d o i n g th is is a t a bar. (Fig. 7 . 1 ) . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a l t h o u g h b o t h m e n a n d w o m e n w e r e c o n c e r n e d w it h c a r in g , s u p p o r t i v e n e s s , a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t , w o m e n w e r e m o r e likely t h a n m e n to c o m m u n i c a t e t h e s e c o n c e r n s d i r e c t l y (Fig. 7 . 2 ) . D u c k a n d W right (1 9 9 3 ) fo u n d th a t w o m e n re p o rte d v o lu n tary in te rd e p e n d e n c e , s u p ­ p o r t i n g o n e a n o t h e r ’s e g o , a f f i r m i n g a f r i e n d 's s e l f - c o n c e p t , s e c u rity , e x p r e s s i n g em o tio n s, an d p e r m a n e n c e o f the relation sh ip as ch aracterizin g friendships m o r e o f t e n t h a n d id m e n . In a d d i t i o n , t h e y f o u n d t h a t w o m e n r e p o r t e d s a m c - g e n d e r f r i e n d s h i p s a s m o r e i m p o r t a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a n d id m e n a n d s p e c u l a t e d t h a t w h e n w o m e n w e r e a s k e d t o id e n ti f y a b e s t f r i e n d o r fr i e n d s , “ t h e y m a y b e r e s p o n d i n g t o a b e t t e r o r s t r o n g e r f r i e n d (o r f r i e n d s ) t h a n m e n w h o a r e g i v e n e x a c t l y t h e s a m e i n s t r u c t i o n s ” (p. 7 2 4 ) . T h e l a c k o f d i s c r i m i n a t i n g c r i t e r i a fo r m e n h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d by B u r n e t t ( 1 9 9 0 ) t o b e d u e t o a p a t t e r n o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n o f m e n to n o t d e m o n s t r a t e e m o ­ t io n fo r f e a r o f r e v e a l i n g v u ln e ra b ilit y . It is c o n s i d e r e d f e m i n i n e to d e m o n s t r a t e a n e e d fo r a f f e c t i o n , s e c u rity , a n d i n ti m a c y . B u r n e t t ( 1 9 9 0 ) w r o t e : Men may be shunned into silence and unaw areness about relationships. A passive approach to learning about relationships continues into adulthood and into effort­ less but often failing personal relationships. Now that it has becom e an academ ic dis­ cipline, the elevated status of “personal relationships” as a subject to be taught and investigated will perhaps break into this devalue-disregard cycle, (p. 90) B u r n e t t ’s s t a t e m e n t w a s s u p p o r t e d by d a t a f r o m R u b i n e t al. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . T h e y f o u n d t h a t w o m e n r e p o r t e d b e i n g less r o m a n t i c t h a n m e n a n d m o r e c a u t i o u s a b o u t e n te r in g in to r o m a n c e . W o m e n w ere m ore p r a g m a tic a n d se n sitiv e a b o u t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I f th is is tr u e , o n e w o u l d c x p e c t w o m e n to rate previously g e n e ra te d , c o m m o n rela tio n al m e t a - M O P (m e m o ry o r g a n iz a ­ t i o n p a c k e t ) a c t i o n s a s b e i n g m o r e t y p ic a l t h a n d o m e n b e c a u s e o f r e l a t i o n a l m o n i t o r i n g . I n d e e d , t h is is w h a t t h e d a t a p a r t ia l l y r e v e a l . W o m en rep orted h avin g m ore gen eral ex p e c tatio n s o f w h a t sho uld h ap p en in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n e s c a l a t i n g r o m a n c e ( H o n e y c u t t , C a n t r i l l . 1 9 8 9 ) . F u r ­ t h e r m o r e , w o m e n r e p o r t e d b e i n g m o r e a w a r e o f t h e i r r e a s o n s fo r u s i n g v e r b a l strategies to e sc a la te in tim acy at v ario u s sta ges o f relation al d e v e lo p m e n t ( H o n e y c u t t e t al., 1 9 9 8 ) . In a d d i t i o n , w o m e n h a v e m o r e d e v e l o p e d m e m o r y s t r u c t u r e s fo r e s c a l a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . W o m e n g e n e r a t e d a n a v e r a g e o f 1 2 .11 a c t i o n s fo r t h e i r e s c a l a t i n g m e t a m c m o r y s t r u c t u r e s , w h e r e a s m e n g e n e r a t e d a n a v e r a g e o f 1 0 . 1 0 , w i t h o u t b e i n g r e d u n d a n t ( H o n e y c u t t , C a n t r i l l , e t al., 1 9 8 9 ) .

FIG. 7.1

Me n self'disclosing at a bar.

FIG. 7.2

Women directly disclose their concerns.

129

130

CH APTER 7

H o w e v e r, n o t e h o w this d iffe r e n c e is s m a ll. In this re g ar d , C a n a r y a n d H a u s e ( 1 9 9 3 ) d id e x t e n s i v e re v ie w s o f th e c o m m u n i c a t i o n d if fe r e n c e s b e t w e e n g e n ­ d e r s a n d n o t e d t h a t th e b e h a v i o r a l d if fe r e n c e s are o f te n n o t in e v i d e n c e a n d , w h e n th e y are, the m a g n i t u d e o f d if fe r e n c e s is s m all. F o r e x a m p l e , g e n d e r -r o le ste r e o t y p e s l e a d o n e to b e lie v e t h a t w o m e n s c lf- d is c lo s e m o r e . I n d e e d , w o m e n ra te s e lf- d is c lo s u re as b e in g m o r e n e c e s s a r y t h a n typ ic a l in a g r o w in g r o m a n c e t h a n d o m e n ( H o n e y c u t t , C a n t r i l l , e t al., 1 9 8 9 ) . Yet D i n d i a a n d A l l e n ( 1 9 9 2 ) , re v ie w in g o v e r 2 0 0 s tu d ie s o f g e n d e r d if fe r e n c e s in se lf- d is c lo s u re , f o u n d t h a t a l t h o u g h w o m e n te n d to d is c lo s e m o r e t h a n m e n , the d if fe r e n c e is s m all. For e x ­ a m p l e , w o m e n d i s c l o s e m o r e t h a n m e n in s a m e - g e n d e r c o n v e r s a t i o n s , bu t th e re is n o d if fe r e n c e b e t w e e n the a m o u n t t h a t w o m e n a n d m e n d i s c l o s e in o p p o ­ site-gender conversations. C a n a r y a n d H a u s e ( 1 9 9 3 ) i n d i c a t e d t h a t g e n d e r -r o le s te r e o t y p e s m a y b e r e ­ la t e d to g e n d e r d if fe r e n c e s in be liefs a b o u t re la tio n s h ip s . H o w e v e r, a l t h o u g h we h a v e f o u n d a n u m b e r o f g e n d e r d if fe r e n c e s in te r m s o f g e n e r a t i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s , this say s n o t h i n g a b o u t a c t u a l l y d o i n g the be h a v io r. I n d e e d , the r e lia n c e o n g e n d e r-role s te r e o ty p e s , in w h i c h w o m e n are b e l ie v e d to b e u s in g s tr a t e g i e s to m a i n t a i n their re l a ti o n s h i p s m o r e t h a n m e n , m a y be r e l a te d to s t a t i n g a c t i o n s t h a t s u p p o r t t h e s e s te r e o ty p e s . F o r e x a m p l e , H o n e y c u t t , C a n t r i l l , e t al. f o u n d t h a t w o m e n ra te e n g a g i n g in j o i n t ac t iv itie s, o v e r c o m i n g a crisis, m e e t i n g p a r ­ e n ts , t a lk in g a b o u t fu tu re p l a n s, v e rb a l e x p r e s s i o n o f love, s t a t i n g a c o m m i t ­ m e n t , a n d m a k i n g o t h e r - o r i e n t e d s t a t e m e n t s as m o r e typical t h a n d id m e n . W o m e n r a te d m e e t i n g o n e a n o t h e r ’s p a r e n t s a n d t a l k i n g a b o u t fu tu r e p l a n s as m o r e n e c e s s a r y t h a n d id m e n . T h e on ly a c t i o n m e n t i o n e d by m e n as b e in g m o r e n e c e s s a r y in a n o r d e r for i n tim a c y to d e v e l o p in a re l a ti o n s h i p c o m p a r e d to w o m e n w a s s e x u a l i n te r c o u r s e . T h e s e s e lf-rep orts are c o n s i s t e n t with tr a d i ­ tio n a l g e n d e r -r o le s te r e o ty p e s o f w o m e n as h a v i n g m o r e likely to u s e r e la tio n a l m a i n t e n a n c e t h a n m e n , e v e n t h o u g h b e h a v i o r a l s tu d ie s r e v e a l e d t h a t b o t h g e n d e r s use s t r a t e g i e s o f positivity, d is c lo s u r e , a n d g i v i n g a s s u r a n c e s to o n e a n ­ o t h e r ( S t a f f o r d & C a n a r y , 1 9 9 1 ). T h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e s e e m s to c o - v a r y with a g e for w o m e n ; h e n c e , it lo s e s s o m e o f its g e n d e r d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s . A s tu d y by C o l l i n s , K e n n e d y , a n d F r a n c is ( 1 9 7 6 ) o f m e n a n d w o m e n 17 to 19, 2 0 to 2 4 , a n d 25 to 3 0 y e ars o ld i n v e s t i g a t e d e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t s e x u a l ac t iv itie s, r a n g i n g from a n initial d a t e to e x p e c t e d b e h a v i o r in m a r r ia g e . T h e stu d y r e v e a l e d t h a t m e n a n d w o m e n in the 17 - t o - 19 g r o u p h a d sim ila r e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t the a m o u n t o f s e x u a l be h a vior. T h e in d i v i d u a l s w ere a s k e d a b o u t their le v e ls o f e x p e c t a t i o n for kissing, n e c k ­ ing, light p e ttin g , p e t t i n g to o r g a s m , a n d full i n te r c o u r s e . M e n in the o l d e r gr o u p s e x p e c t e d w o m e n to b e h a v e m o r e liberally. A f t e r se v e r a l d a t e s , the m e n e x p e c t e d w o m e n to be m o r e i n t i m a t e , c o m p a r e d t o th e w o m e n ’s e x p e c t a t i o n s . W o m e n in the 17 - t o - 19 g r o u p e x p c c t e d m e n to b e h a v e less in tim ately. C o l l i n s e t al. ( 1 9 7 6 ) s u r m is e d t h a t w o m e n sh ifte d th e ir e x p e c t a t i o n s o v e r tim e b e c a u s e they are m o r e a w a r e o f th e m e n ’s m o t i v a t io n s . M e n m a y b e less u n d e r s t a n d i n g

M E M O R Y STR U C T U R E S FOR DEVELOPING RELA TIO N SH IPS

131

o f w om en’s expressive orien tatio n b e cau se they are less aw are o f relation sh ip ev en ts an d activities. W om en m o n ito r their re la tio n sh ip s an d h av e m ore vivid m em ories o f sp e ­ cific e v e n ts o ccu rrin g w ith the re la tio n sh ip s. R o ss an d H o lm b erg (1 9 9 2 ) h ad sp o u se s tap e record d e scrip tio n s o f th eir first d a te togeth er, a sh are d v a c a tio n , an d argu m en t b etw een th em . S u b se q u e n tly , the p artn ers a sse ssed the clarity o f th eir recall o f the e v e n t. W ives rep orted m ore vivid m em ories th an d id their h u sb an d s. S im ilar to the resu lts o f B u rn e tt (1 9 9 0 ), R o ss an d H o lm b e rg also fou n d th a t w ives attrib u te d g re ater p e rso n a l im p o rtan ce to the e v e n ts, re ­ p orted rem in iscin g ab o u t them m ore o fte n , an d ex p re sse d m ore e m o tio n s in d e scrib in g the e v e n ts th an did their h u sb an d s. T h e freq u en cy o f rem in iscin g a b o u t the e v e n t w as a sso c ia te d w ith clarity o f recall. O u tsid e o b serv ers w ho read tran scrip ts o f sp o u se s’ d e sc rip tio n s o f the e v e n ts also ju d g e d the w om en ’s recall to be m ore vivid. H u sb an d s turn to their w ives for help in recallin g even ts o f the relation sh ip. W h en recallin g ev en ts together, h u sban ds w ere m ore likely to report m em ory failures, w hereas h u sb a n d s’ an d w ives’ reports o f forgettin g did n ot differ w hen they recalled relation al episodes alone (R oss & H olm berg, 1992). T h e in crease in h u sb a n d s’ forgettin g in the dyadic situ atio n and atte m p ts to gain inform ation from their spou ses is know n as tran sactiv e retrieval (Wegner, 1987). W h en re­ callin g relation al e v e n ts alo ne, there is no help av ailab le and sta te m e n ts ab out forgettin g are in frequen t. It w as sp e cu late d th at h u sb an d s, w ith their less-vivid m em ories, feel a greater need to turn to their w ives for aid in recall. T h u s, they are im plicitly revealin g their lack o f m em ory recall. R oss an d H olm berg (1992) n oted th at the gen d er effect in the ratings o f v iv ­ idn ess d isap p ears w hen the o u tco m e o f a recalled argu m en t is co n sidered. A d d i­ tion al analyses o f the argu m en t tran scripts d istin gu ish ed betw een w ho initiated an d who w on the argum en t. M en an d w om en w ho lost the dispu te reported higher vividn ess ratings than did the w inning spou ses. H u sb an d s w ho lost the dispu te ten ded to h ave the m ost vivid recall o f all. W ives reported m ore vivid m em ories b e cau se they were m ore likely to lose the dispute. L osers in m arital d ispu tes may be keepin g score an d keepin g in m em ory the d etails o f how they co n ccd ed in h opes o f ach ievin g future co n cessio n s from their partners. Losers may analyze the dispu te m ore exten sively in an atte m p t to im prove their stra te ­ gies in the future. A problem with this persp ective is th at stu d ies o f sc h e m a ta p rocessin g re­ v ealed th at exp erts in ch ess, physics, and so cce r p o ssess detailed sch e m a ta th at facilitate m em ory in the are a o f specialization (C h arn ess, 198 8 ). H o n ey cu tt, C an trill, et al. (1989) stu d ies o f relation al m em ory-structure p rocessin g reveal th at in dividuals w ho h ave been in relation sh ips sort ran dom ized actio n s m ore efficiently th an do in dividuals w ho h ave b een in zero relation sh ips. T h is finding should not be in terp reted as im plying th at in dividuals in m ultiple relation sh ips arc experts at su stain in g relation sh ips. In fact, the very opp osite can be su r­

132

CHAPTER 7

m ised , d u e to the fre q u e n t en d in g s o f th eir re la tio n sh ip s. In ad d itio n , it is p o ssi­ ble th a t th e losers in the R o ss an d H o lm b e rg (1 9 9 2 ) stu d y m ay h av e an alyzed a h istory o f failed strate g ie s. B e rge r an d K e lle rm an n (1 9 8 6 ) n o te d th a t in d iv id u ­ als m ay use h ab itu a l b e h a v io ra l stra te g ie s w hen tryin g to gain c o m p lia n c e , e v e n w hen they arc fac e d w ith b arriers an d failu re. T h e y sp e c u la te d th at th e se in d i­ v id u a ls u se a m a x im w hich c a n be sta te d as: “ K eep d o in g w h a t u sually w orks e v e n if it isn ’t an d try so m e th in g new an d h o p e th a t it will w ork b e tte r " (p. 24) • In ge n e ra l, w ives m ay be m ore likely th an th eir h u sb a n d s to e v a lu a te c u rre n t re la tio n al e x p e rie n c e s in view o f th eir m em o ries o f p re v io u s e n c o u n te rs. R o ss an d H o lm b e rg (1 9 9 2 ) p ro v id e d an e x am p le in w hich a wife e x h ib its an e x tre m e re a c tio n to an o v e rsig h t by h er h u sb a n d . H e d o e s n o t u n d e rstan d this. T h e wife m ay a sso c ia te th e cu rre n t d isa g re e m e n t w ith a p re v io u s se q u e n c e o f ac tio n s, w h ereas th e h u sb a n d m ay reg ard h er d isa g re e m e n t as an u n re a so n ab le re sp o n se to a single in cid en t. SUM M ARY T h e c o n te n t o f re la tio n al m em ory stru c tu re s for d e v e lo p in g ro m an c e s rev eals g e n d e r d iffe ren ce s in the co m p le x ity o f th e stru ctu re . W om en rep o rt m ore e x ­ p e c ta tio n s a b o u t th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f ro m an c e th a n d o m en . D isc lo su re is se e n as a se p a ra te p h ase for w om en . M e n m ay be rath e r sim p listic in th eir e x p e c t a ­ tio n s for ro m an c e b e c a u se in a c tio n -g e n e r a tio n stu d ie s they re sta te a c tio n s an d m e n tio n few u n iq u e ac tiv itie s. R e se a rc h h as re v e a led th a t th e n u m b e r o f re la tio n sh ip s a p erso n re p o rts h a v ­ ing b e en in c a n be p re d icte d from w h at they m e n tio n as b e in g c h a ra c te ristic o f a d e v e lo p in g re la tio n sh ip . In ad d itio n , m o st a c tio n s th a t ch a ra cte riz e ro m an ce arc se e n as typ ical; less arc se e n as necessary . In d iv id u als o fte n lab el a c tio n s as b e in g c h a ra c te ristic o f ro m an c e , ev en th o u g h they are u n ab le to g e n e ra te a list o f the a c tio n s o n th e ir ow n . In o th e r w ords, o n c e th e a c tio n is p re se n te d , it is recog n ized . H ow ever, it is an en tirely differen t m a tte r to th in k o f th e a c tio n in the first p la c e . T h e on ly ac tio n ra te d as m ore n e c essa ry th a n typ ical w as a desire for se lf-d isc lo su re . M en an d w om en c a n readily iden tify un d erly in g sta g e s o f e sc a la tin g re la tio n ­ sh ip s. A p ro to ty p ical se q u e n c e w as d eriv ed th a t re se m b le d so m e o f th e soc ia l-p e n e tra tio n sta g e s in the sta irc a se m o d e l o f K n a p p an d V an g elisti (1 9 9 6 ). T h e re is m ore ag re e m e n t on th e o rd e rin g o f early a c tio n s, su ch as d atin g, th an o n late r-o c c u rrin g a c tio n s, su c h as m a k in g a c o m m itm e n t. D ISC U SSIO N Q U E ST IO N S 7 .1 W h y d o w om en list m ore e x p e c ta tio n s for the e sc a la tio n o f ro m an ce th a n m en ? A re m en co gn itiv ely sim p listic or ig n o ran t a b o u t the b e h a v ­ iors th a t ch a ra cte riz e th e e sc a la tio n o f ro m an ce ?

M E M O R Y STR U C T U R E S FOR DEVELOPING RELA TIO N SH IPS

133

7.2 L ook at the list o f actio n s th at characterize the esc alatio n o f rom an ce. D iscu ss w hich o f these actio n s are m ore easily in terch an ged or sw itched in the prototy pical se q u e n ce . For exam p le, m eetin g tends to precede m arriage, un less cu ltu ral m ores establish con tractu ally arran ged marriagcs su ch as in Egypt or India. 7.3 D iscu ss w hat may h app en if a two individuals m eet an d one h as a diversified set o f n on re d u n d an t e x p e c tatio n s for the d ev elo p m en t o f rom an ce, w hereas the o th er in dividual has a sim ple set th at is n ot com plex. A P P L IC A T IO N S

7.1 C o n d u c t a m in i-exp erim en t by ask in g three m ale an d three fem ale friends to gen erate a list o f b eh aviors th at characterize a close relationship. C o m p u te the redu nd an cy o f the listed actio n s by cou n tin g the n um ber o f rep eated or sim ilar state m e n ts m ade by an individual. D id the m en an d w om en h ave sim ilar levels o f redu n d an cy ? W h en you take re­ du n dan cy into ac c o u n t, did the m en and w om en gen erate the sam e n u m b er o f un ique action s? C a n you m ake any con clu sio n s ab ou t differ­ en ce b etw een the m en and w om en in the com plexity o f the e x p e ctatio n s for a close relation sh ip? 7.2 C o n d u c t a m in i-exp erim en t by w riting dow n the d escrip tion s o f the b e­ h avioral e x p e ctatio n s in B o x 7.2, each on a sep arate in dex card. Sh uffle the card s so the e x p e c tatio n s are in a ran dom order. G ive the deck to three m ale and three fem ale friends an d in stru ct them to sort the cards in an intuitive logical order. T im e them an d com pare their orders with those in B o x 7.2. W as it difficult for them to sort the ex p e c tatio n s? Were there any reactio n s to the experim en t? D iscu ss any gen der differen ces in the sortin g tim es an d rank orders o f the b eh avioral ex p e ctatio n s. 7.3 R e p ro d u c e the sto rie s o f Jo h n an d V eron ica an d L in d a an d Tom in B o x 7 .3 , o m ittin g the p e rc e n ta g e s o f su b je c ts m ark in g b o u n d a rie s after e ac h se n te n c e . D istrib u te the sto rie s to th ree m en an d th ree w om en an d tell them w h at to d o by follow in g the in stru ctio n s on p age s 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 . C o m p are th eir lo c atio n s o f slash m ark s w ith th ose in B o x 7.3. D id the m en an d w om en agree on the p la c em e n t o f the slash m arks? W h a t d o their slash m arks re v e al ab o u t u n derly in g p h ase s in the m inds o f the in d iv id u als you sam p led ?

8 Memory Stru ctu re s for Decaying Relationships

T h is ch a p te r d eals w ith how the e x p e c tatio n s for the d ev elo p m en t o f rom an tic relation sh ips can cau se p o te n tial problem s. For exam ple, on e o f the escalatin g m em ory stru ctu re e x p e ctatio n s is overco m in g a crisis. T h is e x p e ctatio n o pen s the d oo r to p oten tial problem s in a relation sh ip in sofar as overco m in g a crisis re­ sults in in creased con flict. A s in d icated in c h ap ters 2 an d 6, relation sh ips are ch aracterized by d iale ctic needs. For exam ple, a com m only m en tion ed e sc a la t­ ing m em ory stru ctu re exp e ctan cy is sharin g tim e togeth er or en gagin g in jo in t activities; yet it is possible for one p artn er to believe th at the couple is spen din g too m uch tim e togeth er an d to w an t tim e alo ne. A n o th e r com m on m em ory stru c tu re e x p e c ta tio n is se lf-d isclo su re . Yet stu d ie s by B u rgo o n , P arrott, LePoire, Kelley, W alther, and Penny (1 989) reveal how privacy m a in te n an ce may be a goal in som e relation sh ips. Too m uch disclosure m akes som e partn ers u n com fortab le, or relation al partn ers m ay w ish to keep con fid en ces in various areas. A s a result, they m ay w ithdraw from in teraction in order to restore a d e ­ sirable level o f privacy. T h is c h ap ter exam in es a series o f stud ies th at parallel the stud ies d iscussed in ch a p te r 7, excep t the con cern is with d e -e sca latin g e x p e c tatio n s. Follow ing the outline o f the p recedin g chapter, this ch ap ter discu sses the co n te n ts o f d e -e scalatin g m em ory structures, differen ces in the typicality an d n ecessity ratings o f d e -e sca latin g actio n s, an d p rediction s th at can be m ade ab ou t p e o p le ’s beliefs ab o u t re latio n al decay on the basis o f typicality an d necessity ratings. In a d d i­ tion , underlying stage s o f decay are analyzed in the d e -e sca latin g m etam em ory 134

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S FOR DECAYING RELA TIO N SH IPS

135

structures, continuing the stories o f the fictional couples presented in chapter 7. Finally, the chapter con cludes with discussions o f gender differences in gen erat­ ing de-escalatin g m em ory structures and the results o f a series o f studies on indi­ viduals’ desires to end or redefine a relationship. C O N T E N T O F D E -E SC A LA T IN G M EM O RY ST R U C T U R E S

Th e script-generating procedure described in chapter 7 was used to m easure ex­ pectations for relationships that are on the declinc. Subjects were asked to list up to 20 actions that they believed were typical in the break up o f a rom antic rela­ tionship (H oneycutt, Cantrill, & A llen, 1992). T h e participants consisted o f 94 men and 121 women who were recruited from undergraduate classes in introduc­ tory public speaking at Louisiana State University. T hey ranged in age from 17 to 28, with an average age o f 18.20. T h e participants had not been exposed to the lit­ erature associated with relational decay and com m unication. They were asked to start the list with two individuals who have a long-term com m itm ent with one a n ­ other and end the list with the individuals not wanting to have an intim ate rela­ tionship. Box 8.1 presents the list o f de-escalating actions. T h e subjects were instructed to report behaviors and to try to avoid reporting em otional inferences that may be associated with the breakdow n o f a rom ance. They were told that “a person saying feeling bored, se lf is unhappy with relation­ ship, doubts the relationship” is reporting on feelings associated with the decay process rather than on behaviors. Even though the subjects were asked to gen ­ erate behavioral actions and were given exam ples o f actions and inferences, 24% o f the lines produced con tain ed inferences. In addition, statistical analysis revealed that individuals gen erated more redundant inference responses than action responses. (H oneycutt ct al., 1992). Baldwin (1992) noted that interpersonal scripts include thoughts, feelings, and m otivations. H e notes, “A s well as observing the external behaviors o f self and other, an individual in an interaction will be aware o f his or her own internal states and also quite likely will be inferring som ething about the internal state o f the other person. Included in an interpersonal script thus will be expectation s about the thoughts, feelings, and goals o f both self and o th er” (p. 468). B ox 8.1 p resen ts the percen tages for each m em ory structure action . P revi­ ous stud ies h ave used decision rules as low as 16% (of the participan ts m en ­ tion in g an action ) in order for an action to be in cluded in the prototypical m em ory structure (Pryor &. M erluzzi, 1985). In this study, a level o f 20% was u se d for a s t a t e m e n t ’s in c lu sio n in th e p r o to ty p ic a l d e - e s c a l a t in g m etam em ory structure (H o n ey cutt et al., 1992). T h is decision was based on an analysis o f the num ber o f responses for the action s and a determ in ation o f w here explicit gaps existed. T h is revealed th at a 20% decision rule provided a clear c u t-o ff point. Four activities ranged betw een frequen cies o f 20% and 25% , with a distin ct gap com in g below 20% .'

B o x 8.1

D e-escalatin g M em ory Structure Exp ectation s

C lu ste r

B e h av io ral E xpectation

Percentage o f Su b jects M en tion in g A ction

D e c re asin g in tim acy

1.

S to p expressin g in tim ate feelin gs*

26%

(sta te m e n ts o f love, c o n c e rn , care) 2.

D e c r e a s e physical in tim acy

14%

a n d w it h h o l d a f f e c t i o n ( s u c h as k is s e s , h u g s , t o u c h e s , p e t ti n g , e tc .)

Aversive com m un ication 3.

A r g u e a b o u t little th in g s ,

32%

pet pee v e s, recurrin g irritan ts* 4.

D isagree a b o u t attitu des,

20%

o p i n i o n s , v a l u e s , roles t h i n g s to d o * 5.

V e r b a l f ig h t in g a n d a n t a g o n i z a t i o n

36 %

o f o t h e r * (e .g ., s h o u t i n g , yelling, profan ity , w h in in g ) 6.

C rit ic iz e p a r t n e r t h r o u g h n o t in g

17%

s h o r t c o m i n g s in partn er, personal attacks 7.

M a k e s a r c a s t i c r e m a r k s to p a r t n e r

13%

8.

C a l l or p h o n e less

12%

9.

S p e n d less t im e t o g e t h e r ;

39%

D ecreasin g c on tact

se e e a c h o t h e r less o f t e n * 10. A v o i d a n d i g n o r e o t h e r

40%

in p u b lic s e t t i n g s * 1 1. G i v e o t h e r e x c u s e s for n o t b e in g ab le to go o u t o r d a t e

136

11

%

B o x 8.1 (C o n tin u e d ) C lu s te r

B e h a v io r a l E x p e c ta tio n *

P e rc e n tag e o f S u b je cts M e n tio n in g A ctù m

R eevaluatin g relation sh ip 12.

T r i a l r e j u v e n a t i o n ; try t o

32%

s m o o t h things o v e r th ro u g h d i s c u s s i o n ; a p e r i o d o f t im e fo r r e a d j u s t m e n t * 1 3. T a l k a b o u t e t i o l o g y a n d w h y

15%

d isag reem en ts o ccu r; discuss so u rce o f p ro b lem s/co n flicts 14.

T a l k a b o u t b r e a k i n g u p w it h p a r t n e r *

20%

1 5.

T a l k w it h o t h e r s o r f r i e n d s a b o u t

10%

re la tio n a l p ro b le m s, issu es, or co n flicts C om p arin g altern atives 16.

A sse ss and c o m p a re altern atives;

23%

thin k o f c o sts a n d b enefits o f oth er a r ra n g e m e n ts; b e c o m e in terested in o t h e r s * 17.

S p e n d m o r e t i m e w ith

13%

sa m e - g e n d e r friends 18.

S t a r t s e e i n g o t h e r s o f th e

23%

o p p o site-gen d er* 19.

D e v e lo p m o re o u tsid e in terests,

13%

hobbies, activities u n rela ted to r e l a t i o n s h i p T erm in atio n of relation sh ip 20.

Final b re a k u p an d term in atio n

58%

o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p * 21.

*

M iscellan eo u s b eh av io rs

31%

A s t e r i s k (*) i n d i c a t e s p r o t o t y p i c a l m e m o r y s t r u c t u r e a c t i o n s in w h i c h 2 0 % o r m o r e o f s u b '

je c t s m e n t i o n e d th e b e h a v i o r .

