Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Through c ommunication
F&tional, Contextual,
an d Cultural Variations
LE/fYS SERIES ON PIXSONAL Ri3-ATlONSHlP.S
Steve Duck. Series Editor
M;IIer/AIberts/Hecht/Trost/KrizeJc l Adolescent
Relationships and Drug Use
Relational, Contextual,
an d Cultural Variations
Edited by
Daniel J. Canary
Arizona State University
and
Marianne Dainton
La Salle University
Series Foreword ix
...
x111
Preface
About the Contributors xvii
Overview
apart for a while, those who must work with uncongenial colleagues, or
those who maintain relationships against a cultural background of
unacceptance or even strong social disapproval. The connections between
successful maintenance of relationships and their long term survival is ever
to the fore in the chapters here and the close causal connections between
failures of maintenance and breakdown of relationship are too obvious and
too important to overemphasize. For theorists, therapists, and the rest of
us, this theme is of immense significance and the present collection of
thinking on the topic represents one of the best collections to date.
This page intentionally left blank
ost sane people know that relationships require work. That is, part-
ners need to spend time and effort to maintain functional, satisfying rela-
tionships. Without such efforts, relationships tend to deteriorate. Of course,
one might rely on external inducements to keep a relationship intact
(Attridge, 1994). For example, one might use structural dependencies, in-
cluding irretrievable investments, to keep a partner locked within the con-
fines of a personal involvement (Johnson, 1999). However, this book is not
about using existing structures to maintain a personal relationship. Instead,
this book focuses on the communicative processes that people engage in to
keep their relationships stable and satisfactory. As Perlman (2001) observed,
our primary assumption is that “maintenance is what we do. In other words,
it is a process rather than, as some suggested, as state” (p. 360).
In our view, the examination of relational maintenance offers a rallying
point for people interested in discovering the behaviors that people utilize
to sustain various relationships. Theoretical models, research programs,
and individual studies have examined how people in a variety of relation-
ships keep those relationships defined in ways that they want them de-
fined. More precisely, students in communication, social psychology,
family studies, sociology, and related fields now possess a variety of articles
and chapters to read on this topic.
This anthology constitutes the third book that specifically focuses on the
topic of relational maintenance. The first, by Canary and Stafford (1994)
framed the area of study as one that emphasizes communication, social psy-
chology, and dialectics. It summarized the burgeoning research to that time,
hoping to provide traction for the construct. (About the same time [ 19931, a
-e= PREFACE
went about writing about the issues. The issues include: (1) assumptions
influencing their research; (2) specific communicative strategies and pro-
cesses identified by research for maintaining this relational type; (3) spe-
cial or unique characteristics of the relationship type or context that is
examined; (4) conclusions maintaining this type or aspect of relationships;
and (5) implications/directions for future research. We are pleased at the
creative manner in which each contributor examined these issues, and we
believe the reader will find the alternative approaches thought provoking.
In lieu of summarizing each chapter, we urge the reader to consider the
implications of the present chapters. Some of the chapters are written by es-
tablished, veteran scholars; some are composed by new scholars. We think
the range of issues they discuss in part reflects on how research in personal
relationships has emerged more generally-new issues concerning relation-
ships in modern society, which are often raised by new scholars, are ex-
plained through systematic, theoretically based research, the foundation of
which was laid by established scholars. Regardless, we hope that the reader
appreciates the various levels of seasoning we wanted to represent.
Many people have earned our respect and gratitude. First, we want to
thank the chapter authors. Each contributor presented material in a timely
and responsible fashion, and they energetically revised to meet our re-
quests for revision. We are grateful to all of the authors that each chapter in
this volume represents a positive writing and editing experience.
Next, we want to thank both Arizona State University and La Salle Uni-
versity for providing us with needed support. In particular, La Salle Uni-
versity offered Marianne a research leave in order to work on this project.
Moreover, our colleagues at Arizona State and at La Salle are wonderful in
their continued enthusiasm for our work.
To the people at LEA-Linda Bathgate, Karin Wittig Bates, and
Marianna Vertullo-we are indebted for providing the publication support
and careful editing needed. We are pleased not only to have this volume
published by LEA, but also that it is part of their personal relationships se-
ries, edited by Steve Duck. It amazes us how (again) Steve has stepped to
the fore in shaping the discipline of personal relationships, and we are
grateful for his efforts on our behalf.
Finally, we thank all of those people in our respective social and personal
networks who have kept us both fascinated and challenged by the prob-
lems of relationship maintenance. Most especially, we want to thank our
very patient partners. Without their efforts at relational maintenance, this
volume would not have been possible.
-Daniel J. Canary
-Marianne Dainton
April 2002
XVI -is= PREFACE
13, and Alyssa, age 8, take pictures, go to movies and the theatre, eat at good
restaurants, hike, listen to music, and read.
Daniel Canary (PhD, USC, 1983) is a Professor in the Hugh Downs School of
Human Communication, Arizona State University. research focuses
on conflict management, relational maintenance, conversational argument,
and sex differences in communication. A member on several editorial
boards, Dan is also Editor, Western Journal of Communication. Dan enjoys
traveling, golfing, and writing songs.
Marianne Dainton is an Associate Professor of Communication at La Salle
University in Philadelphia. She received her PhD from The Ohio State Uni-
versity in 1994. research focuses on the symbolic exchanges
that facilitate relationship maintenance. Of particular interest are routine
and strategic maintenance efforts, and the maintenance of long-distance re-
lationships. She has published in Communication Monographs, the Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, Family Relations, Western Journal of
Communication, Communication Quarterly, Communication Reports, and
Communication Research Reports. She has also published numerous book
chapters, and is the co-editor of this volume.
Kathryn Dindia (PhD, Speech Communication, University of Washington,
198 1) is a Professor in the Department of Communication at the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. research interests include sex dif-
ferences and similarities in communication behavior; self-disclosure,
including, reciprocity of self-disclosure, self-disclosure and relationship de-
velopment, and sex differences in self-disclosure; and relational mainte-
nance strategies. Kathryn has published approximately 30 articles and book
chapters including articles in Psychological Bulletin, Human Communica-
tion Research, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Personal Rela-
tionships, and chapters in the Handbook of Personal Relationships and The
Handbook of Communication Skills. She co-edited Sex Differences and
Similarities in Communication, Communication in Personal Relationships,
and a special issue of the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships on Re-
lational Maintenance.