137

13»

CH A PTER«

B ased on this rule, 11 actio n s w ere identified as com prisin g the d e -e sca latin g m etam em ory structure (H o n ey cu tt et al., 199 2 ). T h e se actio n s in clu ded re d u c ­ ing or sto ppin g the expression o f in tim ate feelings, argu in g ab o u t little things, disagreein g with the oth er p erso n ’s opin ion s, verbal fighting, sp en d in g less tim e together, av oid in g or ign orin g the o th er person on ch a n c e encounter, trying to reju ven ate the relation sh ip, an d talkin g ab o u t en din g the relation sh ip. A lso m en tion ed were b eco m in g in terested in oth ers, actually startin g to see oth ers, an d finally term in atin g the relationship. T h e m em ory -stru ctu re e x p e c ta tio n s a p p e ar to rep resen t six u n derlying c lu ste rs o f b e h av io rs. T h e se c lu ste rs w ere d erived by n o tin g c o n c e p tu a l sim i­ larities am o n g the a ctiv itie s. For ex am p le , the first c lu ste r is lab eled d e c re a s­ ing in tim acy in w hich p e rso n a l c o m m u n ic atio n is d e c re a se d . T h e a c tio n s re p re se n tin g th is c lu ste r are n ot e x p re ssin g verb al feelin gs an d d e c re a sin g ph y sical affe ctio n . T h e se c o n d c lu ste r is av ersiv e co m m u n ic atio n , w hich is a r ­ gu in g ab o u t sm all th in gs and fighting. In ad d itio n , criticism an d sarcasm m ay be o th e r av ersiv e b e h a v io r tow ard o n e ’s partner. T h e third clu ste r is d e c re a s­ ing c o n ta c t, in w hich the p a rtn ers see less o f e ach o th e r an d re d u ce callin g. Further, re a so n s are giv en for o n e ’s n ot b e in g ab le to go o u t w ith o n e ’s partner. T h is c lu ste r resem b les the d ise n g ag in g strate g ie s id en tified by C o d y et al. (1 9 8 2 ), in w hich they d isc o v e re d strate g ie s o f b e h a v io ra l d e e sc a la tio n su ch as the in d iv id u al av o id in g c o n ta c t w ith his or h er re la tio n al partner, as well as n o t c allin g the partner. T h e fourth c lu ste r is re e v a lu atin g the re latio n sh ip . In ­ d iv id u a ls talk a b o u t their re la tio n al p rob lem s w ith o n e an o th e r or frien ds. T h e fifth c lu ste r is co m p a rin g a lte rn a tiv e s, in w hich the in d iv id u al c o n sid e rs s e e ­ ing o th e r p e o p le. T h e in d iv id u al m ay th in k a b o u t seein g o th e rs, as well as d e ­ velop in g o th e r in te re sts an d sp e n d in g m ore tim e with friends. T h e final c lu ste r is the term in atin g the re la tio n sh ip . T h e n e x t se c tio n d iscu sse s how som e o f the a ctio n s w ith th ese clu ste rs arc sim ilar to strate g ie s for re la tio n al d e clin e d isc u sse d in o th e r research . D e - E s c a la t in g A c t io n s C o m p a r e d to O t h e r M o d e ls o f R e la t io n s h ip D e c lin e M any d e -e sca latin g actio n s th at arc listed in B ox 8.1 were observed in a study on break ing up by B attag lia, R ich ard, D atteri, and Lord (1 9 9 8 ). In their study, individuals m en tion ed lack o f interest, n oticin g oth er peop le, actin g d istan t, trying to w ork things ou t, av oid in g the oth er person, lack in g in terest, co n sid e r­ ing b reak in g up, co m m u n icatin g feelings, n oticin g o th er people, gettin g back together, con siderin g break ing up, m ovin g on, and break in g up. C o m m u n i­ catin g feelin gs in cluded talk in g w ith friends or fam ily m em bers, as well as talk ­ ing ab o u t relation al problem s w ith o n e ’s partner. O f course, the lack o f co m m u n icatio n w as also cited.

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S FOR DECAYING RELA TIO N SH IPS

139

T h e breaking-up process begins when a person loses interest in his or her partner and other people becom e more attractive. In term s o f social-exchange theory, com parison alternatives are noticed and considered. O n e begins to withdraw em otionally before trying to rejuvenate the relationship. T h e lack o f interest often rekindles the relationship, but the individual begins to consider the final break. T h e partners talk about the issues that divide them and try to work things out. Yet they continue to notice alternatives to their current rela­ tional partners, which may lead to datin g others while still dating the current partner. T h e cycle repeats itself a second time when the couple decides to get back together before considering breaking up for a second tim e. Em otional d e­ tachm ent allows individuals to experience a sense o f having m oved on. Finally, gaining a sense o f closure through recovering consum m ates the final step o f the relationship-dissolution script (Battaglia et al., 1998). Som e o f the d e -e scalatin g action s in Box 8.1 are sim ilar to the strategies discussed by B axter (1984, 1985) for en din g a relation ship. B ax te r distin ­ guished betw een direct and in direct strategies. D irect strategies include fait accom p li— action s in dicatin g th at the relation ship is over with no o p p o rtu ­ nity for d iscussion . A ctio n 14 in B ox 8.1 is m ost sim ilar to this strategy. B axter discussed a state-of-th e-relatio n sh ip talk strategy in w hich there is an explicit state m e n t o f dissatisfactio n and a desire to exit the relation ship. A ction 13 in Box 8.1 is close to this strategy; partners talk ab ou t why d isagreem en ts occur betw een them as well as the sources o f relation al con flict. A n o th e r strategy discussed by B ax te r is attrib u tion al conflict. T h is strategy is ch aracterized by anger, yelling, or scream in g w hile attribu tin g blam e. T h is strategy ap pears in the aversive com m u n ication cluster, particularly in action 5 in w hich there is shouting, yelling, and whining. A n o th er direct strategy is w hat B ax te r referred to as negotiated farew ell, in w hich there is explicit, n on h ostile co m m u n ica­ tion that form ally ends the relation sh ip. T h is appears in action 20, the final breakup and en din g o f the relation ship. In direct strategies may be used with the in ten t o f accom plish in g the d isso ­ lution w ithout an explicit state m e n t o f the end o f the relation ship (Baxter, 1985). W ithdraw al is an in direct strategy th at is ch aracterized by a reduction o f intim acy and c o n tact. A ctio n s 1 an d 2 o f the decrease intim acy elu ster rep ­ resent this strategy. A n o th er indirect strategy is w hat B axter referred to as p seu d o -d eescalatio n , in w hich there is a false d eclaratio n to the partn er that on e desires a tran sform ed relation ship o f redu ced closen ess. T h e d e -e sc a la t­ ing m em ory structure m ost sim ilar to this strategy is action 12, involving a p e ­ riod o f attem p ted reju ven ation to discuss a transform ed relation sh ip. C o st escalation is an oth er in direct strategy, which in volves beh avior tow ard the p artn er that in creases relation al co sts. A ctio n 7 is m ost sim ilar to this strategy, in which the in dividual e xp ects sarcastic language to accom p an y or even a c ­ celerate the decline o f relation sh ips. G o ttm an (1979) also gave exam ples o f

140

CH A PTER«

un h app ily m arried c o u p le s u sin g d e lib e rate sarc asm in o rder to m ake their p artn ers feel u n co m fo rtab le . T h e c o n te n t o f the d e -e sca latin g m etam em ory stru ctu re co n ta in s action s th at are foun d in the exit-voice-loy alty -n eglect m odel o f relation al d issatisfac ­ tion. R usb ult (1987) d iscu sscd four respo n ses to d issatisfactio n in relation sh ips: exit (en din g or th reaten in g to end the relation sh ip; actio n s 14 an d 2 0 ), voice (actively and con stru ctively expressin g o n e ’s d issatisfactio n w ith the in ten t o f im proving co n d itio n s; actio n s 3 ,4 , 12 and 13), loyalty (passively but op tim isti­ cally w aitin g for co n d itio n s to im prove), an d n eglect (passively allow ing o n e ’s relation sh ip to decay ; 1, 2, and 8 - 1 1 ). T h e se catego ries o verlap. M o st relatio n al problem s exten d over tim e rath er than bein g isolated ev en ts and may be asso c iate d w ith several reaction s. R u sb u lt (1 9 8 7 ) claim ed th at exit an d n eglect are d e stru ctiv e beh aviors, w hereas voice and loyalty are co n stru ctiv e. E xit an d voice are active respon ses, w hereas n eglect and loyalty arc passive reaction s. R usbult in d icated th at exit an d n eglect are destru ctive o f the curren t relation sh ip, w hereas voice an d loy­ alty are co n stru ctiv e to its co n tin u a n ce or recon stitu tion . O n the o th er h and, G oodw in (1 991) foun d th at the respo nses are n ot easily classified as active or passive an d th at the loyalty response c o n tain s positive an d n egative elem ents. A lso , the d e -e sca latin g m etam em ory stru ctu re in B o x 8.1 reveals no cv id cn ce for loyalty; there were no e x p e c tatio n s reflecting this type o f response. T h e c lo s­ est actio n to this w as trial reju v en atio n , b ut this e x p e ctatio n involved an active atte m p t to w ork things o u t in the relation ship.

I n f e r e n c e s A s s o c i a t e d W ith R e la t io n s h ip D e c a y

B ox 8.2 co n tain s the in feren ces that w ere m en tion ed by at least 11% o f the sa m ­ ple. T h e re w as little agreem en t on the in feren ces, with the exception o f feeling bored with the relation sh ip and feeling an in crease in uncertainty. A fte r these in feren ces, the n ext m ost-frequen tly m en tion ed inference, anger, only h ad a frequen cy o f 17% . T h e finding th at b oredom w as frequently m en tion ed w as also ob served in oth er research to be the m ost-iden tified con trib u tin g facto r to the en din g o f relation sh ips (e.g., Hill et al., 1976). O n e sp ecu latio n ab ou t the m en tion in g o f inferences is th at the su b jects may be un ab le to articu late the source or cau se o f the em o tio n al inference. T h e in ­ feren ce probably rep resen ts an o u tco m e o f an underlying action . It w as found that individuals are m ore re d u n d an t in gen eratin g em o tio n al in feren ces th an actio n s (H o n ey cu tt et al., 1992). In order to explain this ph en om en on , con sider C arlsto n 's (1980) dual-m em ory m odel o f im pression form ation , w hich assu m es th at individuals se lect d istin ctive b eh aviors for analysis as well as draw ing on previously sto red in feren ces. In feren ces and in terp retation s may be m ade ab out the b eh aviors; however, there m ay be an inability to articu late som e action s.

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S FOR DECAYING RELA TIO N SH IPS

B o x 8 .2

141

In fe rences In terspersed W ithin the D e-e sc ala tin g M e tain em o r y St ru c t u r e A c tion s

Inference

1. Fe e l an gr y

Percentage o f Su b jects M entioning Inference

17%

2. Fe el a n n o y e d , d i st r e ss e d

11%

3. B it t e r

11%

4 . Fe e l b o r e d , i n a t t e n t i v e ,

30%

listless, re st le ss 5. J e a l o u s y

11%

6. M oody

12%

7. Feel hu r t

10%

8 . Fe el in s e c u r e a n d loss

22%

o f confidence 9. M iscellan eou s

15%

B a x te r (1 986) provided an exam ple o f a m an w ho can n o t find w ords to express the ab sen ce o f rom an ce. In ad dition , Sm ith (1 997) found th at in dividuals report b oth b eh aviors and in feren ces as ju stificatio n for their ratin gs o f the in tim acy o f op p o site-gen d er dyads view ed on vid e o tap e . In the study (discu ssed in ch ap . 3) view ers were led to believe they w ere w atch in g eith er a m arried couple or a cou plc ju st gettin g acq u ain te d , w hen in fact each group o f view ers w atch ed the sam e couple. V iew ers w ere asked to rate the in tim acy o f the cou p le an d note the specific n o n ­ verbal b eh aviors they n oticed in supp ort o f their jud gem en ts. S m ith (1997) foun d th at m any o f the b eh aviors listed by su b jects were inferences, even th ough they h ad b een clearly in stru cted to write the specific b eh aviors th at led to their ratin gs. N o n v erb al b eh aviors listed in clu ded touch , sm iling, proximity, n odding, forw ard body lean, gaze, gesturing, leg an d arm m ovem en ts, posture, an d body orien tatio n (open, closed, or n eu tral tow ard the p artn er). In feren ces listed in clu ded relaxed, com fort, b ein g ten se, n ervous, p oo r quality o f c o n v e rsa ­ tion, good quality o f con v ersatio n , lack o f intim acy, relatio n al in volvem en t, and ju st m eeting. V iew ers w ho had been told the couple w as m arried cited on n o d ­ ding an d inferen ces th at the couple w as relaxed an d relation ally involved, even though n ot in terested in on e another. V iew ers w ho h ad been told the couple h ad ju st m et cited gazing away from each other, gesturing, leg and arm m o v e ­ m ents, and in feren ces th at the couple w as som ew h at tense at first, b ut relaxed over tim e (Sm ith , 1997).

142

C H A P T E R «

G iv e n th e freq u en cy a t w h ich b o re d o m w as c ite d as an in fe ren ce an d a m ajo r c a u se o f re la tio n al b re ak u p s, th e q u e stio n arises c o n c e rn in g th e c o n n o ta tiv e m e an in g o f b o re d o m . For e x am p le , d o e s b o red o m m e an th a t in d iv id u als A an d B are d o in g re p etitiv e b e h a v io rs or th a t A h a s v a st k n o w led g e or in te re st in a g iven a re a , b u t B d o c s n ot? B o re d o m co u ld also refer to an in d iv id u a l’s h e ig h t­ e n e d ability to p re d ict a n o th e r ’s re sp o n se s accu rately . B e c a u se a relatively large a m o u n t o f an in d iv id u a l’s p e rce p tio n s o f re la tio n al d e c ay d e al w ith a ttrib u tio n s refle ctin g in te rn a l sta te s, a lot o f tim e is sp e n t th in k in g a b o u t e m o tio n s or fe el­ ings su c h as b o re d o m . M an y tim es, the p ain o f the d e c lin e o f c lo se rela tio n sh ip s m ay be sa lie n t an d , th u s, m ay resu lt in a variety o f in fe ren ce s ran g in g from b o re ­ d o m to anger. In d iv id u als h av e b eliefs a b o u t w h at e m o tio n s are a p p ro p ria te to a re la tio n ­ sh ip an d use th a t k n o w led g e to ju d g e how they feel d u rin g in te ra c tio n in th e re ­ latio n sh ip . P lan alp (1 9 8 7 ) n o te d th a t e m o tio n s are o n e a sp e c t o f in te ra c tio n th at arc in te rp re ted th ro u gh c o n sc io u s an d u n c o n sc io u s c o g n itiv e p ro c e sse s. T h e lin k s b e tw e en c o g n itio n , e m o tio n a l in fe ren c e s, an d in te ra c tio n n e e d to be e x a m in e d m ore carefu lly b e fo re re se arc h e rs b egin to u n d e rsta n d the d y n am ics o f p e rso n a l re la tio n sh ip s. D I F F E R E N C E S IN T Y P I C A L I T Y A N D N E C E S S I T Y O F D E-E SC A LA T IN G A C T IO N S S im ila r to th eir ratin g the d iffe ren c e s b e tw e en the typicality an d n e cessity o f e s ­ c a la tin g m em ory stru c tu re e x p e c ta tio n s, in d iv id u als also rate d e - e s c a la tin g m em ory e x p e c ta tio n s a s m ore typical th an n ecessary . T h e fact th a t the ac tio n s w ere se e n as m ore typ ical th a n n e c essa ry w hen a re la tio n sh ip sta rte d to so u r fu r­ th er in d ica te s th at th ere are m an y w ays to red efin e o r en d a re la tio n sh ip . T h e only d e - e s c a la tin g activ ity ra te d as m ore n e cessa ry th a n typ ical w as d isc u ssin g why d isa g re e m e n ts o c c u r b e tw e en re la tio n al p a rtn ers. A p p aren tly , th is fin ding p o in ts to the lack o f c o m m u n ic a tio n an d d ire c t talk a b o u t re la tio n al pro b lem s. In d e e d , o th e r re se arc h in the are a o f m a rita l in te ra c tio n re v e a led th a t m any c o u p lc s w ith d r a w fro m d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t s e r io u s r e l a t i o n a l p r o b le m s (F itzp atrick , 1 9 8 8 ; G o ttm a n , 1 9 9 4 ). U n d e rly in g D im e n sio n s o f R e latio n sh ip D eclin e H o n e y c u tt et al. (1 9 9 2 ) fo u n d a d d itio n a l su p p o rt for the c a te g o rie s co m p a rin g a lte rn a tiv e s, av ersiv e co m m u n ic a tio n , an d d e c re a sin g intim acy, listed in B ox 8 .1 . A sam p le o f 54 m en an d 63 w om en w ere su rv ey ed from in tro d u c to ry c o m ­ m u n ic atio n stu d ie s c o u rse s at L o u isia n a S ta te U niversity, ran gin g from 18 to 45 y ears old , w ith an av e rag e age o f 2 0 .9 2 . T h e stu d e n ts w ere ask e d to ra te how typ ical a d e - e s c a la tin g ac tio n w as in th e b re ak u p o f a re la tio n sh ip , as w ell as how n e cessa ry it w as in o rd er for th e re la tio n sh ip to en d.

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S FOR DECAYING R ELATIO N SH IPS

143

There were four underlying dimensions for rating the typicality o f the de-escalating prototypical actions. T h e first typicality dimension was ending or breaking up the relationship. T h e second dimension was aversive com m unica­ tion, characterized by arguing about little things or minor aggravations as well as by verbal fighting in which there may be antagonism and profanity expressed toward on e’s relational partner. Th e third dimension was the withdrawal o f inti­ macy. T h e fourth dimension was trial rejuvenation; this most closely resembles the reevaluating relationship cluster found in the memory structure generation task procedure. The necessity ratings revealed similar factors. However, the first dimension was considering com parison alternatives with the current relationship, indicat­ ing the importance of comparing alternatives to the relationship. T h is dim en­ sion is com patible with Levinger’s (1966) classic research on attractions and barriers to divorce in, which rewards and costs are analyzed before people de­ cide to remain in the relationship or end it. T h e second dimension was aversive com m unication, and the third dimension was breaking up. T h e fourth dim en­ sion, decreasing intimacy, was different from the typicality factor structure in that it reflects the lack o f attem pts to rejuvenate the relationship (the fourth di­ mension o f the typicality ratings). P red ictin g B eliefs A b o u t R e la tio n a l D e cay

In chapter 7, the results o f various regression models predicting beliefs about re­ lationship developm ent based on ratings o f the escalating actions were pre­ sented. Sim ilar models were tested for the im pact o f de-escalating typicality and necessity ratings as predictors of relationship decay in terms o f a belief that rela­ tionships follow a set pattern, having expectations of what should occur in the deterioration o f an intimate relationship, and predicting the number of intimate relationships a person reported having had. G ender was entered in the regres­ sion models as a control variable. Recall that there were no gender differences in predicting developm ental beliefs. A s in chapter 7, the numbers in parentheses are standardized beta coeffi­ cients, ranging from -1 to 1. Scores close to 0 show no association, whereas scores around 1 show perfect predictability. H ence, these coefficients reflect the m agnitude o f the association am ong each o f the de-escalating actions and be­ liefs about relationships. T h e positive or negative sign preceding each activity reveals if the predicted relationship between the behavior and believe is positive or negative. Typicality R atings Relationships tend to follow a set pattern = Sarcasm (0.28) + Arguing (0.27)

CHAPTER«

144

I have a lot o f expectations o f what should occur in the deterioration of an intimate relationship = Arguing (0.23) Num ber of relationships = Discuss breaking up (-0.28) + D evelop outside interests (0.24) Necessity Ratings Relationships tend to follow a set pattern = D evelop more outside inter­ ests (0.31) I have a lot o f expectations o f what should occur in the deterioration of an intimate relationship = Call less often (0.29) - Attem pt to rejuve­ nate relationship (0.25) N um ber o f relationships = Develop outside interests (0.25) T h e beta coefficients in the equations reveal beliefs that sarcasm and argu­ ing over little things are relatively typical in the deterioration o f a relationship and predict the belief that relationships following a set pattern. T h e typicality o f arguing also was associated with having expectations about the deteriora­ tion o f intim ate relationships. Arguing about small things over a period of time has cum ulative effects, in terms of creating a lot o f expectations for the decline o f relationships (H oneycutt, 1994). Yet these expectation s do not necessarily reflect a linear progression o f stages. Recall from chapter 6 in the discussion o f relational dialectics that there may be rapidly alternating periods o f autonom y versus bonding, disclosiveness versus privateness, and predict­ ability versus spontaneity. T h e typicality findings are interesting because they are com patible with find­ ings by G ottm an (1994) arguing in and o f itself does not predict marital quality over time. Rather, the exchange o f anger has only temporary effects and may not be harmful in the long run. It is the style of arguing that is important, in terms of whether the arguing has negative affect. In terms o f sarcasm , G ottm an (1994) also reported that this may be associated with contem pt for on e’s partner and associated with the long-term dissatisfaction, decline, and term ination o f m ari­ tal relationships. T h e number of intimate relationships an individual reported being in was predicted by typically not discussing or talking about breaking up, as revealed in the negative beta coefficient. O n the other hand, developing outside interests predicted the number o f relationships in both typicality and necessity beliefs. This is consistent with social-exchange theory in which individuals may evalu­ ate com parison alternatives with a current relationship and decide if the per­ ceived outcom es from other relationships or activities are more than the outcom es that are currently received (Sabatelli, 1988). Developing outside in­ terests is a way to do activities exclusive of the relationship that may be a desir­ able com parison alternative.

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S FOR DECAYING RELA TIO N SH IPS

145

D ev elo p in g exclusive in terests may be n ecessary in the p attern o f relation al decline, while arguing, despite its typicality, is less n ecessary for the decline o f relation sh ips. For exam ple, Fitzpatrick (1988) discu ssed m arried cou ples who h ave a separate o rien tatio n , in w hich partn ers are em otionally d ivorced yet avoid arguing a b ou t relation al issu es. T h e se c ou p les are c o n trasted with couples w ho h ave a trad ition al orien tatio n ab o u t m arriage, in w hich the partn ers may h ave argum en ts ab o u t im portan t issues, an d an in d ep en d en t o rien tatio n , in w hich the partn ers are m ore w illing to argue over a variety o f issues. T h e n e g a tiv e a sso c ia tio n b e tw e en a tte m p ts to re ju v e n a te a re la tio n sh ip an d h a v in g a lo t o f re la tio n a l e x p e c ta tio n s im p lie s th a t a tte m p ts to re s u s c i­ tate a d e c a y in g re la tio n sh ip m ay be ra re r th an p e o p le th in k . In d e e d , O ’H a ir an d K ra y er (1 9 8 6 ) fo u n d th a t few c o u p le s a tte m p te d to re ju v e n a te a r e la ­ tio n sh ip . T h e y fo u n d on ly 16 c o u p le s a fte r a n n o u n c in g to stu d e n ts e n ro lle d in c o m m u n ic a tio n c o u rse s th a t they w ere in te re ste d in fin d in g c o u p le s w ho h ad b e e n in v o lv e d seriou sly , b ro k e n o ff the re la tio n sh ip , an d b e ca m e in ­ v o lv e d a se c o n d tim e .2 U N D E R L Y IN G S T A G E S A N D T H E P R O T O T Y P IC A L D E -E S C A L A T IN G M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E So m e o f the d e -e sca latin g m em ory-structure e x p e c tatio n s m ay occu r in a p ar­ ticular seq u en ce with logical a n te c e d e n ts for su b seq u e n t activities. For e x a m ­ ple, talkin g ab ou t break ing up preced es a final b reakup, w hereas arguin g ab out m inor things occu rs even earlier in the se q u e n ce o f even ts. A n atte m p t to reju ­ ven ate the relation sh ip m ay occu r later. S o m e b eh aviors m ay reoccu r (e.g., ar­ guing an d fig h tin g), so th at the order o f ev en ts is cyclic, w hereas o th er b eh aviors are n ot e x p ected to reoccur, su ch as a final b reakup. S o m e in dividuals believe th at partners start seein g oth er people after the final break up w hereas oth ers in ­ d icate this com es before the final term in ation . C a r d - S o r t in g E x p e r im e n t Sim ilar to the sortin g o f ran dom ized e scalatin g actio n s discu ssed in ch a p te r 7, su b jects sorted the proto ty pical d e -e sca latin g actio n s into an in tuitiv e, logical order (H o n ey cu tt et al., 1992). T h e action s in Box 8.1 th at were m en tion ed by at least 20% o f the su b jects in the sch em a-gen eratio n study w ere used as the prototypical b eh aviors. A sam p le o f 48 m en and 54 w om en w ere tested , re ­ cruited from in troductory sp c c ch co m m u n icatio n classcs. T h e stu d en ts ranged in age from 18 to 41 , an av erage age o f 20.4 5 . T h e d a ta revealed a sligh t positive correlatio n betw een processin g tim e and the n um b er o f relation sh ips previously redefin ed or e n ded by the sub ject, while also takin g into ac c o u n t the num ber o f previous relation sh ips en ded by both partn ers or the o th e r partn er (r = 0 .1 6 , p < .0 4 2 ). E ven though the m agn itu d e o f the correlatio n is sm all, this finding is in terestin g in that an in dividual who

146

CHAPTER«

has a num ber o f previous relationships to reflect on may be slowed in processing the actions because each relationship may have gone through the deescalation process differently (H oneycutt et al., 1992). A n an ecdotal exam ple o f this is from a w om an who sorted the de-escalatin g memory structure expectation s in 30 seconds. A fter the experim ent, she told the research assistan t that the timing o f the experim ent was ironic because that afternoon she had ended her relation­ ship with a boyfriend after a long struggle. W hen reflecting on previous endings o f relationships, the individual may be delayed in sorting the actions as he or she considers the alternative d e -e sca lat­ ing paths. C on sider an individual who has the following thoughts about two re­ lationships, referred to as Y and Z (the other capital letters refer to various behavior). “ In relationship Y, I or my partner used behaviors A , B, C , and so on; but in relationship Z, I or my partner used behaviors J, K , L; and so on. T h e re ­ fore, I have to be careful to sort the typical sequ en ce.” To the exten t that the de-escalatin g m etam em ory-generation task revealed a positive association b e­ tween relational experience and the absolute num ber o f distinct actions and in­ fe r e n c e s s u b je c t s lis te d , th e r e la tiv e c o m p le x ity o f an in d iv id u a l’ s experien ce-based thought (as opposed to that drawn from m ovies or novels) may have had a debilitating effect on processing tim e. N o significant asso cia­ tions were found betw een processing time and num ber o f previous relationships ended by the other partner or both partners. Following the procedures o f H oneycutt, Cantrill, et al. (1989), four clusters were identified in the prototypical d e-escalatin g m etam em ory structure. T h e clusters were identified by com puting ad jacen t m ean differences, such that b e­ haviors considered to signify a cluster had lower w ithin-m ean differences than the behaviors located at the en dpoints o f tentatively identified clusters. T h e prototypical de-escalatin g order o f events (standard deviations are p a ­ rentheses) includes stopping the expression o f intim ate feelings (2.38); dis­ agreeing about attitudes, opinions, or values (1.90); and arguing about little things (2.26). T h ese action s con stitute the first cluster o f interchangeable a c ­ tions. Verbal fighting (2.32) and spending less time together (2.45) m ake up the second cluster o f behaviors. T h e third cluster consists o f avoiding each other (2.48), attem pts to rejuven ate the relationship (2.13), and talk about breaking the relationship off (2.99). T h e fourth cluster is distinguished by the partn ers’ actively com paring alternatives to the current relationship. T h is cluster c o n ­ tains becom ing interested in others (2.32), actually seeing others (2.33), and the final breakup (2.21). A n intriguing observation is that com pared to the prototypical escalatin g m em ory-structure actions in chapter 7 , there is more agreem ent on the ordering o f escalatin g actions. In contrast, there is a con stan t level o f dispersion in order­ ing the de-escalatin g activities so that the standard deviation s are relatively h o­ m ogenous for the d e-escalatin g action s. “O n ce a certain action level is reached, there is a spreading activation in which behaviors may co-o ccu r" (H oneycutt, C antrill, et al., 1989, p. 77).

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S FO R D ECAYING R E LA T IO N SH IP S

147

Q -S o rt P rocedu re

T h e re is a d d itio n a l ev id e n c e th a t in d iv id u als d isag re e m ore in th e se q u e n c in g o f d e - e sc a la tin g m em ory stru c tu re e x p e c ta tio n s th a n o n the o rd e r o f e sc a la tin g m em ory stru c tu re s. U sin g th e Q - s o r t p ro c e d u re d isc u sse d in c h a p te r 7, e ac h su b je c t w as given a d e c k o f 11 in d e x c a r d s th a t c o n ta in e d d e sc rip tio n s o f the d e - e sc a la tin g a c tio n s. T h e su b je c ts w ere in stru cte d to so rt th e card s in an in tu ­ itive, lo g ic a l order. S u b se q u e n tly , th e so rts by m en an d w om en w ere ran d om ly p a ire d , re su ltin g in 47 c o u p le s. E ven th o u g h th e m en an d w om en ag re e d o n the relativ e o rd e rin g o f the d e - e s c a la tin g m em ory stru c tu re s, th e c o rre latio n b e ­ tw een the d e - e s c a la tin g so rts d istin g u ish e d by g e n d e r w as low er (r = 0 .5 4 , p < .0 0 1 ) th a n th a t o f the e sc a la tin g so rts (r = 0 . 8 4 ) . A test o f d iffe ren c e s b etw een the v a lu e s o f th e co rre la tio n s w as highly sig n ific a n t.5 T h e lack o f c o n se n su s on th e o rd e rin g o f the d e - e sc a la tin g a c tio n s reflects the d iversity o f sc e n e s th a t m ay b e u se d in th e g e n e ra tin g the re la tio n al m e ta m e m o ry stru c tu re . A p e rso n m ay re call p a rtic u la r sc e n e s th a t allow an a c ­ tion to o c c u r e arlie r in a re la tio n sh ip (e.g., arg u in g ). S c h a n k (1 9 8 2 ) claim e d th at in d iv id u als p u rsu in g h igh -level g o a ls are likely to u se p e rso n a l m em ory stru c tu re s th a t in clu d e p e rso n a l, p h y sical, o r so c ie ta l sc e n e s. H e n o ted :

We m a y h a v e o u r o w n w a y o f p u r s u i n g g o a l s o n a d a r e w it h a m e m b e r o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x , t h a t b e a r n o r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e w a y a n y o n e e ls e b e h a v e s . . . . S o m e p e r s o n a l M O P s c a n be a v a r i a t i o n o n a m o r e s t a n d a r d M O P , w h e r e s o m e p e r s o n a l s c e n e s ar e a d d e d to, or rep lac e, o n e or m o re s t a n d a r d p hysical or s o c ie ta l s c e n e s, (pp. 9 7 - 9 8 )

T h e o rd e rin g o f e sc a la tin g a c tio n s h av e low er sta n d a rd d e v ia tio n s th an the ord e rin g o f d e - e sc a la tin g a c tio n s. T h e h ig h er sta n d a rd d e v ia tio n s for ord erin g d e - e sc a la tin g a c tio n s reflect th e e asie r in te re x c h a n g c o r sw itch in g o f the a c ­ tion s. For e x a m p le , the d e - e sc a la tin g a c tio n “d isag re e in g a b o u t a ttitu d e s ” is m ore easily in te re x c h a n g e d w ith “sta rt se e in g o th e r s ” th a n is the e sc a la tin g a c ­ tio n “ sm all talk ” w ith “ m a k in g a v erb al c o m m itm e n t.” Further, the d e - e s c a la t ­ in g a c tio n “s to p p in g th e e x p r e ssio n o f in tim a te fe e lin g s" is m ore easily in te rc h an g e d w ith “ fin al b re a k u p ” th a n is th e e sc a la tin g a c tio n “ m e e tin g ” w ith “ m a rria g e .” “S to p p in g th e e x p re ssio n o f in tim ate fe e lin g s” an d “ m e e tin g ” w ere ord ered as the first a c tio n s in th eir lists, w h e reas “ fin al b re a k u p ” an d “ m a rria g e ” w ere o rd e re d as th e last o cc u rrin g a c tio n s in the lists. It ap p e ars th a t co g n itiv e e x p e c ta tio n s for th e b re ak u p o f re la tio n sh ip s h ave m any in te rc h a n g e a b le traje c to rie s. T h is in te rp re ta tio n is c o m p a tib le with B a x te r ’s (1 9 8 4 , 1986) fin d in gs th a t th ere are m an y tra je c to rie s for rela tio n sh ip s to follow w hen b re ak in g up. T h e c o n sta n t level o f th e sta n d a r d d e v ia tio n s or o r ­ d e rin g th e d e clin in g a c tio n s is c o m p a tib le w ith m e m o ry -stru c tu re theory, in th a t in d iv id u als h av e v aried p e rso n a l e x p e c ta tio n s for th e p a th s o f re la tio n sh ip d e c lin e , e v e n th o u g h a p ro to ty p e c a n be m o d e le d .

148

CHAPTER 8

S to ry - S e g m e n ta tio n A n a ly sis A t the co n clu sio n s o f the stories o f Jo h n an d V eronica an d L ind a and Tom in ch a p te r 7, they h ad g o tten m arried. In this chapter, their stories are ch an ged and used to determ in e how in dividuals segm en t d e -e sca latin g actio n s into u n ­ derlying scen es and ph ases. E ach new story c o n ta in e d 11 se n te n c e s, on e se n te n c e for e ac h p ro to ty p ical d e - e sc a la tin g m em o ry -stru ctu re e x p e c ta tio n . A sam p le o f 6 0 m en an d 63 w om en w ere su rv ey ed . T h e y ran ged in age from 17 to 34 years, w ith an a v e r­ age age o f 2 1 .2 5 . T h e su b je c ts w ere d iv id e d in to tw o grou p s w ith e ac h group re ad in g on e story o f a ro m an tic re la tio n sh ip th at h ad sta rte d to go sour. Two sto rie s w ere used in o rd er to gen eralize b eyon d the p a rtic u la r c h a ra c te rs o f one d e -e sc a la tin g story. T h e su b je c ts w ere given on e o f the sto rie s in B o x 8.3 and told th a t the s to ­ ries co u ld be d ivid ed in to un derly in g p arts, as in the in stru ctio n s in c h a p te r 7 for the e sc a la tin g sto ries. T h e se n te n c e s in the sto rie s w ere d erived from the p ro to ty p ical ac tio n s b ase d on the 20% d e c isio n rule d iscu sse d earlie r for the d e - e sc a la tin g sc h e m a -g e n e ratio n study. If su b je c ts th o u g h t th a t the story co u ld be su b d iv id ed into n atu ra l p a rts, they w ere ask ed to p la c e a slash m ark at the en d o f e ac h se n te n c e th a t they b elieved en d e d a part. If they did n ot thin k th ere w ere p arts to the story, then they w ere ask ed to p u t on e m ark a t the end o f the story. A com parison o f slash -m ark lo catio n s betw een the stories revealed two sig­ n ifican t differences betw een the stories. R ead ers o f the Jo h n an d V eron ica story w ere m ore likely to place slash m arks after the seco n d sen ten ce ab ou t “d isag re e ­ ing ab ou t the o th e r’s a ttitu d e s” th an were the readers o f the L ind a and Tom story. A pparen tly, the w ord “ attitu d e s” in the first story m ay h ave m ore con n otative m ean in g th an the word “o p in io n s” in the secon d story. In ad dition , re a d ­ ers o f the L in d a an d Tom story were m ore likely to in d icate a b oundary after the se n te n ce ab ou t re ju ven atin g the relation sh ip th an were the readers o f the Jo h n an d V eron ica story. It is in terestin g th at attem p tin g “ to w ork things o u t through re ju ven atin g the relation sh ip ” elicited m ore segm en ts (58.8% ) th an did trying “ to reju ven ate the relation sh ip by talkin g and attem p tin g to sm ooth things o ver (2 8 .3 % ).” R e ju v e ­ n atio n m ay n ot h ave th a t m uch p sy ch o lo gical m ean in g for the read ers (H o n ey cu tt et al., 1992). It is also in terestin g th at readers ten d ed to im m ediately place b ou n daries a f­ ter the first scen e, unlike readers in H o n ey cu tt, C an trill, ct a l.’s (1 989) escalating-relation ship study. T h erefo re, the first d e -e sca latin g action m ay be a critical se gm e n tatio n poin t th at starts the process. T h e first scen e co n sists o f stoppin g self-disclosures an d seem s to be sim ilar to the circum scribin g stage described by K n ap p and V angelisti (1 9 9 6 ). T h e secon d scen e involves disagreein g ab out o n e ’s p a rtn e r’s opin ion s, arguin g over sm all things, and using aversive state-

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S FO R D ECAYING R E L A T IO N SH IP S

F I G . 8.1

149

A f t e r a b re a k u p , m e n m a y h a v e difficulty c o m m u n i c a t i n g a b o u t th ei r sorrow.

m e n ts. T h e third sc e n e re p re se n ts th e d e c re a sin g c o n ta c t c lu ste r (a v o id in g the o t h e r a n d s e e in g le s s o f th e o t h e r ) i d e n t i f ie d in th e d e e s c a l a t i n g m e ta m e m o ry -g e n e ratio n study. T h is sc e n e is sim ila r to C o d y ’s (1 9 8 2 ) b e h a v ­ ioral d e e sc a la tio n strategy, as w ell as th e a v o id a n c e sta g e o f the so cial-p e n e tratio n m o d e l (K n a p p &. V a n g e lis ti, 1 9 9 2 ). T h e fo u rth s c e n e r e p r e s e n ts re e v a lu a tin g th e re la tio n sh ip . T h e fifth sc e n e se e m s to re p re se n t th e brealcin g-u p d im e n sio n s id en tified in the fa c to r an a ly se s o f the typ icality an d n e c e s ­ sity ratin gs o f the d e e sc a la tin g a c tio n s. In this sc e n e s th e re la tio n sh ip is en d in g an d in te re st in o th e rs in c re ase s. T h e fin al sc e n e m a rk s the d isso lu tio n o f the re ­ latio n sh ip s an d is sim ilar to K n a p p an d V an g e listi’s (1 9 9 2 ) term in atio n sta g e , in w hich th e re la tio n sh ip is red efin ed o r e n d e d . In o rd e r to id e n tify c e n tr a l o r c ritic a l m e m o ry -stru c tu re a c tio n s th a t arc r o ­ b u st in th e d e c lin e o f a re la tio n sh ip , H o n e y c u tt et al. (1 9 9 2 ) u sed five c rite ria : (a ) a n a c t io n m e n tio n e d by a t l e a s t 2 0 % o f th e p a r t ic ip a n t s in th e m e ta m e m o ry s tr u c tu r e - g e n e r a tio n ta sk , (b) p o sitiv e lo a d in g s o n typicality, (c) p o sitiv e lo a d in g s o n n e cessity , (d) sig n ify in g th e e n d o f a sta g e in the c a r d - s o rtin g ta sk , an d (e) p la c e m e n t o f slash m a rk s in th e d e e sc a la tin g - re la tio n sh ip sto rie s. T h e y c o n c lu d e d , T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t a c t i o n s s e e m t o b e t a lk a b o u t b r e a k i n g u p a n d fi n a l b r e a k - u p w h i c h m e t all o f t h e c r i t e r i a . O t h e r r o b u s t a c t i o n s b a s e d o n m e e t i n g f o u r o f five c r i t e r i a w e r e s t o p p i n g t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f i n t i m a t e f e e l in g s , a r g u i n g a b o u t little t h i n g s , v e r b a l

C H A P T E R «

150

Box 8.3

Scen es W ithin the Prototypical D eescalatin g M etam em ory Structure

Jo h n a n d V eronica

John and Vcronica stopped telling each other intimate feelings and thoughts. (41.7%) They disagreed about the other’s attitudes and opinions as well as things to do together. (38.3%) Veronica and John argued about little things. (11.6%) They fought and antagonized each other through shouting, yelling, and whining. (68.3%) They spent less time together. (20.0%) They avoided and ignored each other when encountering the other on the university cam pus or in public settings. (91.7%) John and Veronica tried to rejuvenate the relationship by talking and attempting to smooth things over. (28.3%) They talked about breaking up or end­ ing the relationship. (68.3%) They became interested in other opposite-gender individuals. (20.0%) Veronica and John started going out with other individuals. (41.6%) They ended their relationship. (100%) L in d a a n d Tom

Linda and Tom stopped telling each other their private feelings and thoughts. (52.9%) They disagreed over opinions and what to do together. (8.8%) They argued over small things. (17.6%) They shouted, yelled, and whined as well as antagonized each other. (70.5%) Tom and Linda saw each other less. (18.1%) They ignored each other when coming across one another in public. (91.1%) Linda and Tom attem pted to work things out through rejuvenating the rela­ tionship. (58.8%) They talked about ending their relationship. (47.0%) They became interested in other potential, relational partners. (27.9%) They started seeing others. (51.4% ) They ended their relationship. (100%) N o te . N u m b e r s in p a r e n t h e s e s in d ic a te the p e r c e n t a g e o f su b je c t s m a r k i n g b o u n d a r i e s .

f ig h t in g , a v o i d i n g t h e o t h er , a n d s t a r t s e e i n g o t h e r s o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x . T o u se a m e t a p hor , t h e s e a c t i o n s m a y b e like s i g n p o s t s d i r e c t i n g a n i n d i v i d u a l o f w a r n i n g s , h a z a r d s , a n d e x i t p o i n t s o n t h e h i g h w a y o f d e c l i n e . Yet, s o m e r e l a t i o n s h i p d r i v e r s m a y b e m o r e a t t u n e d to t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p r o a d s i g n s s u c h a s t h o s e in i t i a t i n g t h e b r e a k - u p . O n th e o t h e r h a n d , p e r s o n s a l s o t e n d to b e l i e v e t h ey b e g a n t h e d e - e s c a l a t i n g p r o c e s s . ( H o n e y c u t t e t al., 1 9 9 2 , p. 5 5 7 )

T h e m e m o ry -stru ctu re m o d e l e m p h asize s the im p o rta n ce o f th e role o f th o u g h t an d c o g n itio n in e sta b lish in g b eliefs a b o u t ap p ro p ria te b e h a v io r in p e r­ so n al re la tio n sh ip s. It is th e stru ctu re o f co g n itio n th a t re se m b le s p h ase s rath e r th a n the n a tu re o f the p h ase c o n c e p t itself. S tu d ie s re v e a led th a t in te rn a l c o g n itio n s resem b le th o u g h ts a b o u t the rise an d d e m ise o f re la tio n sh ip s fou n d in re se arc h e r-im p o sed sta g e s. In d eed , th e e x p e c ta tio n s re p re se n t in trap e rso n a l g u id es for b e h a v io r th a t h elp in d iv id u als iden tify b e h a v io rs an d label th eir e x p e ­

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S FOR DECAYING R EL A T IO N SH IPS

151

riences (H oneycutt, 1993). T h u s, developm en tal m odels o f com m unication serve a heuristic function in conceptualizing interaction phases. G E N D E R D I F F E R E N C E S IN G E N E R A T I N G A N D P R O C E S S IN G D E -E S C A L A T IN G M EM O RY ST R U C T U R E S Th ere are gen der differences in gen eratin g and processin g d e-escalatin g m etam em ory structures. W omen generated more nonredundant behaviors and inferences com bined than did men (average action s gen erated by women = 8.10, average actions generated by m en = 7.33; H oneycutt et al., 1992). T h ese findings reinforce other studies cited in chapter 6 indicating that w omen think about w hat is h appening in their relationships more than do men as well as b e­ ing aware earlier when relationships are in transition or decaying (Burnett, 1990; Rubin et al., 1981). G en der differences were also found in rating the typicality o f de-escalatin g behaviors and in processing the behaviors. For exam ple, wom en rated talking with friends about relational problem s as being more typical than did men. W omen (average = 9 1 .7 2 se c o n d s) also processed the d e-escalatin g actions sig­ nificantly faster than m en (average = 124.71 secon ds; H oneycutt et al., 1992). Even though both genders tend to agree on the order o f the prototypical d e-es­ calating actions, m en ordered arguing about little things before disagreeing about attitudes and opinions. They also placed spending less time together before verbal fighting, whereas women reversed the sequences o f these activities. T h e finding th at w om en listed m ore behaviors and in feren ces is intriguing in light o f other research on gender differen ces in break-up acco u n ts. O verall, B ax te r (1986) found th at w om en m en tion ed m ore reason s for breakups than did m en. In ad dition , they were m ore likely to m ention desires for autonom y, open n ess, and equity as reason s for their breakups. T h e only reason m en ­ tioned m ore by m en than w om en was lack o f m agical quality. It is interesting th at a desire for autonom y w as the m ajor reason for given a breakup. A u to n ­ omy may reflect an u n articu lated , underlying desire to spend tim e alone. In his research on divorce and m arital breakup, G ottm an (1994) review ed stu d ­ ies in dicatin g th at the husban d is often m ore lonely and alien ated b ecause he no lon ger has acce ss to the person to w hom he d isclosed . A s revealed in Fig. 8.1, m en have not been socialized into com m u n icatin g their vuln erabilities and isolation and often withdraw. A T T R IB U T IN G T H E D E S IR E T O E N D O R R E D E F IN E T H E R E L A T IO N S H IP T h ere is a bias in reporting the desire to end or redefine the relationship. A c ­ cording to Hill et al. (1976), the individual who desires to term inate a relation ­

152

CHAPTER«

ship is monitoring the problem in the relationship more closely than is his or her partner. T h e end or redefinition o f an intimate relationship should be news to the noninitiator. Lee (1984) reported that it took longer for couples to break up who had been together longer and were more com patible, than for couples who had less well-meshed relationships. Hill et al. (1976) reported that both genders tended to take responsibility for initiating the breakup. Knapp and Vangelisti (1996) speculated that this is an attem pt to offset the stigma o f being rejected. Therefore, and individual should report that either the individual or both partners desired to end the relationship more often than that on e’s partner was responsible. Three studies found that in­ dividuals report they themselves had ended more previous relationships than their partners did (Honeycutt et al., 1992). Further, there were few reported cases of mutual desire to end the relationship, the partner moving away, or the death of the partner. Apparently, individuals want to be the dumper rather than the dum pee. This tendency reflects a type of zero-sum accounting instead o f attributing the breakup to a mutual desire. T h e bias also reinforces the social desirability o f re­ porting that oneself was the terminator o f the relationship, rather than being the object o f the term ination. If m atched reports could be obtained from both partners, it would be expected that both individuals would believe they initi­ ated the process. This speculation also reconfirms the notion o f gender-specific accounts, (Harvey, Weber, Galvin, Huszti, &. Garnick, 1986). This self-reporting tendency may reflect an attributional bias about responsi­ bility for relational events. For example, researchers observed an egocentric attributional bias in married couples in which spouses take greater responsibility for positive behaviors, rather than ascribing them to their partners (Fincham &. Bradbury, 1989). O ther researchers noted a partner-centric attribution, in which individuals overestimate their contribution to negative events and underestimate their contribution to positive events (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Ross & Sicoly, 1979). A third type of attribution is an equal-responsibility attribution, in which joint responsibility is ascribed to both partners for behaviors. T h e attributions have been labeled biases only to the extent that individuals report varying ten­ dencies to make attributions away from a midpoint value on Likcrt-typc scalcs, in which the midpoint value reflects equal responsibility for behaviors and values at the anchors reflect ego-centric or partner-centric attributions. Additional research revealed that the quality o f the marital relationship affects the direction of attributional biases. Weiss (1980) noted that an individual’s rat­ ings of his or her and of others’ contributions to behavioral actions is determined to a great extent by the general sentiment toward his or her spouse. If negative sentiment towrard the spouse was operating, one’s partner was also perceived as making more negative contributions than oneself. In this regard, there is research in which happily married spouses attribute positive intentions to their partners’ messages, whereas unhappy spouses attribute negative intentions to their part­ ners’ messages (Guthrie & Noller, 1988; Noller &. Ruzzene,1994).

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S FOR DECAYING RELA TIO N SH IPS

153

Fincham , B each , and N elson (1987) discussed how unhappy spouses attrib­ ute negative m otivations to their partn ers’ underlying actions when displeasing events in the marriage were described. T h ere are also studies indicating that un­ happy spouses are more likely to m ake attributions that do not facilitate the re­ lationship than do happily married spouses, even though negative behaviors may not be more prevalent (Baucom , 1987; H oltzw orth-M unroe & Jacob son , 1985). People who are happily m arried are more likely to attribute their p art­ n ers’ positive behavior to internal factors than are people who are less-happily-married (Fincham et al. 1987). T h is research is relevant because when it com es to attributing responsibility for the ending o f a relationship, researchers need to consider the am oun t o f sm ooth transition or conflict associated with the decline. SU M M A R Y T h e de-escalatin g memory structure allows for variation o f the sequen cin g in the breakup o f relationships. T h e de-escalatin g memory structure may help e x ­ plain why a num ber o f individuals report not being surprised at the breakup o f a relationship they were previously in. Individuals who anticipate the ending o f their relationships may be accessin g de-escalatin g memory structures that alert them to an im m inent breakup. In term s o f anticipating the ending o f a relationship, the d ata revealed that individuals reported they had initiated more breakups than their partners. T h is bias reflects a self-serving accoun tin g and does not allow for a joint desire to end the relationship. It may be to o n e ’s future ad van tage in the field o f dating eligibles to say that one ended a prior relationship rather than being seen as a d e ­ posed individual who was less in control o f the situation. A n in terestin g finding was th at in dividu als gen eratin g d e -e sca latin g m eta-M O Ps m ixed em otional inferences with reports o f actions. For exam ple, boring was an inference. It may be that attributions o f boredom reflect an inabil­ ity to articulate specific behavioral actions. T h e questions are then W h at b e­ h aviors cau se the feeling o f boredom ? D o repetitive activities or doing unfam ilar things result in this short attention span? G en der differences were evident in the de-escalatin g studies in which wom en reported m ore d e-escalatin g actions and inferences than did men. Fur­ therm ore, women processed the prototypical de-escalatin g action s faster than did men. W omen rated talking with friends and verbal fighting higher in typical­ ity than did men. D IS C U S S IO N Q U E S T IO N S 8 .1 R esearch indicates that both genders tend to take responsibility for initi­ ating the breakup o f a relationship. R elate these findings to your own e x ­ periences and discuss the nature o f this attributional bias.

CH A PTER«

154

8 .2 H a v e you ever tried to re ju v e n ate a re la tio n sh ip ? W h a t type o f r e la ­ tion sh ip w as it? D isc u ss w hat you did an d the o u tco m e o f the a t ­ tem p te d re ju v e n atio n . 8 .3 Is it really possible for two individuals who have achieved a certain level or type o f intim acy in a relationship to go back and just be friends. Is “ being friends” a euphem ism for saying the current state o f the relationship is over? A P P L IC A T IO N S 8 .1 C o n d u c t a m in i-exp erim en t by ask in g three m ale an d three fem ale friends to gen erate a list o f b eh aviors th at characterize a d eterioratin g re­ lation ship, follow ing the in stru ction s on page ( ) . Be sure to distinguish b eh aviors an d in feren ces for your sam p le. C o d e each o f their listed a c ­ tions as a b eh avior an d inference. C o m p u te the redu n d an cy o f the listed actio n s and in feren ces by cou n tin g the n um ber o f rep eated or sim ilar sta te m e n ts m ade by e ach in dividual. D id the m en and w om en h ave sim i­ lar levels o f redu n d an cy for actio n s an d in feren ces? H ow m any in fer­ e n c e s an d b e h a v io rs w ere g e n e ra te d ? H o w o fte n w as b o re d o m m en tion ed as a d e -e sca latin g in feren ce? A fter redu n d an cy w as taken into acc o u n t, did the m en an d w om en gen erate the sam e n um b er o f un ique actio n s and in feren ces? C a n you m ake any c o n clu sio n s ab o u t the com plexity o f the e x p e c tatio n s for a deterio ratin g relation sh ip for the m en and for w om en? 8 .2 C o n d u c t a m in i-exp erim en t by w riting dow n the d escrip tion s o f the b e­ h avioral e x p e c tatio n s in B ox 8.1 on se p arate in dex cards. Sh uffle the card s so the e x p e c tatio n s are in a ran dom order. G ive the d eck to three m ale an d three fem ale friends an d in stru ct them to sort the card s into an in tuitive, logical order. T im e them and com p are their orders with those in B ox 8 .1 . W as it difficult for them to sort the ex p e c tatio n s? W ere there any reaction s to the experim en t? D iscu ss any gen d er differences in the sortin g tim es an d orders o f the b eh avioral exp ectatio n s. 8 .3 R ep ro d u ce the stories ab o u t Jo h n and V eron ica an d L in d a an d Tom in B ox 8.3, om ittin g the p e rce n tag es o f su b jects m arkin g b ou n daries after e ach sen ten ce. D istrib ute the sto ries to three m en and three w om en and in stru ct them on w hat to do, follow ing the in stru ction s on page 31. C o m p are the lo catio n o f slash m arks with those in B ox 8.2. D id the m en and w om en agree on the p lacem en t o f the slash m arks? W h at do their slash m arks reveal ab ou t their underlying d e -e sca latin g ph ases? 8 .4 C o n d u c t a m in i-exp erim en t in w hich you survey three m en an d three w om en on the num b er o f close p erso n al relation sh ips (sam e- or oppo-

M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S FO R DECAYING R E L A T IO N SH IP S

155

s i t e - g e n d e r ) t h e y h a v e b e e n in. A s k t h e m w h o w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r b r e a k ' i n g u p e a c h o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h e y r e p o r t h a v i n g b e e n in : t h e m s e l v e s , t h e p a r t n e r s , b o t h in a m u t u a l d e c i s i o n , o r o u t s i d e e v e n t s o r p e o p l e (e .g ., d e a t h , m o v i n g aw ay, o r in te r fe r e n c e o f frien d s o r fam ily ). 8 .5 C o n d u c t a b rie f c ase stu d y o f the e n d in g o f a close p e rso n a l relation sh ip . In terview the p a rtn ers from an ex c lu siv e rela tio n sh ip th a t you kn ew a b o u t b u t t h a t re c e n tly e n d e d . In te rv iew e a c h p a r t n e r in dividually. A s k e a c h o f th e m w hy th e re la tio n sh ip e n d e d a n d h ow they r e a c te d to the e n d i n g o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p . A s k e a c h o f t h e m i f t h e d e c i s i o n t o e n d o r r edefin e the re la tio n sh ip w as m a d e by the in d iv id u al, the partner, o r m u t u ­ ally ; o r if t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p e n d e d b e c a u s e o f o u t s i d e e v e n t s o r p e r s o n s in te rfe rin g w ith th e r e la tio n s h ip . D o th e e x - p a r t n e r s a g re e o n w h a t c a u se d the e n d o f the re latio n sh ip ? D o the ex -p artn e rs see the en d o f the re la tio n s h ip as b e in g d u e to a g r a d u a l p r o c e s s o v e r tim e or d u e to a n is o ­ l a t e d e v e n t . 7 I f t h e e x - p a r t n e r s d i s a g r e e o n w h o is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n i t i a t ­ i n g t h e b r e a k u p , w h o s e v e r s i o n o r a c c o u n t is m o r e v e r i f i a b l e , f r o m y o u r o w n k n o w l e d g e ? W h a t p u r p o s e is s e r v e d b y e x - p a r t n e r s t e l l i n g d i f f e r e n t version s o f relation al b reak u p?

NOTES H o n e y c u tt, Cantrill, et al. (1989) used a decision rule o f 25% in the escalatin g m em ­ ory-structure studies. T h is rule was also based in the exam in ation o f frequency responses and determ ining distinct gaps. In this case, m ost percen tages substantially exceeded the 20% cri­ terion. ‘'O ’H air and Krayer (1986) noted that a m ajor lim itation o f their study was the criteria they used for classifying couples as rejuven ated. T h e couples had to agree that there had been a definite term ination of the relationship, a term ination period of at least 2 m onths involving no dating and little con tact, a com plete reconciliation process involving exclusive com m it­ m ent to each other that approxim ated the original relationship, and reconciliation had o c ­ curred in the last year. T h ese stringent criteria were used in order to standardize w hat a reconciled relationship m ight be. *The z test for correlational differences is based on a sam ple sizes o f 517 cases for the de-escalatin g action s and 92.3 cases for the escalatin g action s (? = 11.20, p < .001). T h e unit o f analysis is not the couple. T h ere were 47 random ly m atch ed couples for the de-escalatin g sorts, with 11 actions to be sorted: N = 47 X 11 = 517. T h ere were 71 random ly m atched couples for the escalating sorts, with 13 actions to be sorted: N = 71 x 13 = 923.

9 Semantics of Breakups: Claims of Omission and Commission

W hen an individual ends an intimate relationship, he or she must provide an account o f the breakup to members o f his or her social network, including work associates, family, and friends. A s indicated in chapter 8, research revealed that these accounts tend to place the onus o f responsibility on one’s partner for the breakdown of the relationship (Cody, 1982; Harvey, &. Weber, e ta l., 1 9 8 6 ).Peo­ ple tend to attribute blame to others, absolving themselves of responsibility. This system o f allocating blame buttresses self-esteem, helps to save face, and presents a positive image to eligible future partners (Harvey, Weber, et al., 1986). Individuals also develop such accounts to maintain a sense of control over their environm ent, to aid in em otional purging, and as a reaction to unfin­ ished business (Harvey, Orbuch, & Weber, et al., 1992). The deescalating-memory structure actions discussed in chapter 8 reveal an additional intriguing phenom enon in terms o f linguistic codes. Som e of the a c ­ tions represent what can be referred to as omissions and commissions. This find­ ing was incidental, but significant. Why do people access one language code for a particular action instead o f another? Three explanations will be discussed in this ch a p te r in referen ce to this type o f sem an tic code referen cin g: attributional, implicit benefit o f the doubt, and rules-based. Results o f a study revealing gender differences in accessing the codes will also be discussed. 156

S E M A N T I C S OK B R E A K U P S

157

L IN G U IS T IC C O D E S O F O M IS S IO N A N D C O M M IS S IO N G ergen and G ergen (1992) em phasized the im portance o f the social con stru c­ tion o f relationships based on the language used to describe their events. They stated that relationship events exist in the eye o f beholder in such a way that “there are an unlim ited num ber o f ways o f characterizing the sam e state o f af­ fairs, and no single language can justifiably claim transcenden ce or status as the one true description” (p. 275). O m issions and com m issions illustrate that differ­ ent linguistic codes can be used to describe the sam e state o f affairs. T h e 21 actions in the d e-escalatin g m etam em ory structure presented in chapter 8 were recorded to reflect either om issions or com m issions. For e x am ­ ple, one person might write that a typical action indicative o f a decaying rela­ tionship is that “ Individuals do not spend enough time together,” w hereas an oth er person may write, “Individuals spend too m uch time on their jo b s.” T h e former is an om ission, w hereas the latter is a com m ission. Logically, if a person is not spending time with his or her partner, he or she is presum ably com m itting time to som eth ing else. But as the exam ple illustrates, som e individuals see a p ­ ples and others see oranges. H o n ey cutt et al. (1992) found th at one third o f the d e -e sca latin g action s could be classified as om issions. W ords such as “ n o t,” “ less," “ av o id ,” “d e ­ cre a se ,” “ w ith holdin g,” and “ w ith draw al” signal the om ission o f a behavior. T h e d ecreasin g intim acy (e.g., stop expressin g in tim ate feelings, decrease physical intim acy) and d ecreasin g c o n ta ct clusters d iscu ssed in ch ap ter 8 (e.g., call less, avoid other, give oth er excuses for not being able to go out) are om issions. T h e rem ainin g clusters represented claim s o f com m ission to the exten t that the language used referred to active behaviors, such as aversive com m u n ication , reevalu atin g the relation sh ip, assessin g com parison alte rn a­ tives, ending the relationship.