Tara M. Emmers-Sommer (PhD, 1995, Ohio U niversity) is Associate Profes-
sor, Department of Communication, University of Arizona.
research interests include problematic communication
in close relationships. work is published in the Journal
of Communication, Human Communication Research, Communication
Yearbook, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Personal Relation-
ships, Communication Quarterly, and Communication Studies.
Emmers-Sommer is also the co-author, along with Dan Canary, of the 1997
Guilford book, Sex and gender differences in personal relationships.
Stanley 0. Gaines, Jr. received his PhD in social psychology from the Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin in 199 1. Gaines currently is a Lecturer in Psychology,
Department of Human Sciences, Brunel University, in London.
book, Culture, Ethnicity, and Personal Relationship Processes, was pub-
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS -+t- XIX
Kathryn Dindia
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Maintenance-By-Expression Versus
Maintenance-By-Suppression
Kaplan (1975; 1976) argued that relationship maintenance entails three ba-
sic functions: emotional expression, definition of reality (i.e., definition of
relationship), and preservation of order. Emotional expression is based on
the assumption that human interaction continuously evokes feelings, which
must be released (Kaplan, 1975/l 976). This is particularly true for negative
emotion because it poses a threat to relationship stability. As Kaplan ex-
plained, “no relationship is immune to negative emotion . . . and no relation-
ship escapes the need to deal with these antisocial sentiments” (p. 106).
A second function of maintenance is to define the relationship. Rela-
tionship partners need to understand what happens between them. Both
individuals need to know what they think, feel, and expect of the partner,
and they also need to know what the partner thinks, feels, and expects of
them (Kaplan, 1975/l 965).
The third function of maintenance is to preserve order in the relation-
ship. The essence of a relationship is coordinated activity. Individuals
achieve coordination by restricting the range of possible behaviors and
bringing actions in to alignment with the actions (Kaplan,
1975/1976).
1. RELATIONAL MAINTENANCE COMMUNICATION ==a
Kaplan (1975/l 976) listed two global and polar-opposite types of main-
tenance behaviors relevant to these three functions of relational mainte-
nance. Maintenance-by-expression occurs when partners verbalize their
feelings, their observations of the relationship, and the regulation of the in-
teraction between them. Maintenance-by-expression has been labeled by
others as metacommunication or relationship talk, openness, and
self-disclosure. It encompasses direct strategies for maintaining relation-
ships. Maintenance-by-suppression occurs when any direct discussion of
mutual feelings, views of the relationship, or efforts to carry on in an orderly
fashion is suppressed. Maintenance-by-suppression included expressing
emotions indirectly through nonverbal and verbal communication (joking
and laughter). Maintenance-by-suppression also includes direct expression
to third parties in the absence of the partner. Indeed, Oliker (1989) showed
that married friendships promote marital stability. They do this, in
part, by diffusing anger or other volatile emotions and managing these emo-
tions so as to sustain married commitment to their marriage. Main-
tenance-by-suppression encompasses indirect strategies.
Kaplan (1975/l 976) argued that expressive maintenance is better able
to sustain relationships of high involvement over time than mainte-
nance-by-suppression. According to Kaplan, “expressive maintenance pro-
vides a way of preserving a strong emotional bond and, in general, promotes
closeness and satisfaction in relationship” (p. 301). Kaplan also argued that
maintenance-by-expression involves some amount of maintenance-by-
suppression (i.e., tact). Similarly, Kaplan indicated that maintenance-by-
expression should be conducted in a constructive manner and he provided
some guidelines for constructive maintenance-by-expression.
No studies have directly tested thesis. However, others have
studied metacommunication (or directness) as a strategy to maintain rela-
tionships. Research indicates that it is not a frequent study to maintain rela-
tionships (Ayres, 1983). Dindia and Baxter (1987) found that
metacommunication was more frequently reported to repair than to main-
tain a relationship. In particular, several studies using Stafford and
(I 99 I) measure of openness (defined as talking about the relationship and
self-disclosure) have found mixed results about the effectiveness of open-
ness in maintaining relationships (see Stafford, this volume).
“our song,” etc.). Davis discussed two other kinds of reintegration ceremo-
nies (eating out at an expensive restaurant) and reassurance rituals (verbal
and nonverbal expressions of love, compliments, etc.).
Although not all of relational maintenance strategies are commu-
nication based, many of them are: primarily work-it-out and have-it-out
but also reintegration ceremonies. Davis did not empirically test his obser-
vations. However, his observations led to the work of Dindia and Baxter
(1987) and are later elaborated in this chapter.
Braiker and Kelley (1979) were interested in understanding the role that
conflict plays in relationship development. Employing a social exchange
approach to relational maintenance, Braiker and Kelley conceptually de-
fined maintenance as communication behaviors engaged in by members of
the couple to reduce costs and maximize rewards in the relationship. Main-
tenance behavior was operationally defined using items primarily measur-
ing communication with partner about the relationship (also
included one item measuring self-disclosure and one item measuring will-
ingness to change behavior). Thus, Braiker and Kelley also focus on
metacommunication as a relational maintenance strategy.
Braiker and Kelley (1979) ask ed married couples to complete question-
naires in which they estimated the degree or extent to which they experi-
enced a particular attitude, feeling, or behavior during each stage of the
history (casual dating, serious dating, engaged, and married).
The results of the study were that the maintenance scale showed a linear de-
velopment over time with gradual increases from casual dating to marriage.
Thus, metacommunication increased linearly from casual dating to marriage.