S E M A N T IC C O D IN G O F A C T IO N S

A ttr ib u tio n a l E x p la n a tio n A ttributional biases were discussed in chapter 8 in term s o f attributing the source o f o n e ’s relational problem s to o n e ’s partner in unhappy relationships. H oneycutt et al. (1992) used attribution theory to posit a research question on the existence o f om issions. They cited Ross (1977) for his discussion o f the fun­ dam ental attribution error in which individuals attribute the cause o f oth ers’ behaviors to dispositional, internal factors and their own behaviors to situ a­ tional features (e.g., “ My boyfriend is late because he is irresponsible.” “T h e boyfriend says he is late because o f bad traffic.”).

158

CHAPTER 9

R oss (1977) described a fictional, potentially developing relationship b e­ tween Ja c k and Jill in which Ja c k believes Jill does not like him. He is unable to understand why he feels this way because he can not recall specific actions by Jill that reveal her dislike. But Jack could be focusing on w hat Jill does not do, such as providing positive feedback and being involved in their interactions. In this fash io n , R o ss d e sc rib e d the in fo rm a tio n a l b ias o f o c c u rre n c e s versu s n onoccurrences. In dividuals tend to notice action s in form ing their im pressions while n e­ glectin g to con sider inform ation con veyed w hen particular action s do not o c ­ cur. Ross specu lated th at n on occu rren ces may be m ore noted w hen an in dividu al h as ac c e ss to active category lab els th at can be ap plied to n on occurrin g actio n s, is true o f the behaviors associated with intim ate re la­ tionships. Follow ing this reasoning, In the breaking up o f a relationship, there may be “sin s” o f com m ission and om ission that reflect attribu tional conflicts due to actor observer differences. T h e person is both an actor by being in the relationship as well as an observer by noticing the o th er’s actions. In the form er case, there is attribution to what the person is doing (e.g., seeing others). In the latter case, a behavior is om itted be­ cause it is not occurring (e.g., not seeing m e). T h e difference betw een these may be a m atter o f sem an tics. (H oneycutt et al., 1992, p. 535) A n um ber o f strategies th at are used to d e e sc alate a relationship represent n on occu rren ces or om issions. H o n ey cutt et al. (1992) noted that C o d y ’s (1982) beh avioral d eescalatio n strategy included som e null ev en ts: “ I never brought up the to p ic,” and “ I never verbally said anything to the partn er.” O n the other han d, two sam ples in this strategy reflect positive labels for null a c ­ tions: “ I avoided c o n ta c t,” and “ I avoided sch edulin g future m eetings with h im /h er” (p. 163). B axter (1984) discussed w ithdrawal as a unilateral, indirect strategy to end a relationship. T h e withdrawer reduces con tact and intim acy with his or her part­ ner. Som e o f B a x te r’s sam ple accou n ts involve non even ts. For exam ple, “I never answ ered the n o tes” (p. 36). B axter also generated a typology o f reasons that in­ dividuals gave for their relationships ending. A num ber o f B a x te r’s categories reflect om issions. For exam ple, the m ost frequent reasons for a breakup re­ ported by B axter include lack o f sim ilar attitudes or values, lack o f supportiveness, lack o f openness, lack o f fidelity, and lack o f rom ance. O nly the desire for autonom y and physical separation were frequent reasons that reflect an affirm a­ tive or proactive wording.

Im p lic it B e n e fit- o f-th e - D o u b t E x p la n a tio n A n o th er explan ation for the choice o f language to characterize relational fail­ ure is the flexibility o f null language codes; they allow one to consider other e x ­

S E M A N T IC S OK B R E A K U P S

159

p lan atio n s in the h ope th at om ission will e n d. W h en a person says, “ My partn er did not spend en ough tim e with m e ,” it m ay in the hope th at his or her partn er will start spen din g m ore tim e with him or her. T h e null even t reflects m ore tentativ en ess an d is a less definitive state m e n t. For exam ple, som eon e w ho says, “ My p artn er w as n ot spen d in g en ou gh tim e with m e ” im plies th at his or her p artn er could be spen din g m ore time with th at person. In co n trast, the com m issive form u lation , “ M y p artn er w as spen din g too m uch tim e doin g his h ob b ies,” is m ore defin itive. H arvey e t al. (1992) in d icated th at o n e m otivatio n for acco u n ts is to “ stim u ­ late an en ligh ten ed feelin g and greater h ope an d will for the fu tu re” (p. 6 ). Per­ h aps, the null even t reflects an im plicit desire th at there could be ch an ge, w hereas the com m issio n im plies th at ch an ge is n ot con sid ered . In order to test this idea, it w ould be necessary to track in dividuals o ver tim e as they go through the process o f a relation sh ip breakdow n. If this sp ecu lation has som e fo u n d a­ tion, then in dividu als earlier in the p h ases o f relation al decay ou gh t to be m ore willing to h ope for b eh avioral ch an ge than they w ould be later. H en ce, there w ould be m ore om ission s in early p h ases o f b reakdow n th an in later ph ases. A R elatio n al E x p e cta n cie s Survey Test return ed by a m an (age 28) provides som e con firm ation th at in the early stage s o f relation sh ip breakdow n , w hen there is still hope for positive ch an ges, o m ission s pred om in ate over com m issio n s. U n ­ der m arital statu s, this resp o n d en t ch eck ed “ m arried," but p laced an arrow directionally tow ard “se p a ra te d ” w ith the w ords “ m aybe so o n ” h an dw ritten over the category and “ o r” w ith an o th er arrow poin tin g tow ard the “d iv o rc ed ” c a te ­ gory. T h u s he w as in dicatin g th at at th at poin t he w as in a relation sh ip th at was begin nin g to breakdow n. H is specific respo n ses to a query ask ing him to list b e ­ h aviors th at are typical o f a relation sh ip th at has go n e sour are found in Box 9.1. N o te th at o f 20 total responses, om issives ac c o u n t for 14 and com issiv es a c ­ c o u n t o f only six. Perhaps this d e m o n strate s “ H o p e springs e te rn al,” at least in the b reast o f this h usban d. G o ttm an (1994) co n d u cted a num ber o f lon gitu din al in vestigation s o f the co m m u n icatio n b eh aviors th at ch aracterize happily m arried an d unhappily m arried couples. H e p osited a c ascad e m odel o f corrosive co m m u n icatio n b e ­ haviors th at lead to divorce. T h e se b eh aviors in clu de com p lain in g and criticiz­ ing, w hich in turn leads to con tem p t. C o n tem p t leads to defen siven ess, which results in stonew allin g and relation al term in ation . H e w as able to predict with con sid erab le accuracy w hich cou p les w ould divorce 3 years later. G o ttm an (1994) provided exam p les o f these b eh aviors, an d it should be n oted th at a n um ber o f the exam ples reflect om ission s. D efen siv en ess involves an atte m p t to p ro te ct o n eself from perceived atta ck . O ften , defen siven ess is re ­ flected through n egative m ind readin g in w hich there are attrib u tion s o f m o ­ tives, feelings, or b eh aviors to the partner. G o ttm an (1 994) provided exam ples such as “ You don ’t care ab ou t how we live,” "You n ever clean u p,” “ You alw ays em b arrass m e at p a rtie s,” and “ You get ten se in situ atio n s like th at o n e ” (p. 25).

160

CH APTER 9

B o x 9.1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

R e sp o n se s o f 28-y ear-old M arried , “ M aybe S o o n S e p a ra te d ” M an

N o t talking’ N ot m aking love* N ot being considerate o f each oth er’ N o t supporting each oth er’s decisions" Avoiding time spent with each other" N ot planning surprises* N ot helping with household chores’ N o t kissing goodbye" N o t kissing hello* N ot checking where you arc* N o t caring if you return’ Spending a lot of time with other people Finding a new partner (male or female) N ot ever sending flowers’ N ot rem em bering im portant events" Sleeping separate Room ing separate Living in separate homes N ot seeing each other" D ivorce or separation Note. A st er isk (*) ind ic at es an omissive.

In ad d i t i o n , G o t t m a n i n d i c a t e d t h a t m i n d - r e a d i n g s t a t e m e n t s are a c c o m p a n i e d by “ You a lw a y s ” o r “ You n e v e r ” p h r a s e s . T h e s e typ es o f r e fe re n ts c le arly reflect c o m m i s s i o n s a n d o m i s s i o n s , respectively. G o t t m a n d i s c u s s e d w h i n i n g as a type o f d e f e n s i v e n e s s t h a t re fle c ts d i s s a t is ­ f a c t i o n in a c h ild is h way. T h e r e arc s e v e r a l typ es o f w h i n i n g t h a t he d i s c u s s e d , o n e c o n t a i n s v e rb a l s t a t e m e n t s c o n t a i n i n g o m i s s i o n s . G o t t m a n ( 1 9 9 4 ) p r o ­ v i d e d this o m i s s i o n as a n e x a m p l e o f th e c o m p l a i n t type o f w h in in g, “ You n e v e r ta k e m e a n y w h e r e ” (p. 2 7 ). In d i v i d u a l s m a y im plicitly o r su b lim in a lly realize t h a t fu rth e r in to the relat i o n s h i p - d e c a y p r o c e ss , th e ir p a r t n e r is n o t g o in g to s ta r t d o i n g p r o a c t iv e b e ­ h a v io r s. In this re g ar d , G o t t m a n

( 1 9 9 4 ) re v ie w e d s tu d ie s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t

u n h a p p y c o u p l e s sh o w g r e a t e r n e g a tiv ity d u r in g d i s c u s s i o n s o f issu es in th e m a r ­ riage a n d also d is p la y less h um or, less r e c i p r o c a t e d lau gh ter, fe w e r a g r e e m e n t s , m o r e critic ism , a n d m o r e p u t d o w n s c o m p a r e d to h a p p y c o u p l e s . T h i s list o f d if­ fe r e n c e s c o n t a i n s o m i s s i o n s in t e r m s o f n o t s h o w in g h um or, n o t l a u g h in g t o ­ gether, a n d dis a g re e in g . C o m m i s s i o n s are re f le c te d in the a c t i v e w o rd in g o f critic ism a n d the use o f p u t d o w n s . It is p o s s ib le t h a t sins o f c o m m i s s i o n , in p r o a c t iv e w o rd in g say, re fle c t the r e ­ d u c t i o n o f u n c e rtain ty . C o n s i d e r the follow in g o m i s s i o n a n d c o m m i s s i o n : “ B e ­

S E M A N T I C S OK B R E A K U P S

161

fore my partner was not spending enough time with me. O ver time, I realized that my partner preferred to spend the time doing G od knows w hat." T h e om is­ sion is am biguous because the individual does not know what his or her partner is doing; hence, a null event may symbolize a higher level o f uncertainty and ambiguity. T h e wording o f com m ission seem s to indicate that a judgm ent o f d e ­ finitive action h as been m ade and there is less uncertainty.

R u le s - B a s e d E x p la n a tio n

T h e third exp lan ation is based on the prem ise that om ission s reflect the v io la­ tion o f a rule. T h e rules-based ap pro ach explain s language codes for null even ts in term s o f violation s o f e xp ectatio n s. H en ce, a rule violation is noted (e.g., “ H e or she w as not show ing me affectio n .” ). T h e actu al rule is th at an in­ tim ate should d em on strate affection to his or her partner. A s noted in chaptcr .3, rules for the rise and dem ise o f relation sh ips may take the form o f m em ­ ory-structure e xp ectatio n s. N ull behaviors reflect violations o f expectation s and rules for interaction in personal relationships. Argyle and H enderson (1985) created a list o f rules that pertain to a variety o f relationships (e.g., teach er-stu d en t, intim ates, acq u ain ­ tan ces, best friends). A num ber o f their rules are prescriptive (e.g., Be polite) in that they prescribe w hat should be done in the given relationship. O th er rules are restrictive; that is, they indicate w hat is not perm issible. R esearch (Jones & G allois, 1989) revealed that recognizing rule violations may be easier than freely generating rules for relationships. E xam p les o f A rgyle and H en derso n ’s (1985) prescriptive rules are re sp e c t­ ing the o th e r’s privacy, repaying deb ts, being polite, and speak in g in turn. R e ­ strictive rules in clu de not d iscussin g with others w hat is said in con fid en ce, n ot criticizing the other person publicly, n ot em b arrassin g the other person, and not lecturin g or patronizing the oth er person. A rgyle and H en derso n pre­ sen ted a list o f the nine m ost im portant rules; the breakin g o f these rules c o n ­ tribute to the collap se o f friendships. T h e se rules have been broken when o n e ’s friend is je alo u s o f o n e ’s oth er relation sh ips, does not keep con fid en ces, is not being toleran t o f o n e ’s friends, criticizes one in public, does not confide in one, d oes not volun teer help in tim e o f need, does not show a positive re ­ gard for one, does not stan d up for on e in your ab sen ce, and does not giving one em otio n al support. It is interestin g that seven o f the nine are w orded to reflect a null event. A ddition al research revealed null accounts o f why m arital and datin g rela­ tionships ended. C u p ach and M etts (1986) con ducted a study on the accounts that respondents gave for problem s that contributed to the breakups o f their re­ lationships. Six underlying dim ensions were discovered: the individual’s psy­ chological state contributing to relational strain, the en actm en t o f relational

162

CHAPTER 9

roles, relation al coh esion , the regulation o f in teraction , third-party affairs, and e xtern al forces beyond the c o u p le ’s direct con trol. E ach o f these d im en sio n s re ­ flects rules for m arriage an d d a tin g relation sh ips th at partn ers exp ect to be fol­ low ed. T h e b reak in g o f the rules results in relation al strain or the en din g of the relationship. N o te th at rule v iolation is often stated in term s o f null even ts or w hat is n ot happen ing. In these problem s areas, C u p a c h an d M etts (1 986) provided n um ero us in ­ sta n ces o f om ission s sta te d in the re sp o n d en ts’ ow n w ords. Box 9.2 c o n tain s e x ­ am ples o f the underlying problem s in relation sh ips. T h e d im en sio n s are listed, follow ed by sam ple om issive sta te m e n ts. In a fa c to r an a ly sis stu d y o f ru les for c o n flic t re so lu tio n in A u stra lia n m a r­ ried c o u p le s, Jo n e s an d G a llo is (1 9 8 9 ) re p o rte d five fa c to rs, tw o o f w hich w ere re stric tiv e ru le s. T h e s e re stric tiv e ru les a p p e a r to be very sim ila r to C u p a c h an d M e tt's (1 9 8 6 ) d im e n sio n o f re g u la tio n o f in te ra c tio n am o n g d i­ v o r c e e s an d fo rm er p a rtn e rs. T h e re stric tiv e ru les in c lu d e d a d im e n sio n re ­ fle c tin g b ein g c o n sid e ra te o f o n e ’s p a rtn e r (e .g ., D o n ’t in te rru p t, D o n ’t h u m ilia te the o th e r p e rso n , D o n ’t d ism iss the o th e r p e rso n ’s issu e as u n im ­ p o r ta n t, D o n ’t talk dow n to the o th e r p e rso n , D o n ’t b lam e the o th e r p e rso n unfairly, D o n 't p u sh o n e ’s ow n p o in t o f view as the so le view, D o n ’t be s a r c a s ­ tic or m im ic th e o th e r p e rso n , D o n 't h u rt the o th e r p e rso n , D o n 't m ak e the o th e r p e rso n feel guilty, an d D o n ’t talk too m uch or d o m in a te th e c o n v e r s a ­ tio n ). T h e se c o n d re stric tiv e -ru le d im e n sio n , ratio n ality , in c lu d e d ru les a b o u t k e e p in g c o n flic t ra tio n a l (e.g., D o n ’t g e t angry, D o n ’t raise your v o ice , D o n ’t be a g g re ssiv e or lose your tem per, D o n 't ge t u p se t an d keep calm , D o n ’t arg u e , an d D o n ’t b rin g up issu e s th a t ten d to le ad to a r g u m e n ts). T h e re m a in in g th ree d im e n sio n s w ere p re sc rip tiv e : se lf-e x p re ssio n (e .g ., G e t to the p o in t q u ick ly an d Be c o n s is t e n t), c o n flic t re so lu tio n (e .g ., E x p lo re a lt e r ­ n a tiv e s an d M a k e jo in t d e c isio n s ), an d p o sitiv ity (e.g., Try to re lie v e te n sio n in arg u m e n ts an d L o o k at e ach o th e r ). Jo n es an d G allo is (1 9 8 9 ), while c om m en tin g on rule violation , n oted that the m arried cou ples in their study “ seem ed to find it easier to identify rules that they w ere break in g than to identify the rules they w ere follow in g” (p. 9 6 0 ). In a study don e design ed to exam in e w hether Jo n e s and G a llo is’s rule dim en sion s exten d e d to an A m erican sam p le, H o n ey cu tt, W oods, an d F on ten ot (1993) rep licated the restrictive-rule d im en sio n s (ration ality an d c on sid eration ) in sam p les o f en gaged and m arried cou ples. H ow ever, they were n ot able to repli­ cate the prescriptive rules as clearly as the restrictive rules. Positive u n d e rstan d ­ ing an d con cision em erged as rule d im en sio n s. A lth ou gh e x p e c tatio n s regardin g the rise an d dem ise o f relation sh ips can be view ed using a ru les-b ased ap p ro ach , it is im portan t to note th at this ap pro ach d oes n ot provide the m ech an ism by w hich the specific lan guage code is a c ­ cessed . For exam ple, is it easier to recall restrictive rules? If so, why? A re there in dividual differences in statin g restrictive rules?

S E M A N T IC S OK B R E A K U P S

Box 9.2

163

R eason s for R elationsh ips B reakin g R eflecting O m ission s

1. References to individual attitudes in the relationship. Former spouse decided he was unhappy. I never intended to have a serious relationship. We made plans to go out that night but she didn’t show up at the place or time. I became no fun. 2. Enactment of relational roles. I was not growing as a person. He found no joy in being a father. No sexual relations. He was not for me an adequate dating part­ ner. He said he u’asn’r ready to become a father. We were not ready for the re­ sponsibility of marriage. 3. Relational cohesion. We no longer wanted the same things out of life. O ur per­ sonalities didn't mix. We did nothing together as a couple. T h e feelings of love just weren’t there. 4. Regulation of interaction. He wouldn't listen. I learned about a time she was not honest with me. Note: T h e words in italics reflect the null portion in each response.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS A rean aly sis o f the d a ta p re se n ted in the d e - e sc a la tin g m eta m e m o ry str u c ­ ture g e n e ra tio n stu d y o f H o n e y c u tt et al. (1 9 9 2 ) re v e a led som e in te re stin g re ­ su lts re g ard in g the a sso c ia tio n o f co m m issio n s an d o m issio n s w ith g e n d e r an d o th e r v a riab le s a sso c ia te d w ith re la tio n al b re ak d o w n . T h e sam p le c o n siste d o f 197 re sp o n d e n ts en ro lled in in tro d u cto ry c o m m u n ic a tio n c o u rse s a t a large university. T h e sam p le w as 4 4% m en an d 56% w om en . Two frequ en tly m e n tio n e d o m issio n s w ere av o id in g the o th e r in pub lic s e t ­ tin gs an d sp e n d in g less tim e togeth er. T h e m o st-m en tio n e d c o m m issio n w as en d in g o f the re la tio n sh ip follow ed by v e rb a l fig h tin g /an ta g o n iza tio ti. A d d i­ tio n al an aly sis, co n tro llin g for the d e gre e o f re d u n d an c y in g e n e ra tin g b e h a v io rs an d in fe ren ce s, re v e a led th at w om en cam e up w ith a sign ifican tly g re ate r v a ri­ ety o f c o m m issio n s (M = 5 .1 3 ) th a n did m en (M = 4-29) w hen g e n e ra tin g e x ­ p e c ta tio n s for re la tio n a l b re ak d o w n . T h e re w ere n o sig n ific an t e ffe cts for ge n d e r re g ard in g o m issio n s. P artial c o rre la tio n s th at tak e in to a c c o u n t th e a m o u n t o f re d u n d an cy in the g e n e ra te d d e - e sc a la tin g m e m o ry -stru c tu re a c tio n s reveal a sig n ific an t a s s o c ia ­ tio n b e tw e en the to ta l n u m b e r o f u n iq u e b e h a v io rs an d in fe ren c e s w ith c o m ­ m issio n s (P artial co rre latio n = 0 .6 3 , p < .001 ) . 1 T h e p a rtia l c o rre latio n allow s

164

CHAPTER 9

one to describe the association betw een them , and at the sam e time to rule out other variables, in this case, the tendency to restate de-escalatin g behaviors or inferences. T h e num ber o f om issions was also correlated with the num ber o f unique behaviors and inferences (Partial correlation = 0.42, p < .001). T h e s ta ­ tistical procedure, the z test o f correlational differences, was used to determ ine if the different values o f these correlations were statistically significant. Values o f z scores equal to or above 1.96 are statistically significant. T h is analysis re­ vealed that com m issions were more com m on in the generated de-escalatin g be­ haviors and inferences than were om ission s. T h e correlation o f 0.63 is significantly higher than the correlation o f 0.42 (z = 2.90, p < .004). Yet, the 0.42 correlation still reflects the subtle incidence o f m entioning w hat is not h ap­ pening as relationships sour. SU M M A R Y T h e claim s o f om ission and com m ission are an intriguing sem antic ph en om e­ non. Yet the basic question rem ains: W hy do individuals som etim es reference null events as opposed to active e v e n ts’ M ore research is needed on the con di­ tions that result in conceptualizing in one code instead o f another. We believe that the code accessin g occurs subliminally. Rarely does a person say, "I am blam ing my partner for w hat he or she was not doing right, even though I could just as easily have said what they were doing w rong." In this regard, a few theo­ retical explan ation s have been offered. R egarding gender differences, do wom en notice more null events as relation­ ships are dissolving? T h is question can n ot be answ ered with these data. H ow ­ ever, recall other research with couples on factors leading to the recent breakup o f rom an ces indicated that the ending o f these relationships is m ore o f a surprise for the men than for the women (Hill et al. 1976). Because women think more about relational problem s and the conditions affecting the relationship, they may n otice earlier than men w hat is happening (e.g., “H e has been avoiding me. He has not been spending as m uch time with me as he did a few weeks ag o .”). If this is case, then they use more om issions bccausc they arc simply thinking about the relationship. R ecall from chapter 3 o f Burnett’s (1990) research on the gender differences in thinking about relationships and how this was more difficult for m en than women. M en don’t know what is going on in term s o f no­ ticing and m onitoring potential relationship problem s. D IS C U S S IO N Q U E S T IO N S 9.1 How often have you noticed claim s o f om ission and com m ission when things were going badly in one o f your relationships? W as it difficult for you to notice what was not happening? W h at was the type and nature of this relationship?

SEM A N TIC S OF BR EA KU PS

165

9 .2 D isc u ss e a c h o f th e th ree e x p la n a tio n s for u sin g c la im s o f o m issio n : a ttr ib u tio n a l e x p la n a tio n , im p licit b e n e fit-o f-d o u b t, a n d ru le s-b ase d p e rsp e ctiv e . C a n you th in k o f e x a m p le s su p p o rtin g e a c h o f th ese e x p la ­ n a t i o n s in a r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t h a s s o m e p r o b l e m s ? W h a t a r e t h e n a t u r e o f th e se p r o b le m s? C a n th e s e p r o b le m s b e re c tifie d w ith g o o d c o m m u ­ n icatio n ?

A P P L IC A T IO N S

9 . 1 A s k t h r e e m e n a n d t h r e e w o m e n to g e n e r a t e a list o f r u le s fo r a h a p p y r e ­ latio n sh ip . C o d e a n d c o m p a re th e n u m b e r o f o m issio n s a n d c o m m is ­ sio n s b e tw e en the g en d ers. 9 .2 S u r v e y th ree m e n a n d w o m e n a b o u t h ow o fte n they n o tic e w h a t a re la ­ t i o n a l p a r t n e r is n o t d o i n g w h e n t h e r e a r e t e n s i o n s o r a n x i e t i e s i n t h e r e ­ latio n sh ip . For e x a m p le , h a v e they e v e r th o u g h t a b o u t or n o tic e d w h e n th eir p a rtn e r s h a v e q u it d o in g s o m e th in g th a t they u se d to d o reg u larly ( e . g . , “ k i s s i n g g o o d b y e , a s k i n g a b o u t e v e n t s in t h e d a y , o r d o i n g s u r p r i s e favors). 9 .3 In te rv iew a frien d a b o u t th e b r e a k u p o f a r e c e n t re la tio n sh ip . A s k y o u r frie n d to m a k e a list o f t h e r e a s o n s fo r th e b r e a k u p . C o d e th e liste d r e a ­ so n s as o m issio n s an d co m m issio n s. C a n you m a k e any c o n c lu sio n s a b o u t h u m a n c o g n i t io n in t e r m s o f n o t ic i n g b e h a v i o r s w h ile a r e l a t i o n ­ s h i p is s o u r i n g ? F o r e x a m p l e , b a s e d o n y o u r f r i e n d ’s e x p e r i e n c e , is it m o r e i m p o r t a n t w h a t o n e a n d o n e ’s r e l a t i o n a l p a r t n e r a r e n o t d o i n g o r w h a t b o t h a r e d o i n g in t h e c o u r s e o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p ?

N O TES h e a d e r s with a backgroun d in correlational analyses m ight be interested in know ing that this partial correlation is also an exam ple o f an item -total correlation, which results in inflated correlations b ecause the co m p o n en t o f one o f the variables (total unique behaviors and infer­ ences) is not in depen den t o f the n um ber o f com m ission s or om issions gen erated by a person. H en ce, the num ber o f com m ission s added to the n um ber o f om issions is equal to the total n u m ­ ber o f behaviors and inferences. T h e higher item -total correlation for com m issions is an oth er indication th at m ore com m issions were generated than om issions.

10 Future Research Ou Relational Memory Structures

A m ajor prem ise o f this book is th at re latio n sh ip s are the m en tal cre a tio n s o f in d ivid u als, as D u ck (1 9 9 0 ) argu ed . T h ey exist in the m inds o f in d iv id u als to the e x te n t th at th o u g h t is c o n c e n tra te d on som eon e else. T h e re are A m e r i­ can cu ltu ral m axim s reflectin g relatio n sh ip s as m en tal cre a tio n s, such as “A b se n c e m akes the h eart grow fon der,” as well as the in verse, “O u t o f sight, out o f m in d .” T h e m ental creation o f relationships has behavioral effects. Perhaps, the m ost fam ous exam ple o f this is the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an individ­ ual’s thoughts influence his or her subsequent behavior. T h us, if som eone b e­ lieves that he or she is in a casual relationship that is not exclusive, the prophecy may end up being fulfilled because that person will choose not to spend a lot o f time with the other person. In addition , as d iscu ssed in ch ap ter 4, there is a v ast body o f literature on in ­ form ation processin g in dicatin g that o n e ’s e xp e ctatio n s in fluen ce o n e ’s ob ser­ vation s o f behavior. For exam ple, as discussed in ch apters 2 and 3, verbal teasin g in the form o f putdow ns, com m en ts ab ou t o n e ’s ap p earan ce, or sa r­ casm may be tolerated or even exp ected to som e degree in happy relation ­ ships. Yet the sam e verbal statem en ts could be labeled em otio n al badgerin g in an unhappy relationship. 166

FUTURE RESEARCH ON RELATIONAL M EM O R Y STR U CT U R ES

167

T h e im aging o f relationships in people’s minds reflects their expectation s for different types o f relationships as well as creating expectation s for the d evelop­ m ent, m ain tenan ce, and deterioration o f relationships. Relationships occur in terms o f the behavior and com m unication betw een two individuals. R elatio n ­ ships are not m ental creation s in any sim ple sense, and the creation o f a rela­ tionship from a series o f interactions is a m ental differentiation, not a behavioral one (D uck, personal com m unication). A lthough relationships are mentally created, they occur at m ultiple levels. Relationships occur in term s o f peer and social-netw ork reactions to the dyadic bond or relationship. Recall from in chapter 5 that there are larger societal in­ fluences through the m edia, including television, MTV, m agazines, and o f class­ room socialization. Ultim ately, relationships reside in the minds o f individuals as individuals think about current or an ticipated relationships while recalling events, scenes, and m essages from prior relationships.

G E N D E R D IF F E R E N C E S A N D IM A G IN IN G R E L A T IO N S H IP S In term s o f thinking about relationships, research has painted a con sistent pic­ ture in which gender plays a role in relationship expectations. However, as noted in chapter 7, even though these effects have been consisten t, the m agni­ tude o f m ale and fem ale differences in relational expectation s may be greater due to gender-role stereotypes, w hereas the behavioral differences are smaller. For exam ple, women listed m ore unique action s for escalating and d e -e scalat­ ing relationships than did men; however the m ean differences are sm all. Fur­ ther, when the am ount o f time it took subjects to sort random ized action s of escalating and d e-escalatin g relationships was m easured there was no gender difference for sorting escalating-relationship actions, although there was a dif­ ference for sorting deescalating-relationship actions. W omen rated more e sc a ­ lating-relationship actions as typical than did men, but this difference was not found for deescalating-relationship actions except for the action talking with friends about relational problem s. People’s gender-role stereotypes may result in the belief that women think more about relationships and about what is happening in them than about to w hat is not happening. Recall from chapter 9 that wom en use more claim s o f com ission in referencing the decline o f personal relationships. A lso, recall from chapter 6 that wom en have deeper greater m em ories o f relationship events and often fill in the missing pieces in relational storytelling for the men. W omen re­ call more specific inform ation regarding who, w hat, when, where, and how than d o m en a b o u t p r e v io u s r e la tio n a l o c c u r r e n c e s . W om en h av e m ore n on redundan t expectation s for the rise and dem ise o f relationships and are aware o f problem s earlier in their personal relationships than are men.

C H A P T E R 1«

168

E xpectation s are revealed in rules for the m ain tenan ce o f various types o f re­ lationships (Argyle & H en derson, 1985). For exam ple, Jo n es and G allois (1989) argued that A ustralian m arried couples have rules for conflict resolu­ tion, such as that spouses expect their partners to be considerate by not inter­ rupting them w hen they discuss a serious relational problem , to be rational and u nem otional in the process o f discussion, to be self-expressive by clarifying the problem and avoiding exaggeration, to resolve conflict through exploring alter­ native solutions, and to be positive by looking at them and being supportive. They also found a num ber o f gender differences regarding the situational appli­ cability o f the rules, such as w hether a rule applied in public or private con texts, whether it applied only to m arriage or other relationships, and how im portant the rule was. For exam ple, w om en rated the rationality rule as less im portant but as applying more in public situations than did m en and the conflict-resolution rule as applying more in private than a rule about being con siderate o f the part­ n er’s point o f view. H oneycutt et al. (1993) found that som e o f these rules, such as being con sid­ erate and being rational, also applied to a sam ple o f A m erican engaged and m ar­ ried couples. However, A m erican couples also had rules ab out positive understanding through praising o n e ’s partner, being concise by keeping to the point, and dem on stratin g consistency in o n e ’s viewpoint. It would be w orth­ while to exam ine the endorsem ent o f rules for conflict-resolution and how this is related to expectation s for the m aintenan ce o f different kinds o f relationships (m arriage, dating, best friends, com petitors, business colleagues). Indeed, the memory structures for personal relationships contain expectation s for the kinds o f activities that occur in various kinds o f relationships.

R E L A T IO N A L S T O R IE S , M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S , A N D A R E L A T IO N A L W O R L D V IE W In chapter 3, the functions o f telling stories about family events and characters were discussed. Family stories are im portant in providing a link betw een cogn i­ tive m odels o f relational developm ent and com m unicative behavior in terms o f enduring m essages that reflect core values. T h e stories are accessed in memory such that lines o f dialogue may be recalled in the form o f m em orable m essages. In addition, various scenes may be accessed. T h e action s o f the characters may reveal values or them es o f life and close relationships (i.e., H ard work pays off, Love conquers all, C om m itm en t is im p ortan t). T h e story them es may act as re­ lationship rules and as expectation s for current or future relationships. R esearch ers need to exam ine how relational stories reflect people’s e x p e c ta­ tions for the developm en t or m aintenan ce o f their current personal relation­ ships. W h at are the them es of stories as a function o f gender, prior relationships, current relationship quality, and com plexity o f an in dividual’s memory stru c­

FUTURE RESEARCH ON RELATIONAL M EM O R Y STRU CTU RES

169

tures for relation ships? For exam p le, do people who h ave been in few or m any relation sh ips cite different them es in their m ost-recalled stories ab ou t relation al even ts, activities, or ch aracters? D oes relation al storytelling inform researchers ab ou t the relation al partn ers' h opes and e x p e ctatio n s for the future d e v e lo p ­ m en t o f the relation ship? R elatio n al storytellin g is also im p ortan t in reflecting a relation al w orldview as well as e x p e c tatio n s for the curren t or p o ten tial relation sh ips. R ecall from ch ap ter 1 th at Ste p h e n (1 994) d iscussed the n otion o f a relation sh ip w orldview in w hich “ co m m u n icatio n betw een m em bers o f on go in g relation sh ips gen erates a w eb o f sh ared m e an in g ” (p. 191). T h is n otion em erged out o f the fusing o f sym bolic in teraction ism and social exch an ge, thus creatin g a sym bolic e x ­ ch an ge fram ew ork. C o u p les co n stru ct a sh ared view o f the w orld as their re la­ tionship progresses (Step h en , 1984). In su pp ort o f this view, S te p h e n (1 986) reported th at geograph ically se p a ­ rated cou p les h ad a higher relation sh ip su rv iv al rate over a 2-ycar period th an cou ples w ho were able to in teract m ore freely. T h e w orldview is greater than the sum o f in d ivid u al view s. A lo n g a sim ilar line, D u ck and M iell (1986) sp ecu lated that a relation sh ip is a jo in t con stru ctio n , such th at the relation sh ip is seen by the partn ers has h avin g certain unique qualities. In term s o f relation al m em ory structures, there is ev id en ce o f a relation al worldview. T h e gap-filling ph en om en on discu ssed in c h ap ter 7 occu rs when a person is thinking ab ou t a p articu lar relation al scene an d there is a ten den cy to ­ ward the false recogn ition o f n on m en tion ed actio n ev en ts (A b elson , 1981; H o n ey cu tt, C an trill, et al., 1989). Individuals may recognize relatio n al action s as occurrin g on ce they are locked in to a m etam em ory structure ab ou t re latio n ­ ships, regardless o f the b ase rates o f o ccu rren ce o f the p articu lar action s. T h e relation sh ip w orldview may con tribu te to the relation al gap-filling. In ­ deed, tran sactive mem ory, in w hich partn ers rely on on e an o th er to fill in pieces o f relation al stories, reflects gap-filling. T h e story told by the couple may reflect their relation al worldview. A n in terestin g research q u estio n con cern s the c o m ­ patibility o f the b eh aviors or e v e n ts m en tion ed in the stories an d the e x p e c ta ­ tion s for a ro m an tic relation sh ip. O th er research q u e stio n s to be pursued are an e x am in atio n o f the asso ciatio n betw een the c o n te n t o f re latio n al even t stories and unfulfilled and fulfilled n eeds; w hether the th em es o f the stories reflect a re­ lation al w orldview and the e x p e c tatio n s for a rom an tic relation sh ip, an d when individuals ch an ge their relation al m em ory stru ctu res in order to acc o u n t for new inform ation . E ffe c t o f M e m o r y S t r u c t u r e s o n R e la t io n a l M e s s a g e s A critical assu m p tion o f relation al m em ory stru ctu res is th at in form ation p ro ­ cessin g affects behavior. Baldw in (1 992) n oted , “ R e latio n al sch em as should sh ape the in d ivid u al’s e x p e c tatio n s ab o u t and in terp retation s o f oth er p e o p le ’s

170

C H A P T E R 10

behavior, as well as beliefs ab o u t ap propriate responses. T h e in dividual b ases his or her b eh avior on this inform ation, to reach valued g o als” (p. 4 7 8 ). Recall irom ch a p te r 7, that in dividu als who h ave been in m ore relation sh ips take less tim e to sort random ized escalatin g-relation sh ip actio n s th an do in di­ vidu als h avin g b een in zero relation sh ips. In feren ces ab ou t b eh avior arc m ade on the basis o f p e o p le ’s relation al ex p e ctatio n s. For exam ple, if an individual b e­ lieves th at a relation sh ip is grow ing m ore in tim ate an d his or h er relation al p a rt­ ner is un sociab le on a given day, the new ob served b eh avior m ay be explain ed as a situ atio n al d ev iatio n from the usual pattern o f w arm th or sensitivity. H en ce, as discu ssed in c h ap ters 2 and 3, the b eh avior is assim ilated into the in dividual's m em ory stru ctu re for a d evelopin g ro m an ce. R elatio n al m em ory stru ctu res determ in e w hat can be said in a given scene b ased on previous experien ces, in stru ction from oth ers, or ob servation o f o th ­ ers. H ow ever, the reaction to m essages m ay becom e assim ilated in to the m em ­ ory stru ctu re, thus affectin g future e x p e ctatio n s for relation sh ips (H o ney cu tt, 1993). For exam p le, an in dividual m ay ex p e ct the oth er person to be relatively gregarious, friendly, an d atten tiv e on an initial d ate . Specific initial d a te s may confirm or reinforce the e x p e ctatio n . D iscon firm in g exp erien ces m ay result in the m odification o f initial datin g ex p e c tatio n s. A s a result, distin ctive m essages m ay be discu ssed in e n su in g dates. R ecall from c h a p te r 2 th a t research in d ica te d th at peop le h av e an in itial in ­ te rac tio n m em ory stru ctu re th a t is relatively stab le , while b ein g flexible a c ­ c o rd in g to situ a tio n a l n e e d s (K ellerm an n et al., 198 9 ). T h e in itial in te ra ctio n m em ory stru c tu re c o n ta in s se q u e n c e s o f o b ta in in g in fo rm atio n , d iscu ssin g facts, e v a lu a tin g in fo rm atio n , p rovid in g in te rp re tatio n s, an d d isc u ssin g in te n ­ tion s. H ow ever, p e o p le w ho are m ore fam iliar with on e an o th e r h ave a gre ater flexibility to rearran ge the ord er o f to p ics. It w ould be in triguin g to in v e stigate the m e ssag e s th at m en an d w om en e x p e c t to o c cu r at tran sitio n a l p o in ts in re ­ latio n sh ip s. A start w as m ad e in this are a in the study by H o n e y cu tt et al. (1 9 9 8 ), d isc u sse d in c h a p te r 7. In ad d itio n , B a x te r an d W ilm ot (1 9 8 4 ) found th at q u e stio n in g w as n ot used as o ften as w ere o th e r in d irect strate g ie s by in d i­ v id u a ls w an tin g to find o u t how in tim ate th eir re latio n sh ip w as. In d irect s tr a t­ egics, su ch as h in tin g a b o u t m ore intim acy, d e term in in g how m u ch the p a rtn er w ould en d u re in term s o f p re se n tin g o n e ’s b ad side to o n e ’s partner, use o f je alo u sy tests by talk in g a b o u t old boy- an d girlfrien ds, or in tro d u cin g the o n e se lf an d o n e ’s p a rtn er to ou tsid ers as a c o u p le , w ere used m ore often th an w ere d irect strate g ie s, su ch as se lf-d isclo su re ab o u t the desire for a m ore in tim ate ro m an ce. T h e co n te n t ol d e -e sca latin g m etam em ory-stru ctu re m essages at tran si­ tion al poin ts could be analyzed by con stru ctin g scen arios th at take individuals up to a certain poin t in a souring relation sh ip. Follow ing the procedu res d is­ cu ssed in ch ap ter 7, in w hich m essages used to e sc alate in tim acy w ere e x a m ­ ined, in dividuals could be prom pted to reveal w hat they think w ould be said

FUTURE RESEARCH ON RELATIONAL M EM O R Y STRU CTU RES

171

n ext to prom ote a stage transition toward the dem ise o f relationship, w hat could be said instead o f w hat had been said, and why som ething would be said at this point in the relationship. Recall from chapter 5 that this technique invokes a proactive im agined interaction (II). F O R M IN G C Y B E R -R E L A T IO N S H IP S O N T H E IN T E R N E T A new source o f relationship expectation s has arisen through Internet chat lines, in w hich individuals can initiate conversation s with other people online. Relationships that derive from the use o f com puter netw orks have been referred to in the popular press as virtual reality or cyberspace relationships. Individuals bring to this m edium their experiences from prior relationships. A lthough the degree to w hich the Internet is a source o f new relationship expectation s has not been studied, at the very least it provides a very different environm ent in which an individual’s norm al expectation s can operate. For instan ce, using com puter networking, an individual has more control over the first im pression that he or she m akes. Individuals using online dating services (e.g., M a tch ­ m aker and lnve@ aol.com) can scan in their ph otos and carefully decide which photograph will accom pany a written description o f them selves. Individuals can create profiles indicating their interests and hobbies, and any personal in ­ form ation they wish to provide. Individuals can e-m ail others, as well as using sim ultan eous-ch at softw are to com m unicate, while they are online. Internet users can join a variety o f elec­ tronic bulletin boards or groups in which the subscribers share com m on in ter­ ests. W ilderm uth (1999) reported in a study o f 83 individuals in an online group interested in rom antic relationships that m eeting in a chatroom and accessing w eb-based personal ad services were com m on. A b ou t h alf the online relation­ ships were successful in that they stayed together for an average o f 7 m onths. Approxim ately, 45% o f the sam ple was also in a real-life relationship, but said that the real-life relationship was unfulfilling or in danger o f dissolving. O f the unsuccessful on-line relationships, 68% o f the relationships dissolved after the first face-to-face m eeting. Obviously, there are problem s with using the Internet to initiate relation­ ships. T h e com puter screen restricts visual access. Even scan n ed pictures may be dated or crafted to project the person as being very attractive. Even with the new evolving technology that allows online video conferencing, there is the re­ striction o f the size o f the visual fram e. V isual inform ation is a primary filter cue that people use in deciding w hether to initiate conversation s with others (M urstein, 1987). B ased on how others look, people decide w hether or not they desire to talk to them . T h ere arc an ecdotal reports o f individuals who prefer chattin g on the Internet because the visual cue is restricted and they can por­ tray them selves in any personae that they choose. Obviously, the pictures that are posted on the Internet by people with personal web pages or in bulle­

C H A P T E R 1«

172

tin-board services are strategically chosen for im pression m anagem ent. H ence, the photographs on the Internet m ight not reflect a person as he or she currently looks and be even be crafted to m ake the person more attractive. Indeed, Internet relationships need to be studied and con trasted with real-world offline relationships in term s o f expectation s for relational developm ent. A T T A C H M E N T ST Y L E S A N D R E L A T IO N A L M EM O RY ST R U C T U R E S A ttach m en t theory explains individual needs for bonding based on an individ­ ual’s interaction with his or her primary caregiver (e.g., often the m other) in term s o f different attach m en t styles. For exam ple, individuals may have secure, avoidant, or an xious and am bivalent relations. O th er researchers described four styles: sccure, preoccupied, dism issive avoidan t, and fearful avoidant (Bartholom ew, 1990). Feeney and N o lle r (1991) analyzed a tta c h m e n t styles in relation to s ta te ­ m en ts ab o u t w hat kind o f perso n a su b je c t’s cu rren t d atin g p artn er w as and how the su b je c t go t alo n g with his or h er partner. A v o id an t su b je cts used m ore w ords d escrib in g lack o f d e p e n d e n c e , clo se n ess, an d affectio n in their cu rren t d a tin g re latio n sh ip s than did secu re an d am b iv alen t su b je c ts. A n x ­ ious an d am b iv alen t su b je cts rep orted m ore u n qu alified affectio n an d id e a l­ ized their p artn ers m ore than did the o th e r styles. S e c u re su b je cts rep orted m ore c lo se n ess than did av o id a n t su b je c ts and less c o m m itm en t than did an x io u s an d am b iv alen t su b je cts. T h u s, secu re su b je cts ten ded to em ph asize the im p o rtan ce o f o p e n n e ss and clo se n ess w hile also seek in g to retain their in d ivid u al id en tities. S e c u re su b je c ts w ho were m ore id e alistic m ade m ore referen ces to m u tu al help and su p p o rt in their re latio n sh ip s. For the av o id an t group, h avin g fun and en jo yable tim es were related to the qu ality o f the relatio n sh ip . A num ber o f the verbal reports by these subjects reflect som e o f the e scalat­ ing m em ory-structure action s discussed in chapter 7. T h ere were references to the display o f physical affection, com m itm ent, and self-disclosure (openness). A n intriguing question to pursue is the relationship betw een attach m en t styles and the con ten ts o f relational memory structures. For exam ple, do secure p e o ­ ple expect more disclosure than avoidant people? A re there attachm ent-style differences in the com plexity o f relational memory structures? A re certain a c ­ tions seen as more necessary or typical than other action s in the different a t­ tachm ent styles? C U R R E N T R E L A T IO N A L Q U A L IT Y A N D M E M O R Y D uck (1990) w ondered about the influence o f talking ab ou t the future in the trajectory o f relationships. A ny relation ship may be view ed as an unfolding

FUTURE RESEARCH ON RELATIONAL M EM O R Y STR U CT U R ES

173

m ental creation based on o n e ’s ex p e ctatio n s an d the recreation o f previous en cou n ters. D uck, Pond, and L eath am (1994) found th at a c o u p le ’s reports o f tbe ch aracteristics o f com m u n ication at different tim es are related to current relationship satisfactio n rather than predictin g su b seq u en t relation ship sa tis­ faction (cf. G o ttm an &. Krokoff, 1989). It appears that m em ory about co m m u ­ n ication is gen erated in the present in order to be suitable with current relationship h appiness. T h e m em ory-structure ap pro ach to d evelopm en tal com m u n ication a s­ sum es th at relation ships are indeed m en tal creation s. T h e im aging o f c o n v e r­ sation s can create ex p e ctatio n s for su b seq u en t en cou n ters and relation sh ips. D uck et al. (1994) in dicated, “ Insofar as sub jects clearly invest in teraction s with their own private an d sym bolic m eanings, researchers will grasp the re la­ tional sign ifican ce o f relation al even ts only when they attem p t to study and interpret those sym bolic m ean in gs th at are the arches o f the m en tal creation o f relatio n sh ip s” (p. 34). Research is needed to exam ine memory structures for different types o f rela­ tionships. R esearchers know little about relational memory structures in b usi­ ness organizations, such as supervisor-subordin ate or work associates. M emory structures could also be exam ined for the relationships including teach er-stu dent, th crapist-clien t, doctor-p atien t, room m ates, brother-sister, brothers, sis­ ters, p a r e n t- c h ild , n o n c u sto d ia l p a r e n t- c h ild , s te p p a r e n t - c h ild , an d ex-relational partners. R E S IL IE N C E O F R E L A T IO N A L M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S : S T A B IL IT Y V E R S U S C H A N G E In ch apter 2, two m odes o f inform ation are m entioned— assim ilation and a c ­ com m odation. Recall that in assim ilation behavior is interpreted as reinforcing existing categories and that in accom m odation behavior results in changing or modifying existing beliefs in order to be com patible with new behavior. T h us, there is tension betw een certainty about classifying behavior and how certain an individual is that the classification system is correct. A cred olo and O ’C o n n o r (1990) d iscu ssed how uncertain ty creates vigi­ lance and that people often give the illusion o f con fid en ce or certainty. Yet levels o f un certain ty are en durin g through out life rath er than being situ a ­ tional, as a num ber o f researchers claim ed (review ed in H oney cutt, 1992). Levels o f un certain ty are n atural and represent the sta te o f a person ’s know l­ edge in given areas m ost o f the tim e. In stan ces o f com plete certain ty merely represent a preference for one category over another. W ithout sub jectiv e or partial uncertain ty there would be no m otive for the con tin u ed search for know ledge, m odification o f existin g sch e m ata, and reflection . H en ce, u n cer­ tainty is en durin g in variou s degrees and is thought to be a prim e force behind cogn itive developm en t.

174

C H A P T E R IO

U n c e r ta in ty is a prim e fo rce in re la tio n a l d e v e lo p m e n t. M em o ry s tr u c ­ tu res are u sed to ca te g o riz e b e h a v io rs an d d e te rm in e the s ta te o f a r e la tio n ­ sh ip . B e h av io rs th a t are n o t easily c la ssifie d m ay c a u se the c re a tio n o f new c a te g o r ie s an d a m o d ific a tio n o f the e x istin g m em ory str u c tu r e . H ow ever, it re m a in s an in trig u in g q u e stio n to w h at the e x te n t in d iv id u a ls will p e rse v e re in th eir e x p e c ta tio n s a b o u t the rise an d d e m ise o f ro m an tic re la tio n sh ip s. R e c a ll from c h a p te r 4 th a t in d iv id u a ls w ith an a m b iv a le n t a tta c h m e n t style are m ore c y n ical a b o u t the lon g-term sta b ility o f re la tio n sh ip s th an in d iv id ­ u als w ith a se c u re sty le. Yet w h at h ap p e n s to the lev el o f o p tim ism a b o u t the c o n tin u a n c e o f the re la tio n sh ip w hen so m e o n e w ith an a n x io u s style h as b een in a re la tio n sh ip for a n u m b er o f years? D o e s h is or h er e x p e c ta tio n s c h a n g e o r is th is se e n as a rare situ a tio n a l o c c u rre n c e w ith the in d iv id u a l’s b eliefs re m a in in g in ta c t? T h e la tte r is re v e a le d in the s ta te m e n t, “ R e la tio n ­ sh ip s are g e n e ra lly u n sta b le b u t I w as lucky to h av e fo u n d a p a rtn e r th a t h as re su lte d in an e x c e p tio n so far. Yet, you n e v e r kn ow the fu tu r e .” H e n c e , r e ­ se a r c h e rs sh o u ld look at in d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s in m e m o ry -stru ctu re m o d ifi­ c a tio n in term s o f gen der, ag e, n u m b e r o f prio r ro m a n c e s, an d p o sitiv e n e ss o f prio r re la tio n a l e x p e rie n c e s. R esearch is also n eeded to explore the relation sh ip betw een the m em ory-structu rc actio n overco m in g a crisis an d the idea o f a re latio n al w indow o f opportunity. O n ly 13% o f the su b jects in the study m en tion ed this as an escalating-relation ship action . Yet oth er su b jects in a sep arate study in d icated th at it w as fairly typical and n ecessary in the d ev elo p m en t o f an in tim ate relation sh ip. H en ce, this b eh avior may n ot easily com e to m ind, but it is easily recognized w hen it is state d for the su b jects. O u r stu d en ts h ave d eb ated in sem inars w hether there is a closin g window o f relation al definition. Kelley et al. (1 983) sp ecu lated th at there is a critical window o f opportun ity for relation sh ips to grow m ore in tim ate. A fter this time h as passed , it takes a critical even t for the window to rem ain open . People becom e defin ed in roles vis-à-vis one another. Berg (1 984) in d icated th at both people in a relation sh ip m ake d ecision s ab ou t the n atu re o f their relation sh ips early an d there is in sign if­ ican t ch an ge over tim e. It may be h arder to alter this role on ce time has elapsed. For exam ple, there m ay be a role con flict w hen a platon ic w ork asso c iate begins to disclose intim ate inform ation to one at lunch en cou n ters an d on e believes th at the asso ciate is gazing at one. It w ould be intriguing to analyze the relation al w indow o f opportunity. We d on ’t believe th at the “A - H a ” experien ce, w hen all o f a su dden , h ap p en s very o f­ ten. A friend is view ed as a ro m an tic in terest. How often d ocs this actu ally h a p ­ pen? W h at h app en ed to cau se the ch an ge in percep tion ? How often do relation sh ips e scalate due to a critical even t? D o es the critical ev e n t m odify re ­ lation al m em ory stru ctu res or is it seen as a d ev iatio n th at d o es n ot becom e a part o f o n e ’s e x p e c tatio n s for the grow th or deterioration o f relation sh ips? D oes the critical e v e n t accom p an y som e o f the e sc alatin g m em ory-structure action s,

FUTURE RESEARCH ON RELATIONAL M EM O R Y STR U CT U R ES

175

such as self-disclosure, displaying physical affections, m aking other-oriented statem en ts, or talking about future plans as a couple? K E E P IN G C O N F L IC T A L IV E T H R O U G H IM A G IN E D IN T E R A C T IO N S Recall from chapter 5, that conflict is kept alive in the minds o f individuals as they relive old argum ents while anticipating new encounters and mentally preparing for them. This is the conflict-linkage function o f imagined interactions (IIs). C u r­ rent II research is exam ining how everyday conflict is kept alive in people’s minds through reliving old argum ents that are triggered by environm ental cues such as music that may remind them o f unresolved conflict (e.g., listening to certain songs may remind one o f an old flam e). II conflict-linkage theory is an axiom atic theory that seeks to explain why conflict endures, how it is m aintained, why it may be constructive or destructive, and why it can erupt at any time during inter­ personal com m unication. T h e 3 axiom s and 9 theorem s o f II conflict-linkage the­ ory reveal how intrapersonal com m unication allows conflict to be kept alive in everyday life. This is done through linked IIs that involve a person’s recalling a particular conflict episode while anticipating future encounters. Box 10.1 con ­ tains the axiom s and theorem s o f II conflict-linkage theory.

SU M M A R Y M any avenues for future research are available. D uck et al. (1991) lam ented the study o f relationships at the behavioral level to the exclusion o f individual cognition about relationships. Individuals interpret interactions in term s o f their private and sym bolic m eanings. R esearch ers will un derstand the relational significance o f relational even ts only w hen they “attem p t to study and interpret those symbolic m eanings that are the arches o f the m ental creation o f relation ­ ships" (D uck et al., 1991, p. 34). We con cur and believe that the study o f rela­ tional memory structures provides an intriguing way to exam ine the m ental creation s o f personal relationships. Perhaps, our readers will be challenged to pursue these questions. Indeed, it is an exciting and worthwhile journey to e x ­ plore the developm en t o f hum an relationships.

D IS C U S S IO N Q U E S T IO N S 10.1 D iscu ss the re sp o n ses th at you m igh t m ake if a friend in d icate d that he or she w an ted to m ake the relatio n sh ip m ore in tim ate. H ave you exp e rie n ce d this?

Box 10. 1

Axioms and Theorem s of II Conflict-Linkage Theory

A xiom 1. Interpersonal relationships exist through com m unication; the com m u­ nication is rhe relationship; interpersonal relationships exist through thinking about the relational partner outside o f actual interaction. A xiom 2. A n interpersonal relationship is thought into existence through think­ ing and dwelling on a potential relational partner. A xiom 3. A m ajor rheme o f interpersonal relationships is conflict m anagem ent (e.g., cooperation -com petition ). M anaging conflict begins at the intrapersonal level of com m unication in terms o f IIs. Theorem 1: Recurring conflict is kept alive through retroactive and proactive Iis. Theorem 2: T h e currenr m ood and em otional state o f individuals is associated with w hether or not their Iis arc positive or n egative. T h e better people's m oods are, the more positive their IIs will be, as well as the inverse. Corollary: T h ese Iis serve to amplify these m oods such that bad m oods lead to negative Iis which m akes current m oods worse, which results in more negative Us. H ence, people arc caught in a closed, absorbing state o f em otional transference and self-fulfilling prophecies. T h eorem 3: W hen an individual attem pts to purposely create positive Iis (i.e., as therapy for a poor m arriage), negative intrusive Iis will frequently occur, in many cases with effects that underm ine the therapy or positive intent. Corollary: T h is intrusion results in dissonance betw een the negative, perhaps naturally occuring Iis, intrusive Iis, and positive Iis that may be artifically induced through pedagogy. T h eorem 4. Suppressed rage is a result o f the lack o f opportunity or inability to articulate argum ents with the target o f conflict. Theorem 5. T h inking about conflict may be facilitated through exposure to c o n ­ textual cues including music, chem ical dependency, and the m edia (T V shows and m ovies). T h eorem 6. Recurring conflict is a function o f brain n eurotransm itter activity in which neurons are stim ulated.

1 76

FUTURE RESEA RCH ON RELA TION A L M E M O R Y S T R U C T U R E S

177

Corollary. T h ere is a biological and genetic com ponent o f conflict engagem ent that is reflected in neural activity. Theorem 7: In order to enhan ce constructive conflict, individuals need to im ag­ ine positive interactions and outcom es. T h u s, intrapersonal com m unication can he used to m itigate biological determ inism . Corollary: A m ajor function o f Ils is to rehearse for an ticipated encounters and re­ lieve stress. Theorem 8: C on flict linkage has the potential o f distorting reality because con ­ flict is kept alive in a person’s mind and facilitates anticipating a conversation that is m ost likely to deviate from reality because the actual interaction does not occur as planned. Theorem 9: People use Ils as a m echanism for escape from societal norms. For e x­ am ple, a person may be expected to talk a certain way in real life, but in his or her Ils, the person can he considerably more bold or liberated.

2.

W h a t are the b a s ic rule s for in t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n a s u p e r v is o r a n d a s u b ­ o r d i n a t e in a b u s in e s s o r g a n i z a ti o n ? H o w o f t e n are t h e s e ru les v i o l a t e d ? A r e y o u r e x p e c t a t i o n s for a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r s in a s u p e r v i s o r - s u b o r ­ d i n a t e re l a ti o n s h i p m o r e o r less c l e a r c o m p a r e d to y o u r e x p e c t a t i o n s for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a c lo s e p e r s o n a l re la tio n s h ip ?

3.

D i s c u s s e x p e r i e n c e s in y ou r life t h a t re fle c t the lin k ag e b e t w e e n e x p e c ­ t a t i o n s for r o m a n t i c d e v e l o p m e n t a n d b e h a v io r. F o r e x a m p l e , d o y ou r e x p e c t a t i o n s re fle c t a self-fulling proph ecy, in t h a t y o u se lec tiv e ly n o t ic e w h a t you e x p e c t ?

4.

C h o o s e o n e or two a x io m s from B o x 10.1 an d apply t h e m to y ou r o w n life. P ro v id e e x a m p l e s o f h ow the a x io m s h a v e w ork e d in y ou r relation ships.