In addition, Braiker and Kelley (1979) f ound that the maintenance scale
loaded on a general love dimension during the first two stages of the rela-
tionship, but by the fourth stage (marriage) it was more heavily loaded on a
conflict-negativity dimension. The authors concluded that maintenance
strategies change meaning over time, with maintenance behavior serving to
increase interdependence and love in the earlier stages of development and
to resolve conflict in the later ones. Thus, it appears that talking about the
relationship functions to escalate a relationship (increase love and interde-
pendence) in the early stages of relationship development and to maintain
the relationship (resolve conflict) in later stages.
Tyvoiogies
L of Relational Maintenance Strategies
that perceived partner intent only affected balance (not avoidance or di-
rectness) strategies. Thus, it is difficult to draw conclusions from this re-
search. However, this research is important because it illustrates the
different types of relational predicaments in which relational maintenance
strategies occur (maintain when partner wants to escalate, maintain when
partner wants to maintain, maintain when partner wants to de-escalate)
and tries to illuminate similarities and differences in strategies to maintain
a relationship across these various relationship conditions.
Bell et al. (Bell, Daly, & Gonzalez, 1987) examined affinity mainte-
nance strategies. The researchers developed a typology of affinity main-
tenance strategies by asking a sample of wives to describe, in writing,
the things they and their husband said and did in their marriage that
they thought maintained liking and solidarity. The re-
sponses were content analyzed and used to develop a typology of 28
strategies. The strategies were:
Conceptual definitions and examples for each strategy are found in Bell
et al. (1987).
Bell et al. (1987) examined reported frequency of affinity maintenance
strategies. Wives reported the most frequently used strategies by both them-
selves and their husbands were faithfulness, honesty, physical attractiveness,
self-concept confirmation, supportiveness, and verbal affection. The least fre-
quently used strategies were altruism, conceding control, conversational
rule-keeping, dynamism, equality, shared spirituality, and similarity.
Bell et al. (1987) ask ed wives what affinity maintenance behaviors they
wanted from their husbands as well as what they thought their husbands
wanted from them. The affinity behaviors wives most desired from hus-
bands included being faithful, honest, physically attractive, sensitive, and
confirming the self-concept. Far less important to wives were strate-
gies of conceding control, dynamism, equality and self-improvement.
Wives believed that their husband most wanted them to be faithful, hon-
est, physically affectionate, sensitive, and physically attractive.
Bell et al. (1987) correlated marital satisfaction with perceptions
of their own and their frequency of strategy use. There were nu-
12 +=+ DINDIA
avoid hurting the other party in the break-up. Overall, these studies pro-
vide evidence to support the contention that some strategies are used to
initiate, maintain, and terminate relationships. Similarities and differences
across relationship strategies (strategies to initiate, intensify, maintain, re-
pair, de-escalate, terminate) should be studied more in the future.
The field [of p ersonal relationships] has become myopic, with most papers fo-
cusing on emotionally supportive close relationships: friends, spouses and lov-
ers.. . . There are more relationships worth studying in heaven and earth than
love, marriage and friendship. People work together, are neighborly.. . . In a world
where people have many hundreds of ties, we often need to extend analysis to
more than a few close relationships. (pp. 339-340)
Although only voluntary and intimate (close) relationships for the most
part have received scholarly attention, people maintain a variety of rela-
tionships, some of which are subjectively significant including relation-
ships with spouses, friends, romantic partners, and family members, and
some of which are less significant, such as relationships with co-workers,
acquaintances, neighbors, etc. (Burleson & Samter, 1994). Although these
relationships are viewed as less significant by participants in the relation-
ships, as well as those who study relationships, these relationships are im-
portant and serve a variety of functions in everyday lives. Milardo
and Wellman (1992) explained:
[Weak ties] are quantitatively important because there are so many of them.
They are the basis for many of the allies or enemies people have when things get
complicated. They form potential outlets for changing lives when people change
jobs, spouses, neighborhoods or political systems. They lend familiarity and a
sense of community to daily routines. (p. 340)
REl=tERENCES
Locke, H. J., & Williamson, R. C. (1958). Marital adjustment: A factor analysis study.
American Sociological Review, 23, 562-569.
Milardo, R. M., & Wellman, B. (1992). The personal is social. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 9, 339-342.
Montgomery, B. M. (1993). Relationship maintenance versus relationship change: Dia-
lectical dilemma. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 205-224.
Norton, R. (1983). M easuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable.
Journal Of Marriage and the Family, 4.5, 14 l-l 5 1.
Oliker, S. J. (1989). B estf riends and marriage: Exchange among women. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California.
Ray, G ., & Poulsen, S. (1994, May). Processes of maintaining social relationships: The
case ofAmerican Christmas letters. Paper presented at the Symbolic Interaction and
Ethnographic Research Conference.
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P (1993) .C ommitment processes in close relationships: An
interdependence analysis. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, IO, 175-204.
Shea, B. C., & Pearson, J. C. (1986). The effects of relationship type, partner intent,
and gender on the selection of relationship maintenance strategies. Communication
Monographs, 53, 354, 364.
Sigman, S . J. (199 1). Handling the discontinuous aspects of continuing social relation-
ships: Toward research of the persistence of social forms. Communication Theory, I,
106-127.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the qual-
ity of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-30.
Spiegelhoff, M., & Dindia, K. (2001, June-July). perceptions of relational
maintenance strategies and relationship satisfaction. Paper presented at the Interna-
tional Network on Personal Relationships Conference; Prescott, AZ.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship
type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 8, 2 17-242.
Thibaut, J. W, & Kelley, H. H. (1959). Th e social psychology of groups. New York:
Wiley.
Tolhuizen, J. H. (1989). Affinity-seeking in developing relationships. Communication
Reports, 2, 83-91.
Tolhuizen, J. H. (1992, November). The association of relational factors to intensifica-
tion strategy use. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Commu-
nication Association; Chicago, IL.
Waldron, V (1991). A c h ieving communication goals in superior-subordinate relation-
ships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication
Monographs, 58, 289-306.
Wilmot, W W (1987). Dyadic C ommunication. New York: Random House.