APPLICATIONS 1.

In te r v ie w th ree m e n a n d t h r e e w o m e n a b o u t e x p e r i e n c i n g a critical e v e n t after k n o w i n g a n o t h e r p e r s o n for a w hile t h a t re s u lt e d in th e r e l a ­ tio n s h ip b e c o m i n g m o r e i n ti m a t e t h a n he o r she h a d e x p e c t e d or p l a n n e d . W h a t w a s the n a t u r e o f the e v e n t ? W a s the e v e n t p l a n n e d or u n e x p e c t e d ? H o w c o m m o n is this o c c u r r e n c e ? D id the r e s p o n d e n t s d e ­

C H A P T E R 1«

17«

c id e a t o n e t im e t h a t this w a s g o in g to be a p l a t o n i c or n o n r o m a n t i c r e l a ­ tio n s h ip ? R e l a t e this e v e n t to th e i d e a o f the r e la tio n a l w in d o w o f o p p o rt u n ity . In a d d i t i o n , d i s c u s s an y e x p e r i e n c e s y ou h a v e h a d in w h ic h a c ritic a l e v e n t c a u s e d a c h a n g e in the level o f i n ti m a c y with s o m e o n e a f ­ ter you h a d d e c i d e d t h a t this w o u ld p r o b ab ly b e a p l a t o n i c re la tio n s h ip . R e l a t e y o u r e x p e r ie n c e to an y o f th e m e m o r y - s t r u c t u r e a c t i o n s (e. g., “ o v e r c o m i n g a c risis” ). 2.

G o o n l i n e to love@ aol.com a n d o b s e r v e the m e s s a g e s d e a l i n g w ith r o ­ m a n c e t h a t ar c e x c h a n g e d in a c h a t ro o m . N o t e th e to p ic s t h a t are d i s ­ c u s s e d . C o n t r a s t this m e d i u m o f c h a t t i n g w ith f a c e - t o - f a c e in te r a c ti o n .

REFERENCES

A b e lso n , R . P. (1 9 8 1 ). P sy ch ological sta tu s o f the script co n ce p t. A m erican Psychologist, 36, 715 -7 2 9 . A citelli, L. K . (1 9 9 2 ). G e n d e r d ifferen ces in relation sh ip aw aren ess and m arital satisfactio n am on g youn g m arried c o u p les. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 1 0 2 -1 1 0 . A citelli, L. K . (1 9 9 3 ). You, m e, and us: Perspectives on relation sh ip aw aren ess. In S. D uck (Hd.), Individuals in relationships (pp. 1 4 4 - 1 7 4 ). N ew bury Park, C A : S a ge . A c re d o lo , C ., & O ’C on n or, J. (1 9 9 0 ). O n the difficulty o f d e tectin g cogn itiv e uncertainty. H um an Development, 728, 1 -16. A in sw orth , M . D. S . (1 9 8 9 ). A tta c h m e n ts beyond intim acy. Am erican Psychologist, 44, 709 -7 1 6 . A ltm an , I., &. Taylor, D. A . (1 9 7 3 ). Social penetration. N ew York: H o lt, R in eh art & W in ston. A ltm an , I., V insel, A ., &. Brow n, B. (1 9 8 1 ). D iale ctic c o n c e p tio n s in so cial psychology: A n ap p licatio n to so cial p en etratio n an d privacy regu latio n . In L. Berkow itz (E d .), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 7 6 - 1 0 0 ). N ew York: A c a d e m ic Press. A n d erse n , P. A . (1 9 9 3 ). C o g n itiv e sc h e m a ta in p erso n al relatio n sh ip s. In S . D u ck (E d .), Indi' viduals in relationships (pp. 1 - 2 9 ). N ew bury Park, C A : S a ge . A n d erse n , P A , & G u errero, L. (1 9 9 8 ). The handbook of communication and emotion. S an D ieg o , C A : A c a d e m ic Press. A rd, B.N . (1 9 7 7 ). S e x in lastin g m arriages: A lon gitudin al study. Journ al o f Sex Research, 13, 274 -2 8 5 . A rgyle, M ., &. H e n d e rso n , M . (1 9 8 5 ) . T h e rules o f relation sh ips. In S . D u ck &. D. Perlm an (E d s.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 6 3 - 8 4 ). Beverly H ills, C A : S age . A rliss, L. P. (1 9 9 1 ). G ender communication. E nglew ood C liffs, N J: P r e n tic e -H a ll. A sk h a m , J. (1 9 8 2 ). Telling sto ries. Sociological Review, 30, 5 5 5 - 5 7 3 . B aldw in, M . W. (1 9 9 2 ). R e latio n a l sch em as and the processin g o f so cial in fo rm ation . Psychological Bulletin, 1 12, 4 6 1 - 4 8 4 . B artholom ew , K . (1 9 9 0 ). A v o id an c e o f in tim acy: A n a tta c h m e n t p ersp ective. Journal o f Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 1 4 7 -1 7 8 .

179

180

REFERENCES

B atso n , C . D ., Shaw , L. L ., & O lcso n , K . C . (1 9 9 2 ). D ifferen tiatin g affect, m ood , and em otion. In M . S. C lark (E d .), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 2 9 4 - 3 2 6 ). Beverly H ills, C A : S age . B a ttag lia , D. M ., R ich ard , F. D ., D atte ri, D. L., & Lord, C . G . (1 9 9 8 ). B reakin g up is (relatively) easy to do: A script for the d issolu tion o f close relatio n sh ip s. Hum an C om m unica­ tion Research, 15, 8 2 9 - 8 4 5 . B a u co m , D. H . (1 9 8 9 ). A ttrib u tio n s in distressed relatio n s: How can we explain them ? In S. D u ck &. D. Perlm an (E d s.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration. N ew bury Park, C A : S a ge . B aum eister, R . F. (in p re ss). G e n d e r différen ces in erotic plasticity : T h e fem ale sex drive as socially flexible and respo nsive. Psychological Bulletin. B aum eister, R . E , W otm an , S. R ., & Stillw ell, A .M . (1 9 9 3 ). U n req u ited love: O n h eartb reak , anger, guilt, scrip tie ssn e ss, and h u m iliation . Jo u rn al o f Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 377 -3 9 4 . B axter, L. A . ( 1984). T rajecto ries o f relation sh ip d ise n gag e m e n t. Jo urn al o f Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 2 9 - 4 8 . B axter, L. A . (1 9 8 5 ). A cco m p lish in g relation sh ip d ise n gag e m e n t. In S . D u ck &. D. Perlm an (E d s.), U nderstanding personal relationships: A n interdisciplinary approach (pp. 2 4 3 - 2 6 5 ). Beverly H ills, C A : S age . B axter, L . A . (1 9 8 6 ). G e n d e r d ifferen ces in the h ete ro se x u a l relation sh ip rules em b ed d ed in b reak-up acc o u n ts. Journ al of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 2 8 9 - 3 0 6 . B axter, L. A ., & Bullis, C . (1 9 8 6 ). Turning poin ts in d ev elo p in g ro m an tic relation sh ips. H u ­ man Com m unication Research, 12, 4 6 9 - 4 9 4 . Baxter, L .A ., & M ontgom ery, B.M . (1 9 9 6 ). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. N ew York: G uilford. B axter, L. A ., & Sim on , E.P. ( 1993). R elatio n sh ip m ain te n e n ce strategies and d iale c tica l c o n ­ trad ictio n s in p erso n al relation sh ips. Jo u rn a l o f S o c ia l an d P erson al R e latio n sh ip s, 10, 225 -2 4 2 . B axter, L. A ., & W ilm ot, W. (1 9 8 3 ). C o m m u n ic a tio n ch a ra cte ristic s o f relatio n sh ip s with d ifferen tial grow th rates. Communication M onographs, 5 0, 2 6 4 - 2 7 2 . B axter, L . A ., & W ilm ot, W. (1 9 8 4 ). ‘S e c re t te sts’: S tra te g ie s for acq uirin g in fo rm ation ab ou t the state o f the relation sh ip . H um an Comm unication Research, 11, 1 7 1 - 2 0 1 . Bell, E. (1 9 9 9 ). W eddings and porn ograph y: T h e cu ltu ral p erform an ce o f sex. Text and Perfor­ mance Quarterly, 19, 1 7 3 -1 9 5 . Berg, J. H . (1 9 8 4 ). D ev elo p m e n t o f friendship betw een ro o m m ates. Jo u rn al of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 3 4 6 - 3 5 6 . Berger, C . R. (1 9 9 3 ). G o a ls, plan s, and m utual u n d erstan d in g in relation sh ips. In S. D uck (E d .), Individuals in relationships (pp. 3 0 - 5 9 ). N ew bury Park, C A : S a g e . Berger, C . R ., &. Bell, R. A . (1 9 8 8 ). Plan s and the in itiatio n o f so cial relation sh ips. H um an Com m unication Research, 15, 2 1 7 - 2 3 5 . Berger, C . R ., ik B rad ac, J. J. (1 9 8 2 ). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relations. L o n d o n : E dw ard A rn o ld . Berger, C . R ., & K ellerm an n , K . (1 9 8 6 , M ay ). G o al incompatibility and social action: The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. Paper presen ted at the an n u a l m eetin g o f the In ­ tern atio n al C o m m u n ica tio n A sso c ia tio n , C h ic a g o , IL.

r i: f i:r i :n c t :s

181

Berger, C . R ., & R o lo ff, M . E . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . T h i n k i n g a b o u t frie n d s a n d lo v e r s: S o c i a l c o g n i t i o n a n d r e l a t i o n a l t r a j e c t o r i e s . In M . E. R o l o f f & C . R . B e r g e r ( E d s .) , S o c ia l cognition an d c o m m u n ication (pp . 1 5 1 - 1 9 2 ) . B e v e r l y H ills, C A : S a g e . B i r n b a u m , D. A . , N o s a n c h u c k , T. A . , ¿k C r o l l, W. L . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . C h i d r e n ’s s t e r e o t y p e s a b o u t sex d i f f e r e n c e s in e m o t io n a l i t y . Se x R oles, 6 , 4 3 5 - 4 4 3 . B ow e r, G . H ., B l a c k , J. B., &. Turner, T. J. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . S c r i p t s in m e m o r y for t e x t . C ogn itive P sych ol­ ogy, 1 1 , 1 7 7 - 2 0 0 . Bow lb y, J. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A ttach m en t a n d loss: Vol. 1 . A ttach m en t ( 2 n d e d . ) . N e w York: B a s i c B o o k s . B r a d b u r y , T. N ., &. F i n c h a m , F. D. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . A t t r i b u t i o n s in m a r r i a g e : R e v i e w a n d c r i t iq u e . Psy chological B ulletin , 1 0 7 , 3 - 3 3 . B u r g o o n , J. K . , & L c P o i r e , B . A ( 1 9 9 3 ) . E ff e c ts o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n , e x p e c t a n c i e s , a c t u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a n d e x p e c t a n c y d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n o n e v a l u a t i o n s o f c o m m u n i c a t o r s a n d their c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e h a v io r . H u m a n C o m m u n icatio n R esearch , 2 0 , 6 7 - 9 6 . B u r g o o n , J. K . , P a rr o tt , R ., L e P o i r e , B. A . , Kelley, D ., W a lth e r, J. B., &. Pen n y, D . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . M a i n t a i n i n g a n d r e s t o r i n g p r iv a c y t h r o u g h c o m m u n i c a t i o n in d i f fe r e n t t y p e s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Jo u rn a l o f S o c ia l an d P erson al R elationsh ips, 6 , 131 —1 58. B u r k e , K . ( 1 9 6 2 ) . A g r a m m a r o f m otives an d a rhetoric o f m otives. C l e v e l a n d , O H : W o rld. B u r l e s o n , B. R ., &. D e n t o n , W. H . ( 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n skill an d m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n : S o m e m o d e r a t i n g e f fe c ts . Jo u rn a l o f M a rria g e an d the Fam ily, 5 9 , 884-902. B u r n e t t , R . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . R e f l e c t i o n in p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In R . B u r n e t t , P. M c G h e e & D. C l a r k e ( E d s . ) , A cco u n tin g fo r relationships (p p . 7 3 - 9 4 ) . L o n d o n : M e t h u e n . B u s s , D . M . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . C o n f l i c t b e t w e e n th e s e x e s : S t r a t e g i c i n t e r f e r e n c e a n d th e e v o c a t i o n o f a n g e r a n d u p s e t . Jo u rn a l o f Personality an d S o c ia l Psychology, 5 6 , 7 3 5 - 7 4 7 . B u s s , D . M ., &. S c h m i t t , D . P. ( 1 9 9 3 ) . S e x u a l s t r a t e g i e s t h e o r y : A n e v o l u t i o n a r y p e r s p e c t i v e o n h u m a n m a t i n g . P sychological Review, 1 0 0 , 2 0 4 - 2 3 2 . C a n a r y , D. J., &. H a u s e , K . S . ( 1 9 9 3 ) . Is t h e re a n y r e a s o n to r e s e a r c h s e x d i f f e r e n c e s in c o m ­ m u n i c a t i o n ? C o m m u n icatio n Q u arte rly , 4 1 , 1 2 9 - 1 4 4 . C a r l s t o n , D . E . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . E v e n t s , i n f e r e n c e s a n d i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n . In R . H a s t i e , T.M . O s t r o m , E .B . E b b e s e n , R . S . Wyer, Jr., D . L . H a m i l t o n , & D. E . C a r l s t o n ( E d s . ) , Person m em ory: T h e cognitive b ias o f so c ial perception (p p . 8 4 - 1 1 9 ) . H i l l s d a l e , N J : L a w r e n c e Erlbaum A sso c iate s. C a r n e l le y , K . B., & J a n o f f - B u l m a n , R . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . O p t i m i s m a b o u t lo v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s : G e n e r a l vs. s p e c ific l e s s o n s from o n e ’s p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s . J o u r n a l o f S o c ia l a n d Person al R elatio n ships, 9, 5 - 2 0 . C a u g h e y , J. L. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Imaginary so cial w orlds. L i n c o l n , N E : U n i v e r s i t y o f N e b r a s k a Press. C h a n o w i t z , B., & L a n g e r , E . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . P r e m a t u r e c o g n i t i v e c o m m i t m e n t . Jo u r n a l o f Personality an d S o c ia l Psychology, 4 1 , 1 0 5 1 - 1 0 6 3 . C h a r n e s s , N . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . E x p e r t i s e in c h e s s , m u s i c a n d p h y si c s : A c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e . In L. O b l e r &. D . F e in ( E d s . ) , T h e exception al brain (p p . 3 9 9 - 4 2 6 ) . N e w York: G u i l f o r d . C l a r k , R . D ., & H a t f i e l d , E. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . G e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s in r e c e p t i v i t y to s e x u a l offers. Jo u rn a l o f Psychology an d H itm an Sexuality, 2 , 3 9 - 5 5 . C l o r e , G . L ., O r t o n y , A . , D i e n e s , B., & F u j i ta , F. ( 1 9 9 3 ) . W h e r e d o e s a n g e r d w e ll? In T. K . S r u l l a & R . S . W y e r ( E d s . ) , A d v a n c e s in social cognition (Vol. 5, pp . 5 7 - 8 7 ) . H i l l s d a l e , N J : L aw ren ce Erlbaum A sso c iate s.

r i:f i:r i:n c i:s

182

C lo re, G. L ., Sch w artz, N ., & Conw ay, M . (1 9 9 4 ). A ffective ca u se s and c o n se q u e n c e s o f social in fo rm ation processing. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. &. T. K . Srull (E d s.), Handbook of social cogni­ tion (pp. 3 2 3 - 4 1 7 ). H illsd ale, N J: L aw ren ce Erlbaum A sso ciate s. Cody, M. (1 9 8 2 ). A typology o f d ise n gag e m e n t strategies an d an e x am in atio n o f the role in ti­ m acy re actio n s to inequity, an d b e h av io ral problem s play in strategy selectio n . Com m uni­ cation M onographs, 49, 1 4 8 -1 7 0 . C o le m a n , M ., & G a n o n g, L . (1 9 9 2 ). G e n d e r differen ces in e x p e c tatio n s o f se lf an d future partner. Journ al of Family Issues, 33 , 5 5 - 6 1 . C o le m a n , S. (1 9 7 7 ). A d e v e lo p m en tal stage h yp oth esis for n o n -m aritald y a d ic relation sh ips. Journal of M arriage and the Family, 3, 7 1 - 7 6 . C o llin s, J. K ., Kennedy, J. R., & Fran cis, R. D . (1 9 7 6 ). In sigh ts in to a d atin g p a rtn e r’s e x p e c ta ­ tion s o f how b eh avior sh o uld en su e during the courtsh ip process. Journ al of M arriage and the Family, xx, 3 7 3 - 3 7 8 . C onn olly, J. E (1 9 9 1 ). A d u lts w ho had im aginary playm ates as ch ildren . In R. G. K un zen do rf (E d .), M ental imagery (pp. 113—120). N ew York: Plenum . C o n v ille , R . L. (1 9 9 1 ). Relational transitions: The evolution o f personal relationships. N ew York: Praeger. C raw ford, M . (1 9 8 9 ). H u m o r in c o n v e rsa tio n al co n te x t: Beyond b iases in the study o fg e n d e r and humor. In R. K . U n ger (E d .), Representations: Social constructions o f gender (pp. 1 5 5 - 1 6 4 ). N ew York: Bayw ood. C u p a c h , W. R ., &. M etts, S . (1 9 8 6 ). D atin g an d m arital acc o u n ts o f why a relation sh ip en ded. Com m unication M onographs, 53 , 31 1 -3 3 4 . D av is, K. E ., & Todd, M . J. (1 9 8 2 ). Friendsh ip an d love relation sh ips. In K . E. D avis (E d .), A dvances in descriptive psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 7 9 - 1 2 2 ). G reen w ich , C T : JA I. D avis, K . E ., &. Todd, M . J. (1 9 8 5 ). A sse ssin g frien dsh ip: Prototypes, paradigm c ase s an d re la­ tion al descrip tio n . In S. D uck &. D. Perlm an (E d s.), Understanding personal relationships: Aii interdisciplinary approach (pp. 1 7 - 2 8 ). B everly H ills, C A : Sage. D e a u x , K. (1 9 7 6 ). The behavior o f women and men. M onterey, C A : B ro o k s/C o le D illard, J. P., Kinney, T. A ., & C ruz, M . A . (1 9 9 6 ). In flu en ce, ap p raisals, an d e m o tio n s in close relation sh ips. Communication M onographs, 63, 1 0 5 -1 3 0 . D illard, J. P., Segrin , C ., &. H a rd e n , J. M. (1 9 8 9 ). Prim ary and secon d ary go als in the p ro d u c ­ tion o f in terp erso n al in fluen ce m e ssage s. Com m unication M onographs, 56, 1 9 -3 8 . D in d ia, K ., & A llen , M . (1 9 9 2 ). S e x d ifferen ces in self-d isclosu re: A m eta-an aly sis. Psycho* logical Bulletin, 112, 1 0 6 -1 2 4 . D o u glas, W. (1 9 8 4 ). Initial in teraction scripts: W h en know ing is beh aving. H um an C om m u­ nication Research, 1 1, 2 0 3 - 2 1 9 . D u ck , S. (1 9 7 7 ). The study o f acquaintance. Farn b oro u gh , E n glan d: Gow er. D u ck , S. (1 9 8 0 ). Personal relatio n sh ip s in the 1980s: Tow ards an u n d e rstan d in g o f com plex h um an socialty. Western Jo urn al of Speech Com m unication, 44, 1 1 4 -1 1 9 . D u ck , S. (1 9 8 2 ). A topograp h y o f relation sh ip d ise n gag e m e n t and disso lu tio n . In S. D u ck (E d .), Personal relationships: Vol. 4: Dissolving personal relationships (pp. 1 - 3 0 ). L on d on : A c a d e m ic Press. D u ck , S.

(1 9 8 6 ). H um an relationships: A n introduction to social psychology. L o n d o n : S a g e .

D u c k , S.

(1 9 8 8 ). Relating to others. C h ic a g o , IL: D orsey Press.

D u c k , S. (1 9 9 0 ). R elatio n sh ip s as unfinished b u sin ess: O u t o f the frying pan an d in to the 1990s. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 5 - 2 8 .

r i :h

.r i : n c i : s

183

D u ck , S. (1 9 9 1 , M ay ). New lamps for old: A new theory o f relationships and a fresh look at some old research. Paper presen ted at the third m eetin g o f the In tern atio n al N etw ork on Person al R elatio n sh ip s, B loo m in g ton , IL. D u ck , S ., & L ea, M. (1 9 8 3 ). B reakd ow n o f relation sh ips as a th rea t to p erso n al identity. In G. B reakw ell (E d .), Threatened identities. L o n d o n : Wiley. D u ck , S ., &. M iell, D. E. (1 9 8 6 ). C h artin g the d e v e lo p m en t o f p erso n al relation sh ips. In R. G ilm o u r & S. D u ck (E d s.), The emerging field o f personal relationships (pp. 1 3 3 - 1 4 3 ). H illsd ale, N J: L aw ren ce E rlbaum A sso ciate s. D u ck , S ., Pond, K ., &. L e ath a m , G . (1 9 9 1 ). R em em b erin g as a c o n te x t for bein g in relation ships: D ifferen t p ersp ectiv es on the sam e in teractio n . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, A u gu st issue. D u ck , S ., »Si W right, P. H. (1 9 9 3 ). R eexam in in g gen d er d ifferen ces in sam e -g e n d e r frien d ­ ships: A close look at two kinds o f d a ta . Sex Roles, 28, 7 0 9 - 7 2 7 . E dw ards, R. H o n ey cu tt, J. M ., & Z agacki, K . S. (1 9 8 8 ). Im agined in teraction as an e le m e n to f social cogn itio n . Western Jo urn al of Speech Com m unication, 52, 2 3 - 4 5 . E dw ards, R ., H o n ey cu tt, J. M ., & Z agack i, K . S. (1 9 8 9 ). Sex d ifferen ces in im agined in te ra c ­ tion s. Sex Roles, 21, 2 5 9 - 2 6 8 . Feeney, J. A ., &. N oller, P. (1 9 9 1 ). A tta c h m e n t style an d verb al d escrip tio n s o f ro m an tic p a rt­ ners. Journ al of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 1 8 7 -2 1 5 . Fehr, B. (1 9 9 3 ). H ow do I love thee? L et me co n su lt my prototy pe. In S. D u ck (E d .), Individuals in relationships (pp. 8 7 - 1 2 0 ). N ew bury Park, C A : S a g e . Fehr, B., & Baldw in, M . (1 9 9 6 ). Prototype and script an alyses o f lay p eo p le’s know ledge o f a n ­ ger. In G . J. O . Fletch er & J. Fitness (E d s.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A so­ cial psychological approach (pp. 2 1 9 - 2 4 5 ). M ah w ah , N J: L aw ren ce Erlbaum A sso c ia te s. Fehr, B., & R ussell, J. A . (1 9 9 1 ). C o n c e p t o f love view ed from a prototype p ersp ective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 4 2 5 - 4 3 8 . Felm lee, D .H . (1 9 9 5 ). F atal a ttractio n s: A ffection and d isaffection in in tim ate relation sh ips. Jo urn al o f Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 2 9 5 -3 1 1. F in ch am , F. D ., B e ach , S ., ik N e lso n , G . (1 9 8 7 ). A ttrib u tio n p ro ce sse s in distressed &. n on d istressed c o u p les, 3. C a u sa l and responsibility attrib u tio n s for spouse behavior. C o g nitive Therapy and Research, 11, 7 1 - 8 6 . F in ch am , F. D., & Bradbury, T. N . (1 9 8 9 ). T h e im p act o f attrib u tio n s in m arriage: A n in d iv id ­ ual differen ce analysis. Jo urn al o f Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 6 9 - 8 5 . Fisher, H. (1 9 9 4 ). The natural history o f monogamy, adultery and divorce. N ew York: Faw cett. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S . E. (1 9 8 4 ). Social cognition. R eadin g, M A : Addison-W esley. Fitness, J. (1 9 9 6 ). E m otion know ledge stru ctu re s in close relation sh ips. In G. J. O . Fletch er & J. Fitn ess (E d s.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 1 9 5 - 2 1 7 ). M ah w ah , N J: L aw ren ce Erlbaum A sso c ia te s. Fitness, J., &. Fletcher, G .J.O . (1 9 9 3 ). L ove, h ate, anger, and jealously in close relation sh ips. Jo u rn al o f Personality and S o c ia l Psychology, 65 , 9 4 2 - 9 5 8 . Fitness, J. &. S tro n g m an , K . T. (1 9 9 1 ). A ffe ct in close relatio n sh ip s. In G. J. O . F letch er &. F. Fincham (E d s.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 1 7 5 - 2 0 2 ). H illsd ale, N J: L aw rence E rlbaum . Fitzpatrick, M . A . (1 9 8 8 ). Between husbands and wives. N ew bury Park, C A : S a g e . Fletcher, G . J. O ., & F itn ess, J. (1 9 9 3 ). K n ow ledge stru ctu re s an d e x p la n atio n s in in tim ate re­ lation sh ips. In S. D u ck (E d .), Individuals in relationships (pp. 1 2 1 - 1 4 3 ). N ew bury Park, C A : Sage.

184

REFERENCES

Fletcher, G .J.O ., &. Fitn ess, J. (1 9 9 3 ). K n ow ledge stru ctu res an d e x p la n atio n s in in tim ate relation sh ip s. In S. D u ck (E d .), Individuals in relationships (pp. 1 2 1 - 1 4 3 ). N ew bury Park, C A : Sage. Floyd, F. J. (1 9 8 8 ). C o u p le s’ co gn itiv e/affectiv e reactio n s to c o m m u n icatio n b eh av io rs. Jo u r­ nal o f M arriage and the Family, 50, 5 2 3 - 5 3 2 . Foa, E ., & Foa, U. (1 9 7 6 ). R esou rce theory o f so cial e xch an ge . In J. T h ib au t, J. S p e n c e , &. R. C arso n (E d s.), Contem porary topics in social psychology (pp. 9 9 - 1 3 1 ). M orristow n , N J: G e n e ra l L earn in g Press. Forgas, J. P. (1 9 9 1 ). A ffect an d cogn itio n in close relation sh ips. In G. J. O . F letch er &. F. D. Fin ch am (E d s.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 1 5 1 - 1 7 4 ). H illsd ale, N J: L aw rence Erlbaum A sso c ia te s. Forgas, J. P., Bower, G. H ., & K ran tz, S . (1 9 8 4 ). T h e in fluence o f m ood on p e rce p tio n s o f social in te ractio n s. Jo urn al of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 4 9 7 -5 1 3. Forgas, J. P., &. D obosz, B. (1 9 8 0 ). D im en sion s o f ro m an tic in v o lv em en t: Tow ards a taxon om y o f h ete ro se xu al relation sh ips. Social Psychology Quarterly, 4 3 , 2 9 0 - 3 0 0 . Frazier, P. A ., &. Esterly, E. (1 9 9 0 ). C orrelates o f relationship beliefs: G ender, relationship e x p e ­ rience and relationship satisfaction .Jou rn aio/So cia/an ci Personal Relationships, 7, 3 3 1 -3 5 2 . Frijda, N . (1 9 8 6 ). The emotions. C am b rid ge , E n g lan d : C am b rid ge U n iversity Press. G a d lin , H . (1 9 7 7 ). Private lives and public order: A critical view o f the history o f in tim ate re ­ lation s in the U n ited S ta te s. In G . L evin ger &. H . L. R au sh (E d s.), Close relationships: Perspectives on the m eaning o f intim acy (p p . 3 3 - 7 2 ) . A m h e r st, M A : U n iv e r sity o f M a ssa c h u se tts Press. G a g n o n , J. H ., & S im o n , W. (1 9 7 3 ). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. C h i­ c ag o : A ld in e. G e rg e n , M. M ., & G e rg e n , K . J. (1 9 9 2 ). A ttrib u tio n s, ac c o u n ts an d close relatio n sh ip s: C lose calls and relation al resolu tion s. In J. II. H arvey, T. L. O rb u ch , & A . L. W eber (E d s.), A ttri­ butions, accounts, and close relationships (pp. 2 6 9 - 2 7 9 ). N ew York: Springer-V erlag. G iles, H ., &. W iem an n , J.M . (1 9 8 7 ). L an g u ag e , so cial com p ariso n , and power. In C .R . Berger & S. H . C h affe e (E d s.), H a n d b o o k o f co m m u n icatio n scien ce (pp. 3 5 0 - 3 8 4 ). N ew bury Park, C A : S a ge . G in sbu rg, G . P. (1 9 8 8 ). R ules, scripts an d p roto ty pes in p erso n al relation sh ips. In S . W. D uck (E d .), H andbook of personal relationships (pp. 2 3 - 3 9 ). N ew York: Wiley. G oo d w in , C . (1 9 8 1 ). C onversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. N ew York: A ca d e m ic Press. G oo d w in , R. (1 9 9 1 ). A re -e x a m in a tio n o f R u sb u lt’s respo n ses to satisfac tio n typology. Jo u r­ nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 5 6 9 - 5 7 4 . G o ttm a n , J. M. (1 9 7 9 ). M arital interaction: Experimental mvestigatio?is. N ew York: A c a d e m ic Press. G o ttm a n , J. M. (1 9 9 4 ). W hat predicts divorce? H illsd ale, N J: L aw ren ce E rlbaum A sso c ia te s. G o ttm a n , J. M ., & Krokoff, L . J. (1 9 8 9 ). M arital in teractio n an d satisfactio n : A lon gitudin al view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 4 7 - 5 2 . G raesser, A . C ., G o rd o n , S. E ., & Sawyer, J. D. (1 9 7 9 ). R ecogn ition m em ory for typical and atypical actio n s in scripted activ itie s: Tests o f a script poin ter + tag h ypoth esis. Jo urn al of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 3 1 9 - 3 3 2 . G ric e , H . P. (1 9 7 5 ). Logic an d co n v e rsa tio n . In P. C o le & J. L. M organ (E d s.), Syntax and se­ mantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 4 1 - 5 8 ) . N ew York: S e m in ar Press.

r i: f i:r i :n c i :s

185

G u errero, L. K ., & A n d e rse n , P. A . (1 9 9 8 ). Jealo u sly experien ce and expression in rom an tic relation sh ips. In P. A . A n d erse n & L .K . G u errero (E d s.), H a n d b o o k o f com m u n ication and em otio n (pp. 1 5 6 -1 8 8 ). S a n D iego: A c a d e m ic Press. G u th rie , D. M ., &. N oller, P. (1 9 8 8 ). M arried c o u p les p e rce p tio n s o f one an o th er in em o tio n al situ atio n s. In P. N o ller &. M . A . Fitzpatrick (E d s.), Perspectives on marital interaction. C le v e lan d , O H : M u ltilin gu al M atters. H arris, L. M ., G erg en , K . J., & L an n am an n , J. \V. (1 9 8 6 ). A g gresio n rituals. Communication M onographs, 53, 2 5 2 - 2 6 5 . H arvey, J. H ., Flannery, R ., & M o rgan , M . (1 9 8 6 ). V ivid m em ories o f vivid loves gone by. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 3 5 9 - 3 7 3 . H arvey, J. H ., O rb u ch , T. L ., & Weber, A . L. (1 9 9 2 ). In trod u ctio n : C o n v e rg e n c e o f the attri­ bution and a cc o u n ts co n c e p ts in the study o f close relation sh ips. In J. H. H arvey, T. L. O rb u c h , & A . L. W eber (E d s.), Attributions, accounts, and close relationships (pp. 1 -1 8 ). N ew York: Springer-V erlag. I larvey, J. H ., W eber, A . L ., G alv in , K. S ., I luszti, H. C ., & G a rn ic k , N . N . (1 9 8 6 ). A ttribu tion in the term in ation o f close relatio n sh ip s: A sp ecial focus on the acc o u n t. In R. G ilm o u r & S. D u ck (E d s.), Personal relationships: Vol. 4. Dissolving personal relationships (pp. 1 0 7 -1 2 6 ). L o n d o n : A ca d e m ic Press. H ays, R. B. (1 9 8 4 ). T h e d e v e lo p m en t and m a in te n an ce o f friendship. Journ al of Social and Personal Relationships, I, 7 5 - 9 8 . H erold , E .S ., &. M ew hinney, D. M. K . (1 9 9 3 ). G e n d e r d ifferen ces in casu a l sex and A ID S preven tion : A survey o f d atin g bars. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 3 6 - 4 2 . Hill, C .T ., R ubin, Z, & Peplau, L. (1 9 7 6 ). B reaku ps before m arriage: T h e en d o f 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 1 4 7 -1 6 8 . H in d e, R. L. (1 9 7 9 ). Toifarci5 understanding relationships. L o n d o n : A c a d e m ic Press. Ilo llad ay , S ., &. C o o m b s, T. (1 9 9 1 , N o v e m b e r). There are plenty offish in the sea: The exchange o f memorable m essages about dating. Paper presen ted at the an n u al m eetin g o f the Sp e e ch C o m m u n ica tio n A sso c iatio n , A tla n ta , G A . H o lm es, J. (1 9 9 1 ). T rust an d the ap p raisal p ro ce ss in close relatio n sh ip s. In W. H . Jo n e s &. D. Perlm an (E d s.), A dvances in personal relationships (Vol. 2, pp. 5 7 - 1 0 6 ). L o n d o n : Je ssic a Kingsley. H oltzw orth-M unroe, A ., &. Ja co b so n , N . S. (1 9 8 5 ). C a u sa l attrib u tio n s o f m arried cou p les: W h en do they search for c au se s? W h at do they c o n clu d e w hen they do? Journ al o f Personality and Social Psychology, 4 8 , 1 3 9 8 -1 4 1 2 . H o n e y cu tt, J. M. (1 9 8 6 ). A m odel o f m arital fu n ction in g based on an attrac tio n paradigm and so cial-p e n e tratio n d im en sio n s. Journal o f M arriage and the Family, 4 8 , 6 5 1 - 6 6 7 . H o n e y cu tt, J. M. (1 9 8 9 ). A fu n ctio n al an alysis o f im agined in teractio n activity in everyday life. In J. E. Shorr, P R obin, J. A . C o n n e lia , &. M . W olpin (E d s.), Imagery: Current Perspectives (pp. 1 3 - 2 5 ). N ew York: Plenum . H o n e y cu tt, J. M . (1 9 9 1 ). Im agined in te ractio n s, im agery an d m in d fu ln ess/m in d lessn ess. In R . K un zen do rf (E d .), M ental imagery (pp. 1 2 1 - 1 2 8 ). N ew York: Plenum . H o n e y cu tt, J. M . (1 9 9 2 ). C o m p o n e n ts an d fu n ctio n s o f co m m u n icatio n during initial in te r­ action with e x p tra p o latio n s to beyon d. In S . D eetz (E d .), Com m unication yearbook 16 (pp. 4 6 1 - 5 1 4 ). N ew bury Park, C A : Sage. H o n ey cu tt, J. M. (1 9 9 3 ). M em ory stru ctu res for the rise and fall o f perso n al relation sh ips. In D. D u ck (E d .), Individuals in relationships (pp. 6 0 - 8 6 ). N ew bury Park, C A : S a ge .

REFERENCES

186

H o n e y c u t t , J. M . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . I m a g i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n s , r e c u r r e n t c o n f l i c t a n d t h o u g h t a b o u t p e r ­ s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s : A m e m o r y s t r u c t u r e a p p r o a c h . In J. A i t k e n &. L . J. S h e d l e t s k y ( E d s . ) ,

Intra personal com m unication processes ( p p . 1 3 8 - 1 5 1 ) . P l y m o u t h , M I : M i d n i g h t O i l &. S p eech C o m m u n ica tio n A ssociation . H o n e y c u t t , J. M . ( 1 9 9 . 5 b ) . P r e d i c t i n g b e l ie f s a b o u t r e l a t i o n a l t r a j e c t o r i e s a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t y p i c a l i t y a n d n e c e s s i t y r a t i n g s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p b e h a v i o r s . C om m u n ication Research R e ­ ports, 12, 3 - 1 4 . H o n e y c u t t , J. M . , &. B r o w n , R . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . D i d y o u h e a r t h e o n e a b o u t . 7: T y p o l o g i c a l a n d s p o u s a l d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e p l a n n i n g o f j o k e s a n d s e n s e o f h u m o r in m a r r i a g e . C om m u n ication Q u a r -

terly, 4 6 , 1 - 1 1 . H o n e y c u t t , J. M . , C a n t r i l l , J. G . , K elly, P., & L a m b k i n , D . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . H o w d o I l o v e t h e e ? L e t m e c o n s i d r m y o p t i o n s : C o g n i t i o n , v e r b a l s t r a t e g i e s , a n d t h e e s c a l a t i o n o f in t i m a c y . H u m a n

C om m u n ication R esearch, 2 5 , 3 9 - 6 3 . H o n e y c u t t , J. M . , & C a n t r i l l , J. G . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . U s i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s o f r e l a t i o n a l a c t i o n s t o p r e d i c t n u m b e r o f i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s : D o n J u a n a n d R o m e o u n m a s k e d . C om m u n ication Re-

ports, 4 , 14. H o n e y c u t t , J. M . , C a n t r i l l , J. G . , &. A l l e n , T. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . M e m o r y s t r u c t u r e s f o r r e l a t i o n a l d e c a y : A c o g n i t i v e t e s t o f s e q u e n c i n g o f d e - e s c a l a t i n g a c t i o n s a n d s t a g e s . H u m an C o m m u n ic a ­

tion Research, 18, 5 2 8 . H o n e y c u t t , J. M . , C a n t r i l l , J. G . , &. G r e e n e , R . W. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . M e m o r y s t r u c t u r e s fo r r e l a t i o n a l e s ­ c a l a t i o n : A c o g n i t i v e t e s t o f t h e s e q u e n c i n g o f r e l a t i o n a l a c t i o n s a n d s t a g e s . H u m an C om -

m unication Research, 16, 6 2 - 9 0 . H o n e y c u t t , J. M . , E d w a r d s , R ., & Z a g a c k i , K . S . ( 1 9 8 9 - 1 9 9 0 ) . U s i n g i m a g i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n f e a t u r e s to p r e d i c t m e a s u r e s o f s e l f - a w a r e n e s s : L o n e l i n e s s , l o c u s o f c o n t r o l , s e l f - d o m i n a n c e , a n d e m o t i o n a l in t e n s i t y . Im agination, C ognition, an d Personality, 9 , 1 7 - 3 1 . I l o n e y c u t t , J. M ., & P a t t e r s o n , J. ( 1 9 9 7 ) . A f f i n i t y s t r a t e g i e s in r e l a t i o n s h i p s : T h e ro le o f g e n ­ d e r a n d i m a g i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n s in m a i n t a i n i n g l i k i n g a m o n g c o l l e g e r o o m m a t e s . Personal

R elationships, 4, 3 5 - 4 6 . H o n e y c u t t , J. M . , ik W i e m a n n , J. M . ( 1 9 9 9 ) . A n a l y s i s o f f u n c t i o n s o f t a l k a n d r e p o r t s o f i m a g ­ i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n s (I ls ) d u r i n g e n g a g e m e n t a n d m a r r i a g e . H u m an C om m u n ication R e-

search , 2 5 , 3 9 9 - 4 1 9 . H o n e y c u t t , J. M . , W o o d s , B., & F o n t e n o t , K . ( 1 9 9 3 ) . T h e e n d o r s e m e n t o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n c o n f l i c t ru l e s a s a f u n c t i o n o f e n g a g e m e n t , m a r r i a g e , a n d m a r i t a l id e o logy. Jo u rn a I o f Social

an d Personal Relationships, 10, 2 8 5 - 3 0 4 . H o n e y c u t t , J. M . , Z a g a c k i , K . S . , & E d w a r d s , R . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . I m a g i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n , c o n v e r s a ­ t i o n a l s e n s i t i v i t y a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n c o m p e t e n c e . Im agination, C ognition, and Personality, 12, 1 3 9 - 1 5 7 . H o n e y c u t t , J. M . , Z a g a c k i , K . S . , ik E d w a r d s , R . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . I n t r a p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d i m a g i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n s . In C . R o b e r t s &. K . W a t s o n ( E d s . ) , Readings in in traperson al co m ­

m unication ( p p . 1 6 7 - 1 8 4 ) . S c o t t s d a l e , A Z : G o r s u c h S c a r i s b r i c k . H u s t o n , T. L ., S u r r a , C . A . , F i t z g e r a l d , N . M . , &. C a t e , R . M . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . F r o m c o u r t s h i p t o m a r ­ r i a g e : M a t e s e l e c t i o n a s a n i n t e r p e r s o n a l p r o c e s s . In S . D u c k & R . G i l m o u r ( E d s . ) , Per­

so n al relationships: Vol. 2. D eveloping p erson al relation ships ( p p . 5 3 - 8 8 ) . N e w Y o r k : A c a d e m i c Press. J a n k o w i a k , W. ( 1 9 9 5 ) I n t r o d u c t i o n . In W i l l i a m J a n k o w i a k ( E d . ) , Rom antic p assion : A univer­

sa l experience ? N e w Y ork: C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .

r i: f i:r i :n c i :s

187

Jo n es, E ., & G a llo is, C . (1 9 8 9 ). S p o u s e s ’ im pression s o f rules for c o m m u n icatio n in public and private m arital con flicts. Journ al o f M arriage arid the Family, 5 1 , 9 5 7 - 9 6 7 . K ellerm an n , K . (1 9 9 2 ). C o m m u n ic a tio n : Inherently strategic and prim arily au to m a tic. Com m unication M onographs. 59 , 2 8 8 - 3 0 0 . K ellerm ann , K ., B ro etzm an n , S ., Lim , T. S., &. K itao , K . (1 9 8 9 ). T h e c o n v e rsatio n M O P : S c e n e s in the stream o f disco u rse. Discourse Processes, 12, 2 7 - 6 1 . Kelley, H. H ., B ersch eid , E ., C h riste n se n , A ., H arvey, J. H ., H u sto n , T. L ., Levinger, G ., M c C lin to ck , E ., Peplau, L . A ., ¿k Peterson, D. R . (1 9 8 3 ). A n alyzing close relation sh ips. In H . H . Kelley, E. B ersch eid , A . C h riste n se n , J. H . H arvey, T. L. H u sto n , G. Levinger, E. M c C lin to ck , L. A . Peplau, &. D. R . Peterson (E d s.), Close relationships (pp. 2 0 - 6 7 ). N ew York: Freem an . King, C . E ., & C h riste n se n , A . (1 9 8 3 ). T h e relation sh ip ev en ts scale: A G u ttm a n scalin g o f progress in co u rtsh ip . Journ al o f M arriage and the Family, 4 5 , 6 7 1 - 6 7 8 . Klinger, E. (1 9 8 7 ). What people think about and when they think it. Paper presen ted at the ann ual m eetin g o f the A m erican Psych ological A sso c iatio n , N ew York. K los, D. S., &. Singer, J. L. (1 9 8 1 ). D ete rm in an ts o f the a d o le sc e n t’s on go in g th o u g h t follow ­ ing sim u lated p aren tal co n fro n tatio n s. Jo urn al o f Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 975 -9 8 7 . K n ap p , M . L., S to h l, C ., & R e ard o n , K . (1 9 8 1 ). M em o rab le m essages. Journ al ofC om m un ica* tion, 3 1 , 2 7 - 4 2 . K n ap p , M . L., & V an gelisti, A . L . (1 9 9 6 ). Interpersonal communication and human relationships (3rd e d .). B o sto n : A llyn & B acon . Langer, E. (1 9 7 8 ). R eth in k in g the role o f th ou gh t in so c ial in teractio n . In J. H arvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (E d s.), New directions in attribution research (pp. 3 5 - 5 8 ). H illsd ale, N J: L aw ­ ren ce Erlbaum A sso c iate s. Langer, E. (1 9 8 9 ). M indfulness. R eadin g, M A : A ddison-W esley. L azaru s, R. S . (1 9 6 6 ). Psychological stress and the coping process. N ew York: M cG raw -H ill. L ee, L. (1 9 8 4 ). S e q u e n c e s in se p aratio n : A fram ew ork for in vestigatin g en din gs o f the p e r­ son al (ro m an tic) relation sh ip . Jo urn al o f Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 4 9 - 7 3 . L eigh, G. K ., H o lm an , T. B., &. Burr, W. R . (1 9 8 7 ). So m e co n fu sio n s and exclu sio n s o f the S V R theory o f dyadic pairin g: A respon se to M u rstein . Jo urn al of M arriage and the Family, 4 9 ,9 3 3 - 9 3 7 . Levinger, G. (1 9 7 4 ). A th ree-level ap p ro ach to a ttrac tio n : Tow ard an u n d e rstan d in g o f pair re late d n css. In T. L. H u sto n (E d .), Foundations of interpersonal attraction (pp. 1 0 0 -1 2 0 ). N ew York: A c a d e m ic Press. Levinger, G . (1 9 8 0 ). Tow ard the analysis o f close relation sh ips. Journal o f Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 5 1 0 - 5 4 4 . L evin ger, G . (1 9 8 3 ). D e v e lo p m e n t an d c h a n g e . In H . II. K elley, E. B e rsc h e id , A . C h riste n se n , J. H . H arvey, T. L. H u sto n , G . L evinger, E. M c C lin to ck , L. A . Peplau, & D. R . Peterson (E d s.), C lose relationships (pp. 3 1 5 - 3 5 9 ). N ew York: Freem an . Lew is, R. A . (1 9 7 3 ). A lon gitu d in al test o f a d e v e lo p m en tal fram ew ork for p rem arital dyadic form ation . Journ al o f M arriage and the Family, 35, 1 6 -2 5 . Lewis, R. A ., &. Spanier, G . B. (1 9 8 2 ). M arital quality, m arital stability and social exch an ge. In F. I. N ye (E d.), Family relationships: Rewards & costs (pp. 4 9 - 6 5 ). Beverly H ills, C A : Sage. Lykken, D ., & Tellegen, A . (1 9 9 6 ). H a p p in e ss is a sto ch astic p h e n o m e n o n . Psychological Sci­ ence, 7, 1 8 6 -1 8 9 .

REFERENCES

188

L y n n , D . B. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . P aren tal a n d sex role iden tification : A theoretical fo rm u latio n . B erkeley, C A : M cC irch an . M a n d l e r , G . ( 1 9 7 5 ) . M in d an d em otion. N e w York: Wiley. M a r k m a n , H.J., &. F l o y d , F. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . P o ssib ilities for t h e p r e v e n t i o n o f m a r i t a l d i s c o r d : A b e ­ h a v i o r a l p e r s p e c t i v e . A m e r i c a n Jo u rn a l o f Fam ily T h erap y , 8, 2 9 - 4 8 . M a r t i n , P., H a g e s t a d , G . O . , &. D i e d r i c k , P. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . F a m ily s t o r i e s : E v e n t s ( t e m p o r a r i l y ) r e ­ m e m b e r e d . Jo u rn a l o f M a rr ia g e an d the Fam ily , 5 0 , 5 3 3 - 5 4 1 . M a r t i n , R . W. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . E x a m i n i n g p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t h i n k i n g : T h e r e l a t i o n a l c o g n i t i o n c o m p l e x i t y i n s t r u m e n t . Jo u rn a l o f S o c ia l an d P erson al R elationsh ips, 8 , 4 6 7 - 4 8 0 . Miller, L ., & R e a d , S . J. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . O n th e c o h e r e n c e o f m e n t a l m o d e l s o f p e r s o n s a n d r e l a t i o n ­ sh ip s: A k n o w l e d g e s t r u c t u r e a p p r o a c h . In G . J . O . F l e t c h e r & F. F i n c h a m ( E d s . ) , Cognition in close relationships (p p . 6 9 - 9 9 ) . H i l l s d a l e , N J : L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s . M ie ll, D . K . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . R e m e m b e r i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p d e v e l o p m e n t : C o n s t r u c t i n g a c o n t c x t f o r i n ­ t e r a c t i o n s . In R . B u r n e t t , P. M c G h e e , & D. C l a r k e ( E d s . ) , A c c o u n tin g fo r relationships (pp. 6 0 -7 3 ). London: M ethuen. M e r c e r n , G .W ., Ck K o h n , P. M . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . G e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e in th e i n t e g r a t i o n o f c o n s e r v a t i s m , s ex u r g e , a n d s e x u a l b e h a v i o r s a m o n g c o l e g e s t u d e n t s . Jo u rn a l o f Sex R esearch , 15, 129-142. M o n t g o m e r y , B. M . ( 1 9 9 3 ) . R e l a t i o n s h i p m a i n t e n a n c e v e r s u s r e l a t i o n s h i p c h a n g e : A d i a l e c ­ t ic a l d i l e m m a . Jo u r n a l o f S o c ia l an d Person al R elationsh ips, 10, 2 0 5 - 2 2 4 . M u r s t e i n , B. I. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . C l a r i f i c a t i o n o f o b f u s c a t i o n o n c o n j u g a t i o n : A reply to a c rit ic is m o f t h e S V R t h e o r y o f m a r i t a l c h o i c e . Jo u rn a l o f M a rr ia g e an d the Fam ily, 3 6 , 2 3 1 - 2 3 4 . M u r s t e i n , B. I. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Paths to m a rria g e . B e v e r ly H ills, C A : S a g e . M u r s t e i n , B. I. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . A c l a r if i c a t io n a n d e x t e n s i o n o f th e S V R th e o r y o f d y a d i c p a irin g. Jo u rn a l o f M a rria g e an d the Family, 4 9 , 9 2 9 - 9 3 3 . M y e r s , D. E ., &. D ie n e r , E . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . W h o is h app y.7 Psychological science, 6, 1 0 - 1 9 . N i s b e t t , R . E ., &. R o s s , L . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . H u m a n inference: S trategies an d shortcom in g o f h um an ju d g ­ m ent. E n g l e w o o d C liffs, N J : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . N o lle r, P. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . N o n v e rb a l com m un ication in m a rita l in teraction . N e w York: P e r g a m o n . N o llc r, P., & R u z z e n e , M . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . C o m m u n i c a t i o n in m a r r i a g e : T h e i n f l u e n c e o f a ffe c t a n d c o g n i t i o n . In G . F l e t c h e r & F. D. F i n c h a m ( E d s .) A ffe ct an d cognition in close relationships. N e w York: L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s . N o t a r i u s , C . , & J o h n s o n , J. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . E m o t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n in h u s b a n d s a n d w iv e s . Jo u r n a l o f M a rr ia g e an d the Fam ily, 4 4 , 4 8 3 - 4 8 9 . O ' H a i r , D ., & Kray er, K . J. ( 1 9 8 6 , N o v e m b e r ) . Reconciliation strategies in in terp erson al com m u* nication relationships: A discovery an d link to disengagem ent m ethods. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t the a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e S p e e c h C o m m u n i c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , C h i c a g o , IL. O l s o n , D. H . M c C u b b i n , H .I ., B a r n e s , H . L . , L a r s e n , A . S., M u x e n , M . J., &. W i l s o n , M . A . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Fam ilies: W h at m ak es them w ork. B e v e r l y H ills , C A : S a g e . O ’K e e fe , B. J., &. D e l i a , J . G . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . C o n s t r u c t c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e s s a n d c o g n i t i v e c o m p l e x i t y as p r e d i c t o r s o f th e n u m b e r a n d s t r a t e g i c a d a p t a t i o n o f a r g u m e n t s a n d a p p e a l s in a p e r ­ s u a s i v e m e s s a g e . C o m m u n ic a tio n M o n o gra p /is, 4 6 , 2 3 1 - 2 5 3 . P e a r s o n , J. C . , T u rn e r, L . H ., &. T o d d - M a n c h i l l a s , W. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . G e n d e r an d com m un ication ( 2 n d e d . ) . N e w York: W a d s w o r t h . Pepper, T., & W eiss, D. L. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . P r o c e p t i v e a n d r c j c c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s o f U. S . a n d C a n a d i a n c o l l e g e w o m e n . Jo u rn a l o f Sex R esearch , 2 3 , 4 5 5 - 4 8 0 .

r i: f i:r i :n c t :s

189

P e te rs, R . S . ( 1 9 6 9 ) . M o t i v a t i o n , e m o t i o n , a n d th e c o n c e p t u a l s c h e m a s o f c o m m o n s e n s e . In T. M i s c h e l ( E d .), H u m a n actio n . N e w York: A c a d e m i c Press. P i a g e t , J . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . P i a g e t ’s theory. In P. II. M ü s s e n ( E d . ) , H a n d b o o k o f child psychology (4 th e d ., Vol. 1). N e w York: Wiley. Plan alp , S. (1 9 8 5 ). R e latio n a l s c h e m a ta : A test o f altern ativ e form s o f relation al kn o w ledge as g u i d e s to c o m m u n i c a t i o n . H u m an C o m m u n icatio n R esearch , 12, 3 - 2 9 . P l a n a l p , S . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . I n te r p l a y b e t w e e n r e l a t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e a n d e v e n t s . In R . B u r n e t t , P. M c G h e e , &. D . C l a r k e

( E d s . ) , A c c o u n tin g fo r relationships (p p .

173-191). London:

M ethuen. P l a n a l p , S. ( 1 9 9 9 ) . C o m m u n i c a t i n g e m o t i o n : N o t j u s t for i n t e r p e r s o n a l s c h o l a r s a n y m o r e . C o m m u n ic a tio n T h eory, 9, 2 1 6 - 2 2 8 . P l a n a l p , S ., & H o n e y c u t t , J. M . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . E v e n t s t h a t i n c r e a s e u n c e r t a i n t y in p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n ' sh ip s. H u m a n C o m m u n icatio n R esearch , 1 1, 5 9 3 - 6 0 4 . P l a n a l p , S., R u t h e r f o r d , D . K . , & H o n e y c u t t , J. M . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . E v e n t s t h a t i n c r e a s e u n c e r t a i n t y in p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , II. R e p l i c a t i o n a n d e x t e n s i o n . H u m a n C o m m u n icatio n R esearch , 14, 5 1 6 - 5 4 7 . P ric e, S. ]., &. M c K e n r y , P. C . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . D iv orce. B e v e r l y H ills , C A : S a g e . Pryor, J. B., & M e r lu zz i, T. V. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . T h e role o f e x p e r t i s e in p r o c e s s i n g s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n sc rip ts . Jo u r n a l o f E xp erim en tal S o c ial Psychology, 2 1 , 3 6 2 - 3 7 9 . R o s c h , E . H . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . P r i n c i p l e s o f c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . In E. H . R o s c h & B. B. L lo y d ( E d s . ) , C o g n i* tion an d categorization (p p . 2 7 - 4 8 ) . H i l l s d a l e , N J : L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s . R o s c h , E. R ., M e r v i s , C . B., G ray, W. D ., J o h n s o n , D . M ., & G r a c m , P. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . B a s i c o b j e c t s in n a t u r a l c a t e g o r i e s . C ogn itive Psychology, 8 , 3 8 2 - 4 3 9 . R o s e m a n , I. J., S p i n d e l , M . S., & J o s e , P. E. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . A p p r a i s a l s o f e m o t i o n - e l i c i t i n g e v e n t s : T e s t i n g a t h e o r y o f d i s c r e t e e m o t i o n s . Jo u r n a l o f Persotiality arid S o c ia l Psychology, 5 9 , 899-915. R o s e n b l a t t , P C . , & M e y e r, C . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . I m a g i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n s a n d t h e family. Fam ily R elation s, 3 5 ,319-324. R o s s , L . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . T h e in tu it iv e p s y c h o l o g i s t a n d his s h o r t c o m i n g s : D i s t o r t i o n s in th e a t tr ib u tion p r o c e s s . In L . B e r k o w i tz ( E d .) , A d v a n c e s in experim en tal so cial psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 1 7 3 - 2 2 0 ) . N e w York: A c a d e m i c Press. R o s s , M ., & H o l m b e r g , D . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . A r e w i v e s ’ m e m o r i e s for e v e n t s in r e l a t i o n s h i p s m o r e vivid t h a n th e ir h u s b a n d s ’ m e m o r i e s ? Jo u rn a l o f S o c ia l an d Personal R elationsh ips, 9 , 5 8 5 - 6 0 4 . R o s s , M . , & Sicoly , F. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . E g o c e n t r i c b i a s e s in a v a i l a b i l it y a n d a t t r i b u t i o n . Jo u rn a l o f Personality an d S o c ia l Psychology, 3 7 , 3 2 2 - 3 3 6 . R u b i n , Z., & L e v in g e r , G . ( 1 9 7 4 ) . T h e o r y a n d d a t a b a d ly m a t e d : A c r i t iq u e o f M u r s t e i n ’s S V R a n d L e w i s ’s P D F m o d e l s o f m a t e s e l e c t i o n . Jo u rn a l of M a rr ia g e an d the Fam ily, 3 6 , 2 2 6 —23 1. R u b i n , Z., P e p l a u , L. A . , & H ill, C . T. ( 1 9 8 1). L o v i n g a n d l e a v i n g : S e x d i f f e r e n c e s in r o m a n t i c a t t a c h m e n t s . Sex R oles, 7 , 8 2 1 - 8 3 5 . R u m e l h a r t , D. E . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . U n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d s u m m a r i z i n g b r i e f s to r i e s. In D. L a B e r g e & J. S a m u e l s ( E d s . ) , B a sic processes in readin g: Perception an d com prehension (p p . 2 6 5 - 3 0 3 ) . H illsdale, N J: L aw re n c e E rlbaum A sso c ia te s. R u s b u l t , C . E . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . R e s p o n s e s to d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n in c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s : T h e e x i t - v o i c e - l o y a l t y - n e g le c t m o d e l . In S . D u c k &. D . P e r l m a n ( E d s .) In tim ate relation ships: D ev elo pm en t, dy n am ics, an d deterioration (p p . 2 0 9 - 2 3 7 ) . N e w b u r y P a rk , C A : S a g e .