Maintainin Different Types
o F Re-f ationships
This page intentionally left blank
Sally Vogl-Bauer
Uniuersi ty of Wisconsin-Whi tewater
fall the relation types studied, perhaps the ones most neglected,
overlooked, or taken for granted by individuals are those of familial origin.
Societal cliches about family relationships abound, such as “your family is
always there for you” or “blood is thicker than water.” Yet little time or re-
search has been done on how families maintain “the ties that bind.” In fact,
casual observers might postulate that people do not care about their fami-
lies because family members are often treated less favorably than individu-
als having no biological or legal connection.
When research first began on relational maintenance in the 198Os, stra-
tegically working on sustaining existing relationships was a relatively new
concept (Ayres, 1983; Dindia & Canary, 1993). As research on relationship
maintenance grew, the primary focus was on how to maintain marital or ro-
mantic relationships (Fitzpatrick & Badzinski, 1994). Strong marital rela-
tionships are extremely important for families. However, there are some
problems deducing family relational maintenance from what is known
about marital relational maintenance. First, relational maintenance activi-
ties might vary dramatically in accordance to the type of relationship under
investigation (Dindia & Canary, 1993). Second, the majority of family rela-
tionships are characterized as relationships of circumstance (McGoldrick,
52 +=e VOGL-BAUER
Heiman, & Carter, 1993; Peterson, 1986; Vangelisti, 1993). Marital rela-
tionships are perceived as relationships of choice. Particularly in western
culture, it is customary to choose marital partner. Although these
distinctions are not inherently problematic, it becomes an important issue
if other family relationships are ignored when attempting to explain and
examine how individuals maintain family relationships.
(1993) essay on communication in the family was one of the
first to discuss the maintenance of family relationships. This is a rather
large task and several approaches could be taken. The primary goal of this
chapter is to examine family relational maintenance by integrating re-
search on family communication patterns with the findings on relational
maintenance strategies. In either case, research examining family rela-
tional maintenance is still in the preliminary stages of development. This
chapter first examines the relationship between relational maintenance
and communication in families and developmental issues relevant to rela-
tional maintenance. Research in both areas has important implications for
understanding family maintenance across the lifespan (Stafford & Bayer,
1993). Second, this chapter explores three possible theoretical frame-
works for examining family maintenance: Systems Theory, Exchange The-
ories, and Relational Dialectics Theory. Each perspective has been
incorporated either implicitly or explicitly in scholarship relevant to rela-
tional maintenance (Dindia & Canary, 1993). The final section discusses
the role technology may play in family relational maintenance now and in
the future.
When examining family relational maintenance two issues are at the fore-
front: communication in families and family developmental issues. Nu-
merous scholars have highlighted the importance of communication for
families (Bhushan, 1993; Fitzpatrick & Badzinski, 1985, 1994). Unfortu-
nately, very little research specifically focuses on communication
strategies for maintaining relationships. When families are studied across
the lifespan, different familial challenges may influence relational mainte-
nance (McGoldrick et al., 1993). Thus, each area is examined in greater
detail, to underscore the relationship of communication and developmen-
tal issues to family relational maintenance.
Communication in Families
cause they feel they may not be good-enough parents” (Nelson & Lott,
1990, pp. 229-230). A s a result, if family members believe that their voice
is not being heard correctly, either parent or child may withdraw, or mod-
ify their maintenance messages to coincide with the relational dynamics.
The maintenance strategies most likely to be impacted by this type of ex-
change are openness, positivity, and assurance because the reduction in
overall family exchanges is likely to have a negative impact on the degree of
positive or encouraging remarks made.
From a pragmatic perspective, if family members have poor listening
skills, their likelihood to withhold information from each other, or inhibit
conversation between family members is probably great (Steen &
Schwartz, 1995). According to communication boundary management,
individuals can determine who has access to personal information in fam-
ilies (Petronio, Ellemers, Giles, & Gallois, 1998). If relational dynamics
are questionable, family members are less likely to reveal personal infor-
mation to others. Research also suggests a positive relationship between
how frequently a topic is discussed and the degree of self-disclosure pro-
vided by the family member (Noller, 1994). Thus, if family members
only talk about a small number of topics with any regularity, family mem-
bers may place greater restrictions on what they consider private knowl-
edge. Such restrictions are problematic when families attempt to
develop relational maintenance patterns. Relational maintenance strate-
gies implicitly, as well as explicitly rely on family willingness to
self-disclose information to each other. Reduced disclosures are likely to
have a negative impact on the ability to maintain successful rela-
tions between its members.
DeveloDtnental Issues
sues for parents and children (Collins & Repinski, 1994). During the years
often associated with adolescence (e.g., from ages 11 to 19; Ambert,
1997), a great deal can occur for individual family members that poten-
tially impact all other family members as well, as issues of responsibility
and social status change (Boxer & Petersen, 1986). The time frame may get
skewed if individuals associate the period of adolescence exclusively with
puberty, which typically occurs between the ages of 11 to 17, as opposed
to viewing the period of adolescence in terms of successfully establishing
autonomy or independence. For example, if financial dependency is a
marker for adolescence, the time frame may extend into a
midtwenties (Ambert, 1997).
One reason adolescence is such a highlighted developmental stage is
that there are behavioral, emotional, and value adjustments occurring
(Montemayor, 1986; Noller, 1995). Although changes occur at the indi-
vidual level, family interactions may be impacted on a larger scale. As a re-
sult, both parents and adolescents may find themselves modifying their
communication patterns to accommodate new situations (Bhushan,
1993), which can be stressful for all parties involved (Hartos & Power,
2000). Furthermore, parent-child exchanges may later influence spousal
interactions or sibling relationships. Thus, the ability to maintain family re-
lationships during adolescence can get rather complicated.
Research has shown that the influence over children varies dur-
ing adolescence. Parental ability to influence an behaviors may
be compounded by social changes occurring, as well as what is being valued
by society at the time (Ambert, 1997). 0 ne of the more salient features
studied during adolescence, the peer group, has received extensive cover-
age due to its strong influence over children during their early to midteens.
Family members are in a potentially precarious position during this period
if the relationship between parents and children was not reasonably estab-
lished early on. After a child reaches 16 to 17 years of age, the influence of
family members, parents in particular, could be re-emphasized or strength-
ened if the relationship was initially solid (Golish, 2000). Thus, family
maintenance may “look” different from a few years before. Attachment is-
sues between parents and children compound relational dynamics be-
tween family members. In addition, the dialectic between autonomy and
connectedness may potentially undermine how and what family members
do to maintain their relationships. For example, the type of relational strat-
egy may vary, or perhaps the significance of the strategy for family mem-
bers may change as family members cope with issues of independence.
The communicative dynamics during adolescence are also complex be-
cause parents and adolescents typically have divergent views about percep-
tions of their family (Noller, 1995). R esearch has shown that parents tend
to perceive and communicate about their families in more optimistic
tones, whereas adolescents tend to be more pragmatic to critical in their
36 -+=+ VOGL-BAUER
(McGoldrick et al., 1993). The child rearing stage is near an end, yet
there still remains a large period of time for family members to cope with
prior to retirement. Golish (2000) examined the turning points in adult
child-parent relationships. The major turning points found were (a)
physical distance between parents and children; (b) the rebellious teen-
ager, pertaining to the decline and then increase in closeness as adoles-
cents age; (c) times of crisis for family members; (d) communication; and
(e) participating in activities together. Of the five turning points re-
ported, two events, communication and participating in activities to-
gether, can be directly associated with relational maintenance strategies.
The relationship between family relational maintenance and family turn-
ing points pertaining to closeness in adult child-parent relationships sug-
gests that relational maintenance strategies continue to play a pivotal role
in family dynamics across the life span of the family.
Once children reach adulthood, the potential for numerous entries and
exits from families occurs. Family members might marry, and perhaps have
children, increasing the size of the family, while long-standing family mem-
bers may die. As a result, family membership, as well as the status among
family members, may change. Either event can impact how families rees-
tablish and maintain themselves. Family roles may also change over time.
For example, parents traditionally provide the primary care giving for their
children when they are young, thus facilitating the majority of mainte-
nance behaviors occurring. These roles may be reversed when adult chil-
dren take care of their older parents (Cicirelli, 1993). The responsibility
for maintaining the family may be transferred to other family members. In
addition, the living arrangements for parents and their children could vary.
Each party may be living independently of the other; the child could be liv-
ing with the parents, or vice versa. Needless to say, the satisfaction with the
living arrangement could vary for one or both parties (Noller & Fitzpatrick,
1993), and family maintenance behaviors could be greatly impacted by the
change in proximity for family members.
Perhaps one of the most critical points for family relational maintenance
involves the death of the last parent. ‘A critical point for siblings comes af-
ter the last parent dies, when for the first time their relationships become a
matter of choice. Fostering such connectedness throughout the life cycle is
an important factor in cushioning families against the stressors of life”
(McGoldrick et al., 1993, p. 414). M ares (1995) identified several factors
that impact the likelihood of sibling contact: (a) proximity; (b) family size;
(c) sex of siblings; (d) presence of other relationships; and (e) ethnicity.
These factors are of interest because as siblings age, and as family connec-
tions are weakened, sibling relationships begin to look more like relation-
ships of choice as opposed to relationships of circumstance. As a result,
family members may consciously think about the maintenance of their
family relationships for the first time.
38 -I++ VOGL-BAUER
Systems Theory
One of the most popular theories for studying family dynamics is systems
theory (Galvin & Brommel, 2000). Systems theory is discussed in virtually
every family textbook, and it has intuitive appeal for understanding family
relationships. At the core of systems theory is the concept of interdepen-
dence; one part or person in the system relies on or impacts other parts or
persons in the system. Interdependence underscores the complicated na-
ture inherent when there are a variety of family subsystems to explore
(Galvin & Brommel, 2000). Essentially, family interactions become diffi-
cult to isolate because the implications from one behavior could
extend to the entire family (Peterson, 1986). Scholars have typically re-
searched various family subsystems in an effort to gain a greater under-
standing of family dynamics. These subsystems range from parent-child
dyads, sibling dyads, and same-sex-opposite-sex familial dyads. Thus, a
second component of systems theory may be applied: hierarchy. Hierar-
chy may be examined in family dynamics by assessing the age or power/sta-
tus of each family member to ascertain degrees of influence for each family
member. Research on each dyadic combination offers insight into how
family subsystems function. Depending on the subsystem under analysis,
relational maintenance may vary in both practice and application because
each family member has the potential to mutually influence one another
(Stafford & Dainton, 1995).
Inherent within the systems perspective is the concept of
nonsummativity. This concept suggests that the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts. The relational dynamics of the family create outcomes
5. MAINTAINING UNDESIRED RELATIONSHIPS ++i- 117
Numerous exchange theories have been applied when studying family rela-
tional maintenance (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993; Vogl-Bauer, Kalbfleisch, &
Beatty, 1999). Although exchange theories possess different nuances and
characteristics, collectively they share many features. Klein and White
(1996) i d en tfi ie d several general features of exchange theories. First, ex-
change theories put the primary focus on the individual; families are collec-
tions of individuals. Second, in order to predict or understand an
choices, there must be a motivational factor present. Choices
are driven more by the motivations, as opposed to outside con-
straints. Third, self-interest directs individual choices. Therefore, family
members may be guided by their own desires, as opposed to the desires or
needs of the family. Fourth, individuals make rational choices. This sug-
gests that individuals are able to assess information logically when making
decisions within families. Fifth, inherent within every choice is the assess-
ment of rewards and costs. Individuals assess potential benefits or sanc-
tions from fellow family members based on choices made. Sixth,
individuals want to maximize their rewards or benefits. Essentially, family
members compare and assess their options to ensure that they receive an
overall net profit from familial interactions. Finally, individuals compare
their options and select the one that is the most beneficial or the least
costly to themselves; there is more regard for personal interests than those
of the family.