190

r e fer e n c e s

S a b a te lli, R . M . (1 9 8 8 ). E xplo rin g relation ship satisfaction : A social e x c h a n g e pe rsp e ctive on th e i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e b e t w e e n th e ory, r e s e a r c h , a n d p r a c t i c e . Fam ily R elatio n s, 3 7 , 217-222. S c h a c t e r , S ., & S in ge r, J. ( 1 9 6 2 ) . C o g n i t i v e , s o c i a l , a n d p h y s i o l o g i c a l d e t e r m i n a n t s o f e m o ­ t io n a l s t a t e . Psychological Review, 6 5 , 3 7 9 - 3 9 9 . S c h a n k , R . C . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . D y n am ic m em ory. N e w York: C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press. S c h a n k , R . C . , &. A b e l s o n , R . P. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Sc rip ts, p la n s, go als, an d u n derstan din g. H i l l s d a l e , N J : L aw ren ce E rlbaum A sso c iate s. S c h e n k - H a m l i n , W. J., W i s e m a n , R . L ., & G e o r g a c a r a k o s , G . N . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A m o d e l o f p r o p e r ­ tie s o f c o m p l i a n c e - g a i n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . C o m m u n ica tio n Q u arterly , 3 0 , 9 2 - 1 0 0 . S c h u t z , W. C . ( 1 9 5 8 ) . F / K O : A th ree'dim en sion theory o f in terp erson al behavior. N e w York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t &. W i n s t o n . S c o t t , C . K . , F u h r m a n , R . W., & Wyer, R . S . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . I n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g in c l o s e r e l a t i o n ­ sh ip s. In G . J. O . F l e t c h e r &. F. D. F i n c h a m ( E d s . ) , Cognition in close relatioriships (pp. 3 7 - 6 7 ) . H illsdale, N J: L aw re n c e E rlbaum A sso c ia te s. S h e r m a n , S . J., &. C o r ty , E . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . C o g n i t i v e h e u r i s ti c s . In R . S . Wyer, Jr. &. T. K . S r u l l ( E d s .) , H an d b o o k o f so cial cognition (V ol. 1). H i l l s d a l e , N J : L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s . S h i e l d s , S . A . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . W o m e n , m e n , a n d th e d i l e m m a o f e m o t i o n . In P. S h a v e r &. C . H e n d r i c k ( E d s .) . , Sex an d gender. B e v e r l y H ills, C A : S a g e . S illa r s, A . L . , W e isb er g , J., B u r g r aff, C . S ., & W i l s o n , E . A . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . C o n t e n t t h e m e s in m a r i t a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s . H u m a n C o m m u n ica tio n R esearch , 13, 4 9 5 - 5 2 8 . S i m p s o n , J. A . , G a n g c s t a n d , S . W., & L e r m a n n , M . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . P e r c e p t i o n o f p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i v e ­ n e s s : M e c h a n i s m s i n v o l v e d in th e m a i n t e n a n c e o f r o m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Jo u rn a l o f Per* sonality an d S o c ia l Psychology, 5 9 , 1 1 9 2 - 1 2 0 1 . S in ge r, J. L. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Proceedm gs, in tern ation al y e ar o f the child. N e w H a v e n , C T : Yale U n iv e r s it y P ress. S in ge r, J. L. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . P r i v a t e e x p e r i e n c e a n d p u b lic a c t i o n : T h e s tu d y o f o n g o i n g t h o u g h t . H e n r y A . M u r r a y L e c t u r e , Sym posium on Personality. S y m p o s i u m c o n d u c t e d a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n iv e r s it y , E a s t L a n s i n g . S in ge r, J. L . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . R e i n t e r p r e t i n g th e t r a n s f e r e n c e . In D. C . T u rk &. P. S a l o v e y ( E d s . ) , R e a ­ soning, inference & ju dgem en t in clinical psychology (p p . 1 8 2 - 2 0 5 ) . N e w York: Free Press. S m i t h , C . W., &. L a z a r u s , R . S . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . E m o t i o n a n d a d a p t a t i o n . In L . P e r v in ( E d . ) , H a n d b o o k o f personality (p p . 6 0 9 - 6 3 7 ) . N e w York: G u i l f o r d . S m i t h , S . W. ( 1 9 9 7 ) . P e r c e p t u a l p r o c e s s i n g o f n o n v e r b a l r e l a t i o n a l m e s s a g e s . In D. E . H e w e s ( E d . ) , T h e cognitive b ases o f in terp erson al c om m u n ication . H i l l s d a l e , N J : L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m A ssociates. S p a n i e r , G . B. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . M e a s u r i n g d y a d i c a d j u s t m e n t : N e w s c a l e s for a s s e s s i n g t h e q u a l i ty o f m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . Jo u rn a l o f M a rr ia g e an d the Fam ily, 4 2 , 1 5 - 2 7 . S p r e c h e r , S., &. M c K i n n e y , K . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . S e x u a l i t y in c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In A . L . W e b e r &. J. H . H a r v e y ( E d s . ) , Perspectives on close relationships ( p p . 1 9 3 - 2 1 6 ) . B o s t o n : A l l y n &. B a c o n . S t a f f o r d , L ., &. C a n a r y , D . J. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . M a i n t e n a n c e s t r a t e g i e s a n d r o m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p type, g e n d e r , a n d r e l a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Jo u r n a l o f S o c ia l an d Person al R elationsh ips, 8 , 217-242. S t a f f o r d , L ., &. D aly , J. A . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e e f fe c ts o f r e c a ll m o d e a n d m e m o r y e x p e c t a n c i e s o n r e ­ m e m b r a n c e s o f n a t u r a l c o n v e r s a t i o n . H u m a n C o m m u n ic a tio n R esearch, 10, 3 7 9 - 4 0 2 .

r i: f i:r i :n c i : s

191

S t a i n e s , G . L ., & L ib b y , P. L . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . M e n a n d w o m e n in ro l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In Th e social p sy-

chology o f fem ale-m ale relations ( p p . 21 1 - 2 5 8 ) . N e w Y ork: A c a d e m i c P r e s s . S t e p h e n , T. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A s y m b o l i c e x c h a n g e f r a m e w o r k f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f i n t i m a t e r e l a ­ t i o n s h i p s . H u m an R elations, 3 7 , 3 9 3 - 4 0 8 . S t e p h e n , T. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . T a k i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n s e r i o u s l y : A r e p ly t o M u r s t e i n . Jo u rn a l o f M a r ­

riage and the Fam ily , 4 9 , 9 3 7 - 9 3 8 . S t e p h e n , T. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . C o m m u n i c a t i o n in t h e s h i f t i n g c o n t e x t o f i n t i m a c y : M a r r i a g e , m e a n i n g , a n d m o d e r n i t y . C om m u n ication Theory, 4 , 1 9 1 - 2 1 8 . S t e p h e n , T., & M a r k m a n , H . J. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . A s s e s s i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s : A n e w m e a s u r e . Fam ily Process, 2 2 , 1 5 - 2 5 . S t e t s , J. E ., & H e n d e r s o n , D . A . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . C o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s s u r r o u n d i n g c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n w h i l e d a t i n g : R e s u l t s fr o m a n a t i o n a l stu d y . Fam ily R elations, 4 0 , 2 9 - 3 6 . S t e t s , J. E ., & S t r a u s , M . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . G e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s in r e p o r t i n g m a r i t a l v i o l e n c e a n d its m e d i c a l a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e s . In M . A . S t r a u s & R . J . G e l l e s ( E d s . ) , Physical vi­

olence in A m erican fam ilies: Risk factors an d ad ap tation s to violence in 1 8 ,1 4 5 fam ilies (p p . 1 5 1 - 1 6 5 ) . N e w B ru n sw ick, N J: T ran sactio n B oo ks. S t o h l , C . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T h e ro l e o f m e m o r a b l e m e s s a g e s in t h e p r o c e s s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s o c i a l i z a ­ t i o n . C om m u n ication Q u arterly , 3 4 , 2 3 1 - 2 4 9 . S u r r a , C . A . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . R e s e a r c h a n d t h e o r y o n m a t e s e l e c t i o n a n d p r e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s in t h e 1 9 8 0 ’s. J o u r n a l o f M a rria g e an d the Fam ily, 5 2 , 8 4 4 - 8 6 5 . S w a n n , W. B ., Jr. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . I d e n t i t y n e g o t i a t i o n : W h e r e t w o r o a d s m e e t . Jo u rn a l o f Personality

an d So cial Psychology, 5 3 , 1 0 3 8 - 1 0 5 1 . T a y lo r, D . A . , & A l t m a n , I. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . C o m m u n i c a t i o n in i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s : S o c i a l p e n e t r a t i o n p r o c e s s e s . In M . E . R o l o f f & G . R . M i l l e r ( E d s . ) , Interpersonal processes: N ew

directions in com m unication research ( p p . 2 5 7 - 2 7 7 ) . N e w b u r y P a r k , C A : S a g e . T e n n o v , D . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Love an d lim erence. N e w Y o r k : S t e i n a n d D a y . T h o m p s o n , S. C . , & K e lle y , H . H . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . J u d g e m e n t s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r a c t i v i t i e s in c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Jo u rn a l o f Personality an d S o cial Psychology, 4 1 , 4 6 9 - 4 7 7 . T v e r s k y , A . , &. K a h n e m a n , D . ( 1 9 7 4 ) . J u d g m e n t u n d e r u n c e r t a i n t y : H e u r i s t i c s a n d b i a s e s .

Scien ce , 1 8 5 , 1 1 2 4 - 1 1 3 1 . V an L ear, C . A . (1 9 8 7 ). T h e fo rm a tio n o f so c ia l rela tio n sh ip s: A lo n g itu d in a l stud y o f social p e n e t r a t i o n . H u m an C om m u n ication Research, 13, 2 9 9 - 3 2 2 . W a t z l a w i c k , P., B e a v i n , J., & J a c k s o n , D . D . ( 1 9 6 7 ) . P r a g m a t i c s o f hum an com m unication: A

study o f interactional patterns, pathologies an d p arad o xes. N e w Y ork: N o r t o n . W e b e r, A . , H a r v e y , J. H . , & S t a n l e y , M . A . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . T h e n a t u r e a n d m o t i v a t i o n s o f a c c o u n t s f o r f a i l e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In R . B u r n e t t , P. M c G h e e , &. D . C l a r k e ( E d s . ) , A ccoun tin g fo r re la­

tionships ( p p . 1 1 4 - 1 3 3 ) . L o n d o n : M e t h u e n . W e g n e r , D . M . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . T r a n s a c t i v e m e m o r y . In B. M u l l e n &. G . R . G o e t h a l s ( E d s . ) , Theories o f

group behavior ( p p . 1 8 5 - 2 0 8 ) . N e w Y ork: S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . W e i s s , R . L . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . S t r a t e g i c b e h a v i o r a l m a r i t a l t h e r a p y : T o w a r d a m o d e l fo r a s s e s s m e n t a n d i n t e r v e n t i o n . In J. P. V i n c e n t ( E d . ) , A d v an ces in fam ily intervention, a s s e s s m e n t , an d theory (V ol. 1, p p . 2 2 9 - 2 7 1 ) . G r e e n w i c h , C T : J A I . W e i s s , R . L . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . C o g n i t i v e a n d s t r a t e g i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s in b e h a v i o r a l m a r i t a l t h e r a p y . In K . H a h l w e g &. N . S . J a c o b s o n ( E d s . ) , M a r i t a l interaction: A n a l y s i s an d m odification (p p . 3 3 7 - 3 5 5 ) . N e w York: G u ilfo rd .

192

RE FE R E N C E S

W ilderm uth, S. (1 99 9 J u n e ) . Love on the line: A study o f romantic relationships in an on-line con­ text. Paper presented ar the joint meetin g o f the International N etw ork on Personal Relatio nsh ips and the In te r n atio n a l Soc ie ty for the Stu d y o f Personal R e latio n sh ips, U niversity o f Louisville, KY. Wilson, S. R. (1 9 9 4 ). E laborating the cognitiv e rules m odels o f interaction go als: T h e prob ­ lem o f a c c o u n tin g for individual differences in goal form ation. Com m unication Yearbook, 18, 3 - 2 5 . Wish, M., D eu tsc h , M., & K ap lan , S. J. (1 9 7 6 ). Perceived d im en sio ns o f interpersonal re la­ tions. Journ al of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 4 0 4 - 4 2 0 . Zagacki, K. S., Ed wards, R., & H o n e y c u tt, J. M. (1 9 9 2 ). T h e role o f m e n ta l imagery and e m o ­ tion in imagined intera ction. Com m unication Quarterly, 4 0 , 5 6 - 6 8 . Zajonc, R. B., & M arkus, H. (1 9 8 4 ). Affect and cognition: T h e hard interface. In C . E. Izard, J. K ag an , & R. B. Zagon c (E ds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior (pp. 7 3 - 1 0 3 ) . L on don : C am b r id g e University Press. Zippin, D. (1 9 6 6 ). S e x differences and the sense ofh u m or. Psychoanalytic Review, 53, 4 5 - 5 5 .

A u t h o r In d e x

A A b e lso n , R. P., 14, 18, 25, 113, 169 A c r e d o lo , C ., 173 Acitelli, L. K., 6 5 , 7 2 , 7 5 , 7 6 A insw orth, M. D. S., 7 Allen, T . x x i i , 130, 135 A l t m a n , I., 8 6 , 8 7 , 8 8 , 9 0 , 9 2

A n d erse n , P. A ., 48, 51, 53, 96 A r d . B . N . , 28 Argyle, M., 161, 168 Arliss, L. P., 99 A s k h a m , J., 88

B Baldwin, M. W., 6, 10, 53, 54, 55, 1 12, 135, 169 Ba rtholomew, K , 172 B atson , C . D., 50 Battaglia, D. M., 138, 139 B a u c o m , D. H., 153 Baumeister, R. F., 28, 34 Baxter, L. A ., xxiii, 86, 87, 88, 92, 94, 108, 1 10, 1 1 7 ,1 2 4 ,1 2 7 ,1 3 9 ,1 4 1 ,1 4 7 ,1 5 1 , 158,170 B e a ch , S., 153 Beavin, J., 93 Bell, E., 29, 31, 64 Berg, J. H., 174 Berger, C . R., 1 1 , 6 4 . 8 7 , 9 5 , 9 6 , 132 B irnbaum , D. A ., 48 Black, J. B., 18 Bower, G. H., 18, 20, 58, 106, 107, 121 Bowlby, J., 7 Bradac, J. J., 87 Bradbury, T. N., 1 52 Broetzm an n , S., 23 Brow n, B., 86 Brow n, R., 79 Bullis, C ., 108 Burgoon, J. K., 20, 21, 126, 134 Burke, K ., 18

Burleson, B. R-, 13 Burnett, R., 103, 117, 127, 128, 151, 164 Burr, W. R., 89 Buss, D. M . , 2 8 , 55

c Canary, D. J., 130 Cantrill, J. G., xxii, 99, 104, 106, 107, 111, 113, 1 16, 1 18, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, 128, 130, 131, 135, 146, 148, 155, 169 C arlston , D. E., 140 Carnelley, K. B., 7 C a t e , R. M, 29 Caughey, J. L, 65, 66, 67 Ch an ow itz, B., 21 C h ar n e ss, N ., 131 C h risten sen , A ., 90 C la r k , R. D., 29 Clore, G. L, 49, 50 Cody, M., 138, 149, 156 C o l e m a n , M., 88 C o l e m a n , S., 127 Collins, J. K., 130 Connolly, J. E, 69 C on ville, R . L . , 9 1 , 9 4 , 103 Conway, M., 49 Corty, E., 70 C o o m b s , T., 37 Craw fo rd, M., 80 Croll, W. L., 48 Cru z, M . A ., 48 C u p a c h , W. R., 161, 162

D Daly, J. A ., 23 D atteri, D. L, 138 D avis, K. E, 39 D e a u x , K., 100 Delia, J. G., 12 193

A U T H O R IN D E X

194 D e n to n , W. H., 13 D eu tsc h , M., 3 D iedrick, P., 4 1 Diener, E., 46 D ienes, B., 50 Dillard, J. P., 48, 126 D in dia, K., 130 Dobosz, B .t 57 D o u g la s,W., 23 D u c k , S., xxi, 1, 6, 8, 9, 42 , 43, 6 2, 87, 88, 89, 9 1 , 9 4 , 9 6 , 100, 128, 166, 167, 169, 172,1 73, 175

Gin sburg, G. P., 22, 31, 39, 1 18 G oo d w in , C ., 23 G oo d w in , R., 140 G o r d o n , S. E., 25 G o t t m a n , J. M ., 4, 3 2 , 4 7 , 5 0 , 5 7 , 7 8 , 139, 142, 144, 151, 159, 160, 173 G r a e m , P., 104 Graesser, A . C ., 25, 26, 1 12 Gray, W. D., 104 G ree n e , R. W., xxii, 99 G ric e, H. P., 104, 106 Guerrero, L. K, 48, 50, 53 G uthrie, D. M., 152

E Edwards, R ., 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 74, 75 Esterly, E., 127 F Feeney, J. A ., 172 Fehr, B., 40, 4 1 , 4 2 , 54, 55 Felmlee, D. H., 3 Fin cham , F. D., 152, 153 Fisher, H., 2, 78, 83, 84, 101 Fiske, S. T., 18 Fitness, J., 10, 1 5 , 4 7 , 5 0 , 5 1 , 5 2 , 55, 57 Fitzgerald, N. M., 29 Fitzpatrick. M. A ., 78, 79, 142, 145 Flannery, R., 76, 100, 127 Fletcher, G . J. O., 10, 15, 50, 55 Floyd, F. J., 57, 59, 60 Fon ten ot, K., 162 Foa, E., 114 Foa, U., 114 Forgas, J. P., 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 Francis, R. D., 130 Frazier, P. A .. 127 Frijda, N., 48 Fuh rm an , R. \V., 14 Fujita, F., 50

G G adlin, H., 1, 2 G a g n o n , J. H., 28 Gallois, C ., 161, 162, 168 Galvin , K . S., 152 G a n o n g , L. 127 G a n g e s ta d , S. W., 10 G a rn ic k . N . N . , 152 G e r g c n . K . J . , 53, 157 G erg e n , M. M., 1 57 Giles, H., 78

H H a g e s ta d , G. O., 41 H arden,J. M, 126 Harris, L. M., 53 H a u se , K . S . , 130 Harvey, J. H., 42 , 76, 100, 127, 152, 156, 159 Hatfield, E., 29 Hays, R . B., 92 H e n d e r so n , D. A ., 56 H e n d e r so n , M., 161, 168 Herold, E. S., 28 Hill, C . T., 2 8 , 7 4 , 9 9 , 140, 152, 164 H in de, R. L., 87 Holladay, S., 37 Holm berg, D., xxii, 74, 131, 132 H o lm es, J., 50 H o lm a n , T. B., 89 H o ltzw orth 'M u n ro e, A ., 153 H o n e y c u tt, J. M., xxi, xxii, 7, 12, 19, 20, 63, 64, 6 5 ,6 6 ,6 8 , 6 9 ,7 2 ,7 6 ,7 8 , 7 9 ,8 7 ,8 8 , 9 6 , 9 7 , 9 9 , 104, 106, 107, 111, 113, 1 1 4 ,1 1 5 ,1 1 6 ,1 1 7 ,1 1 8 ,1 1 9 ,1 2 1 , 1 2 2 ,1 2 4 ,1 2 5 ,1 2 8 ,1 3 0 ,1 3 5 ,1 3 8 , 140, 142, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152, 155, 156, 158, 162, 163, 1 6 8 , 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 , 173 H u sto n , T. L, 28 Huszti, H . C . , 152

J Ja c k s o n , D. D., 93 Ja c o b s o n , N. S., 1 53 Ja n kow iak , W., 83 Jan off-Bu lm an , R., 7 Jo h n s o n , D. M., 104 Jo h n s o n , J., 47 Jo n es, E., 161, 162, 168 Jo se, P. E., 48

A U T H O R IN D E X

K K a h n e m a n , D., xxiii, 73 Kap lan , S. J M3 Kellermann, K., 2 3 , 9 6 , 1 10, 132 Kelley,H. H., xxii, 73, 82, 124, 134, 174 Kennedy, J. R . t 130 King, C . E., 90 Kinney, T. A ., 48 Klinger, E., 63, 69 Klos, D. S., 70, 71 K itao, K. 23 K n ap p, M. L., xxi, 21, 36, 37, 85, 86, 87 , 88, 90, 9 4 , 1 0 7 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 2 , 1 4 8 , 149, 152 K ohn, R M., 29 Krayer, K . J . , 145, 155 Krantz, S., 58 Krokofï, L. J., 173

L L am bkin , D., xxii, 124 Langer, E., 20, 21, 22 L a n n a m a n n , J. W., 53 Lazarus, R. S., 47, 48 Lea, M., 94 L e ath a m , G., 42 , 173 Lee, L. 88, 91, 151 Leigh, G. K., 8 9 , 9 0 LePoire, B. A ., 126, 134 Lerm an, M., 10 Levinger, G., 88 , 89, 143 Lewis, R. A ., 3, 90 Libby, P. L., 3 , 4 , Lim, T. S. 23 Lord, C . G., 138 Lykken, D., 46 Lynn, D. R.,

M Mandler, G., 46, 47, 49, 57 M a rk m an , H. J., 59, 120 Markus, H., 46 M artin, P., 41 M artin, R. W., 13 McKenry, P.C., 4, 33 M cKinney, K., 28 Meill, D. K., 41, 42 M ercern, 29 Merluzzi, T. V., 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 2 7 , 107, 112, 113, 1 21,135 Mervis, C ., 104 Mewhinney, 28 M etts, S., 161, 162

195 Miell, D. K., 1 5 , 4 1 , 4 2 , 4 3 , 169 Miller, L., 10 Montgomery, B. M., xxiii, 94 M o rgan , M., 76 M urstein, B. I., 1, 88, 89, 90, 171 Myers, D. G., 46, 65

N N e lson , G . 153 N isbett, R . E , 9 7 Noller, P., 5 7 , 6 0 , 152, 172 N o s a n c h u c k , T. A ., 48 N otarius, C., 47

o O ’Connor, J., 173 O ’Hair, D., 145, 155 O ’Keefe, B. J, 1 2 O le son , K . C ., 50, 100 O lson , D. H . , 100

P Parrott, R., 134 Pearson, J. C ., 100 Patterson, J. 76 Penny, D., 134 Peplau, L. A ., 28, 99 Pepper, T. 29 Peters,R. S., 49 Piaget, J., 57 Planalp, S., 2 1 , 47, 48, 53, 58, 64, 88, 117, 142 Pond, K . 4 2 , 1 7 3 Price, S. J, 4, 33 Pryor, J. B., 24, 26, 27, 107, 1 12, 1 13, 121, 135

R R e ad , S. J., 10 R e ardon , K., 36 Richard, F. D., 138 Roloff, M. E., 96 R osc h , E. H., 39 R osc h , E. R., 104 R o se m an , I. J., 48 R osen blatt, P. C ., 65 Ross, L., 97, 152, 157, 158 Ross, M., xxii, 74, 131, 132 Rubin, Z., 28, 89, 9 9,1 26, 127, 128, 151

A U T H O R IN D E X

196 R um elh art, D. H., 121 Rusbult, C . E., 140 Russell, J. A ., 54 Rutherford, D. K., 117 Ruzzene, M 152

s Sabatelli, R. M., 96, 144 Sawyer, J. D., 25 Schacter, S., 46, 47 S c h a n k , R. C ., 11, 17, 18, 121, 147 S c h e n k 'H a m l in , 125 Sch m itt, D. P., 28 Schutz, W. C ., 93, 100 Schwartz, N., 49 Sc ott, C . K., 14, 1 5 , 7 5 Segrin, C ., 126 Shaw, L. L., 50 S h e rm a n , S. J., 70 Sh ields, S. A ., 48 Sicoly, R., 152 Sillars, 79 Sim on , E. P., xxiii, 28 Sim pson , J. A ., 10 Singer, J. L, 46, 47, 63, 69, 70, 7 1 Sm ith, C . W., 48 Sm ith, S. W., 39, 141 Spanier, G. B., 3, 76 Spindel, M. S., 48 Sprecher, S., 28 Staffo rd, L., 23, 130 Staines, G. L, 3, 4 Stanley, M. A ., 42 S t e p h e n , T., 2, 3, 5, 42, 89, 95, 120, 169 Stets, J. E., 55, 56 Stillwell, A . M., 28 Stohl, C ., 36, 37 Stra us,M ., 55 Stro n g m an , K . T., 47 Surra , C . A ., xxi, 29, 82 Sw an n , W. B., 6

T Taylor, D. A ., 86, 90, 92 Taylor, S. E., 18, 88 Tellegen, A ., 46 Tennov, D., 83 T h o m p s o n , S. C ., 73 Todd, M. J., 39 T o dd-M an ch illas, W., 100 Turner, L. H., 100 Turner, T. J., 18 Tversky, A ., xxiii, 73

V Vangelisti, A . L., xxi, 21, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 94, 107, 1 19, 122, 126, 132, 148, 149, 152 VanLear, C . A ., 93 Vinsel, A . , 8 6

w Walther, J. B., 134 Watzlawick, P., 93 Weber, A., 42, 152, 156 Wegner, D. M., 131 Weiss, R. L., 29, 57, 152 W ie m a n n , J. M., 78, 79 W ilderm uth, S., 171 Wilmot, W., 87, 1 10, 124, 127, 170 Wilson, S. R., 13 Wish, M., 124 Woods, B., 162 W o tm a n , S. R., 28 Wright, P. H., 128 Wyer, R. S., 14

z Zagacki, K . S., 6 5 , 6 6 , 6 8 , 70, 72 Zajonc, R. B., 46 Zippin, D., 80

Subject Index

A A - h a e x p e r i e n c e , 174

H H appin ess, 4 5 -4 6

A f f e c t , 49 A nger, 50, 5 2 - 5 6

I

A t t a c h m e n t sty le s, 172 A ttractio n an d com plaints, 4

I m a g i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n s , 63 am o n g e n ga ge d and m arried c ou p les, 7 8 - 8 0

c

c r e a t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s , 6 3 —6 4 e m o t i o n a l a f f e c t in, 6 9 - 7 1 g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s in, 7 3 - 7 6

C o m m i s s i o n s a n d O m i s s i o n s , 157

in l in k in g c o n v e r s a t i o n s , 7 1 - 7 2 , 175

attribu tion , 1 5 7 -1 5 8

p ro activ e, 64

g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s in, 163

t o p i c s w it h in m a r r i a g e , 7 6 - 7 7

im plicit b e n e f it'o f 'd o u b t , 1 5 8 - 1 6 1 r u le s , 1 6 1 - 1 6 2 C on stru ctivism , 12-14

w ith e x - p a r t n e r s , 6 6 In fatu atio n, 8 3 - 8 4 I n f e r e n c e s in b r e a k i n g u p , 1 4 0 - 1 4 2

K

D K n o w l e d g e s t r u c t u r e s , 7, 9 D a t e r a p e , 2 9 —31

d e c l a r a t i v e , 10

D a y d r e a m i n g , 63

p r o c e d u r a l , 10

D e s i r e to e n d r e l a t i o n s h i p , 1 5 1 - 1 5 2 D ise n ga gin g strategies, 1 3 9 - 1 4 0 D i s s o l u t i o n s t a g e s , 91

L L o n elin ess, 6 7 - 6 9

E E m otion s, 4 6 - 5 0 a n g e r, 50 , 5 2 —56 hate, 5 0 -5 1 je a l o u s y , 5 1 - 5 2 love, 5 1

M M em o rable m essages, 3 6 -3 8 m e s s a g e s to e s c a l a t e in tim a c y , 1 2 4 - 1 2 6 M em ory, 4 1 - 4 2 1 9 7

S U B J E C T IN D E X

19 8

M e m o r y o r g a n i z a t i o n p a c k e t , 18

un derlyin g d e - e s c a la tin g p h ase s, 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 ,

M in dlessn ess, 2 0 -2 1 M o d e l s o f r e l a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t , 83

1 4 6 ,1 4 8 -1 5 0 u n d e r l y i n g e s c a l a t i n g p h a s e s , 1 19, 123

a c o m m u n ic a tio n m odel, 8 5 - 8 6

R e l a t i o n a l w o rld v ie w , 1 6 8 - 1 6 9

con tribu tion s, 8 6 - 8 8

R o m an tic expectation s, 3

d ialectics, 9 2 - 9 5 c r i t ic i s m s , 95 lim itations, 8 8 - 9 2 p h y s i o l o g i c a l , 2, 8 3 - 8 4 stim u lu s'v a lu e-ro le, 8 9 - 9 0 M o o d s , 50

1>

s Sch em ata, 14-15 r e l a t i o n a l , 14 Scen es, 1 7 -1 9 , 1 4 8 -1 5 0 Scripts, 11, 1 8 -2 0 a n g e r, 5 5 - 5 6 c h a n g e s in, 33

P araso cial relation sh ips, 6 6 - 6 7

dating, 2 4 - 2 7

P r e d i c t i n g m u l t ip l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , 1 1 0 - 1 1 2

e m o tio n a l, 5 6 - 5 7

P r o t o t y p e s , 38

g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s in , 9 7 - 1 0 0

c h a n g i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , 41

in itial i n t e r a c t i o n , 2 2 - 2 3

love, 4 0 -4 1

in teractive, 3 1-33

relation al, 3 9 - 4 0

sexu al, 2 8 -3 1 S e n tim e n t-o v e rrid e h yp o th esis, 5 7 - 6 0

o Q - s o r t p r o c e d u r e , 1 2 0 - 1 2 1 , 147

R R e d u n d a n c y o f m en tio n in g action s, 1 0 3 -1 0 6 R e latio n a l m em ory structures, 6, 1 1 -1 2 , 4 2 - 4 3 , 96-97 d e - e s c a l a t i n g c o n t e n t of, 1 3 5 - 1 3 8 e s c a l a t i n g c o n t e n t of, 1 0 6 - 1 1 0 g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s in, 1 2 6 - 1 3 2 , 1 5 1 , 1 6 7 - 1 6 8

Sym b olic in te rd ep e n d e n c e , 5

T T u r n i n g p o i n t s in r e l a t i o n s h i p s , 108 T y p ic a lity a n d n e c e s s i t y r a t i n g s , 1 12 in d e - e s c a l a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 in e s c a l a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , 1 1 2 - 1 15 in p r e d i c t i n g d e - e s c a l a t i n g b e lie fs, 1 4 3 - 1 4 4 in p r e d i c t i n g e s c a l a t i n g b e lie fs, 1 1 5 - 1 1 6

w

in d i f fe r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , 173 r e s i l i e n c e of, 1 7 3 - 1 7 4

W e d d i n g ritual, 31