At first glance, exchange theories may seem calculated and self-cen-
tered (Peterson, 1986). Exchange theories are very individual centered
and appear contradictory to how families function. But on closer inspec-
tion, exchange theories provide an important perspective in understanding
how or why individuals choose to maintain their family relationships. For
example, a parent may decide to call his or her child when he or she gets
home from school on a regular basis because the parent feels comforted
knowing where his or her child is after school. Is this exchange costly to the
parent? Perhaps the telephone call may be considered a cost in terms of
time constraints or frustration and uncertainty if his or her child does not
answer the telephone. Yet the parent may feel that the benefits outweigh
the costs because he or she feels comforted knowing that his or her child is
safe, and it gives the parent a chance to touch base with his or her child dur-
ing the day. Granted, the rewards and costs should also be assessed for the
child as well. It may be more interesting to assess how consciously family
members actually think about the relational maintenance behaviors uti-
lized throughout the day. For example, do people consciously exchange
positive messages with family members in order to avoid a fight or get
someone to do a task around the house? Furthermore, is it a problem if
2. FAMILY MAINTENANCE =+i- 4-l
avoidance or strategic persuasion is the true motive for utilizing more rela-
tional maintenance strategies in families?
Exchange theories have been criticized for their insensitive approach to
family relationships (Klein & White, 1996; Peterson, 1986; Vogl-Bauer et
al., 1999). As a result, features have been added to respond to such feed-
back. For example, the time frame considered for exchanging rewards or
costs has been modified (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993). Family members are
often content to wait longer periods of time for a “return on their invest-
ment” than nonfamily members. In addition, norms of reciprocity have
been incorporated in order to examine how family members respond to
each other. In both examples, family members acquire greater flexibility
for demonstrating relational maintenance behaviors to each other. The ex-
panded time frame provides family members with a longer period to re-
turn maintenance behaviors to others. Presumably, one family
relational maintenance behaviors will encourage similar behaviors across
the family.
and what to withhold (Griffin, 2000). Second, many of these dialectics are
subject to change over the lifespan of a family. Accordingly, it may be im-
portant to identify the relational dialectics most likely to occur across the
history, as well as to identify those dialectics that emphasize a par-
ticular period within the family.
Because change and flux in relationships are not uncommon, many ideas
proposed in relational dialectics theory have been examined as distinct fea-
tures in relational development, with a large body of research related to
each. For example, autonomy has been studied extensively by family
scholars (Bulcroft, 1991; Clasen & Brown, 1985; Montemayor, 1986).
Granted, regardless of the number of approaches taken, more is being
learned about autonomy. Unfortunately, the research being done across
disciplines on autonomy is not always integrated into a comprehensive as-
sessment. This issue is probably more problematic for relational dialectics
theory than the previous two discussed due to the structure and premise of
relational dialectics theory. In short, relational dialectics theory empha-
sizes the relational tensions that exist in family relationships. The struggle
for families is to determine how to maintain strong family relationships
successfully through these moments.
Families do not maintain their relationships in a vacuum. Just like any rela-
tionship, families are impacted by changes occurring in society. As techno-
logical advances affect both our professional and private lives, these
advancements also change how family members maintain their relation-
ships. As the options available to maintain family relationships increase,
the scope and magnitude of family maintenance is impacted as well.
CLOSING REMARKS
I gratefully acknowledge the responses provided by Dan Canary and Marianne Dainton to earlier
drafts of this chapter. They have provided much stimulating discussion, deliberation and debate of
the material presented.
51
32 -+==s STAFFORD
THEORlETICAL UNDlXPINNINGS
AND A TiXMlNOLOGICAL ISSUE
From the beginning, Stafford and Canary (199 1) clearly laid out their guid-
ing principles. They have summarized the manner in which equity theory
3. MAINTAINING ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS ++I- 23
Duck (1988) suggested two models underlie relational stability: that rela-
tionships will stay together unless something tears them apart and that re-
lationships will deteriorate unless efforts are made to keep the relationship
intact. Although these two conceptions are not mutually exclusive (Duck,
1994) and Canary and Stafford (1994) concur with the proposal that barri-
ers act to keep relationships together, they focused primarily on the latter
of these two propositions. The statement that all relationships require
maintenance to continue seems intuitively obvious. Yet, given the number
of romantic relationships and marriages that end leaving one or the other or
both partners proverbially scratching their heads asking the question,
“What happened?” perhaps the necessity for maintenance is not as appar-
ent as it seems. In brief, a guiding principle is that some kind of mainte-
nance activity is necessary to keep relationships from deteriorating.
The second fundamental principle is derived from the tenets of equity
theory as laid out by Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, and Hay
(1985); Sprecher (1986); Walster, Berscheied, and Walster (1973) among
others. Canary and Stafford (1994) explained, “equity theory predicts that
people are content when both persons have equal ratios of inputs to out-
comes, that people are distressed when involved in an inequitable relation-
ship and that people try to restore and maintain equity.” (p. 7).
Overbenefited individuals perceive they get more out of a relationship
than they put into it whereas underbenefited individuals perceive they get
more out of a relationship than they put into it. Being either overbenefited
or underbenefited should cause emotional distress (Sprecher, 1986). Eq-
uity should be satisfying. Furthermore, in a dyadic relationship one per-
inputs serve as rewards for the other person. Thus, maintenance
activities are conceived of as a cost or input for one person and hence a re-
ward for the other. It follows then, that individuals would adjust their
maintenance efforts in accordance to their perceived equity levels.
Issue
Stafford and Canary (1991) first used the term maintenance strategies and
offered their definition of maintenance as “efforts expended to maintain
54 +- STAFFORD
For me, a strategy is defined as an approach someone takes. In other words, stra-
tegic communication is implicitly learned and often mindlessly enacted. This is a
broad definition of “strategic” that encompasses a lot of behavior. Strategic ap-
proaches are often routinized but become more cognitively processed when the
routine plan does not work (Berger, 1997). So, I d 0 not see a necessary separation
between routine and strategic.
Stafford (see e.g., Stafford et al., 2000) however, invokes a more narrow
view of the term strategy. As Duck (1994) stated, “research which has fo-
cused on strategies impLies a conscious sustaining of relationships and con-
tinues a distinction between such strategies and the more automatic” or
3. MAINTAINING ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS =+i- 55
“breezy allowance of the relationship to continue” (p. 46) that is the rou-
tine or nonstrategic behaviors. It is this implication that is at issue at hand.
For at least some relational maintenance scholars the distinction be-
tween strategic and routine appears to be a meaningful, albeit perhaps in-
tuitive one. (1994) distinction has already been alluded too.
Acitelli (2001) a1so d rew a distinction and argued the degree to which a be-
havior is strategic or routine is contingent on several factors such as the de-
velopment of the relationship and the situation. Indeed Dainton and
Stafford (1993; Dainton, Stafford, & McNeilis, 1992; Stafford et al.,
2000) proposed that the same behaviors may be invoked in both strategic
and routine manners depending on many factors. Dindia (chap. 1, this vol-
ume) also adheres to the primary delineation of strategic and nonstrategic
maintenance behaviors. However, she proposes the dichotomy between
strategic and nonstrategic may be too rigid and activities may be more or
less strategic or routine. Yet, she maintains the principle demarcation as
one grounded in the intent of the actor. Dainton underscores the intent of
the actor is the point of distinction between strategic and routine behav-
and has found little correlation between the strategic and routine use
of maintenance behaviors; some behaviors may indeed be invoked more of-
ten in a strategic manner whereas others may be invoked more routinely
(Dainton & Aylor, 2002).
The foregoing definitional issue is not raised as a point of substantive
theoretical division as both Stafford and Canary concur that both types of
maintenance activities occur. This is clearly evidenced in their principle
articulated earlier. Rather, the unease is with a potential ambiguity for
others. Therefore, the recommendation is offered that future work
should consider the terminology invoked and perhaps utilize the term
maintenance behaviors in place of strategies as more definitely encom-
passing term.
A final issue confounded with the earlier discussion is the extent to which
routine or nonstrategic behaviors operate within an equity framework. It is
unclear if nonstrategic maintenance efforts are also hypothesized to operate in
accordance with equity principles, or if this is reserved for maintenance strate-
gies. Duck (1994) contended that relationships continue, for the most part in
a taken for granted manner; that partners unlikely continue a relationship only
after explicitly sitting down with their calculators to determine their relative
costs and benefits. Nonetheless he noted that some unconscious accounting of
‘The choice of the term routine was not perhaps the best one. Routine seems to imply regular-
ity to actions or events. Duck (1992; Duck, Rutt, Hurst, & Strejc, 1991) discussed regularity and
routines in interactions, or patterns of interactions in a daily realm. Although it is recognized that
many such behaviors may be routine in a mundane day-to-day patterned manner, the distinction
within this line of work has been on the intent of the actor, or perhaps lack of intent, rather than
the regularity of the event. Possibly simply the term nonstrategic as the logical opposite may have
been a better choice than routine.
?c7 -e=+ STAFFORD
the overall fairness of the relationship is likely taken into consideration. Fur-
ther, he proposed that such mental accounting may become more salient
when a partner is considering changing the relationship. D. J. Canary (per-
sonal communication, August 2, 2001) offered a like opinion:
I do not think that exchange theorists, including equity theorists, believe that
people constantly take into account rewards and costs (or inputs and outcomes).
I think that most people have a vague running tab of who has done what, though
some of us have high exchange orientations (where daily ledgers are taken) and
others have low exchange (or communal) orientations. Equity is probably a vague
collection of inputs and outcomes that leads to both intentionally performed and
unintentionally performed actions. However, I would predict that it [equity the-
ory] is a more powerful predictor of intentional actions and planning. It probably
leaks through unintentional actions as well.
Equity
Underbenefited
Individual Differences
desired relational characteristics. These five factors were refined and exam-
ined in conjunction with equity theory by Canary and Stafford (1992).
Following this initial effort to define and operationalize maintenance
strategies, efforts have been made to identify other maintenance behav-
iors. This has occurred in two primary ways. Sometimes an expanded con-
ceptualization of maintenance as “routine” or “nonstrategic” has resulted
in additional maintenance behaviors (e.g., Dainton & Stafford, 1993;
Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000). Other times, maintenance research
moved outside the confines of White, middle-class heterosexual romantic
couples living in the United States in an attempt to identify various main-
tenance behaviors used in various populations. Research has expanded to
White, middle-class nonromantic relationships such as friends and family
(e.g., Canary, Stafford, Hause, & Wallace, 1993; Messman, Canary &
Hause, 2000), non-White romantic samples (e.g., Diggs & Stafford, 1998),
Non-Western romantic samples (Young & Canary, chap. 13, this volume),
and nonheterosexual Western romantic relationships (e.g., Haas &
Stafford, 1997, 1998.)
Table 3.1 presents the original five behaviors as well as the mainte-
nance behaviors generated within this program. Upon examination of Ta-
ble 3.1, it becomes readily apparent that category systems have at times
overlapped.
Exploration of behaviors occurred virtually simultaneously in two do-
mains. On one front, using inductive analyses, Canary, Stafford, Hause,
TABLE 3.1
ReIationaI Maintenance Behavior
Behavior Examples
-
Positivity” Try to act nice and cheerful.
Attempt to make our interactions enjoyable.
Ask how his or her day has gone.
-
Openness” Encourage him or her to disclose thoughts and
feelings to me.
Seek to discuss the quality of our relationship.
Remind him or her about relationship decisions
we made in the past.
Behavior Examples
Give advice.
Seek advice.
Comfort him or her in time of need.
Note. Table adapted and extended from Canary and Stafford (2001). Examples adapted
from Canary and Stafford (1992); Canary et al. (1993): Dainton and Stafford (1993), Diggs and
Stafford (1998), Messman et al. (2000), Stafford et al. (2000); and Haas and Stafford (1998).
Categories are those directly from work with Stafford or Canary as an author or coauthor.
Items without a superscript have not yet been developed into measurements.
aThe five original factors from Stafford and Canary (1991).
bAdditional factors from Stafford et al. (2000).
‘Additional factors from Messman et al. (2000).
53
60 -c=e STAFFORD
aspects that might not have surfaced when a previously developed mea-
sure is applied. The possibility that certain features might be unique for
differing populations is of course a major reason why measures previ-
ously designed for one population not necessarily appropriate for re-
search in another population. However, the failure of one sample to
mention certain behaviors, would not necessarily mean that such behav-
iors might be considered unimportant for that population. For example,
Diggs and Stafford (1992) proposed that sharing tasks may be men-
tioned more by Euro-American participants than by African-American
participants, not because sharing tasks is any less vital among Black mar-
riages than among White ones, but because historically, Black marriages
have had more egalitarian marital roles. Hence, sharing tasks may be
more of a challenge or issue for White couples. Similarly, gay and les-
bian samples have reported that participating in gay-lesbian friendly en-
vironments was important for the maintenance of their romantic
relationships. Given current cultural biases, heterosexuals may not feel
the need to mention a desire to be in environments that supported their
sexual orientation. Thus, the development of measures of maintenance
behaviors would ideally combine factors derived from the populations
about which the researcher is making inferences.
Whether friendships, romantic (heterosexual or homosexual), or kin-
ships, these studies have focused on close relationships in the U.S. At
least two studies have looked beyond the U.S. culture. Yum and Canary
(chap. 9, this volume) compared maintenance behaviors of Koreans with
those of North Americans. They found Koreans (versus U.S. partici-
pants) reported less reliance on maintenance strategies and found the as-
sociation between maintenance strategies and relational characteristics
to be less strong among the Korean sample. They propose that this may be
due to a Korean cultural belief that the partners form one unit compared
to a more individualized western belief.
Finally, Ballard-Reisch, Weigel, and Zaguidoulline (1999) took the
study of romantic maintenance behaviors to Tararstan, a part of the former
Soviet Union. Utilizing the S-factor scale, they found moderate amounts
of variance accounted for in the relational characteristics. It would be of in-
terest to determine if even greater amounts of variance could be accounted
for with additional of behaviors generated by a Tararstan sample.
-r-heAntecedents
Antecedents are theorized to influence the frequency and type of mainte-
nance behaviors invoked. Canary and Stafford (1994) specifically include
equity, type and history, and individual differences. Another focus has
3. MAINTAINING ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS ++-
It seems reasonable to pause at this juncture and reflect upon the obvious
yet heretofore unasked question: Are maintenance behaviors related to the
maintenance of relationships?
bility of the casual direction running the other way. Possibly relational
characteristics serve as antecedents to maintenance behaviors, rather than,
or in addition to, serving as outcomes. Despite this early speculation, this
possibility has been relatively neglected. Given the continued implicit in-
clusion of bidirectional&y, inquiry into relational characteristics as ante-
cedents, as well as the overall long recognized systemic nature of
communicative and relational processes, the potential chicken-and-egg
connection between maintenance behaviors and relational characteristics
deserves further attention.
Bidirectionality is implicitly theoretically evident in the inextricable
link between equity and satisfaction. According to equity theory, the
most satisfactory relationships are the most equitable ones and individ-
uals adjust their efforts (in this case maintenance behaviors) in accor-
dance to their perceived equity in the relationship (Adams, 1965;
Walster et al., 1973). Thus, operating within an equity theory frame-
work, level of perceived equity, and by definition, satisfaction, must be
considered not only as an antecedent to the use of maintenance behav-
iors, it must also be considered an outcome of those behaviors. An ex-
amination of whether equity is restored with adjustments in
maintenance behaviors is yet to be undertaken. Such an examination
would provide for a more complete test of the manner in which equity
operates in conjunction with maintenance behaviors and would be a
welcome addition to this literature.
Satisfaction has been considered both as an outcome and as an anteced-
ent of maintenance behaviors. Adhering to the viewpoint that the percep-
tions people have about their marriages influence the efforts they put forth
at maintaining them, Weigel and Ballard-Reisch (1999b) used a unique
dyadic design to explore the extent to which perceptions of marital satis-
faction, commitment, and love predicted the five maintenance behaviors.
They reported perceptions of satisfaction, as well as commitment and love
were predictive of maintenance behaviors. Specifically they found that
wives appear to engage in more positivity, openness, reassurances, use
more joint networks, and perform shared tasks when both they and their
husband report higher levels of commitment, love, and satisfaction. Also,
Dainton and Stafford (2000) f ound commitment to play a small role in
predicting assurances, networks, and conflict management in addition to
satisfaction as a predictor of assurances. However, given the minimal vari-
ance accounted for, they speculate that perhaps the direction is unidirec-
tional-from maintenance behaviors to relational characteristics. In the
Canary and Stafford (2001) investigation previously reported, they also
concluded both equity and satisfaction predict perception of partner main-
tenance behaviors. In the Canary et al. (1996) longitudinal study discussed
previously, links were not found in either direction leaving open the possi-
bility that the direction of causality may run both ways.
70 -I+=+ STAFFORD
The thrust of this research reflects the continued endeavor to answer the
simple question: What is it that people do to ensure the continuance of
their relationships in the manner they so desire (Canary & Stafford, I994)?
Unfortunately, the question that may have an answer is not the one of what
Control Mutuality +
Indwdual Differences
Contllct Management
SUMMARY
Emily Langan
University of Texas, San Antonio
THtEORETICAL UNDlERPINNINGS
and third graders and found that both groups divided shared tasks more
equally among friends than with acquaintances. Significantly, third-grade
friendship pairs were also more likely to distribute rewards equitably.
Buunk and Prins (1998) examined the effect of friendship inequity on
loneliness and found that college students in underbenefited and
overbenefited friendships felt significantly more lonely than participants
who reported providing and receiving equitable amounts of help. Equity
also appears salient in older and elderly adult friendships. For example,
Roberto and Scott (1986) f ound that individuals in equitable friendships
perceived significantly fewer trouble in their friendships regarding aspects
of helping, emotional impact, and the relationship overall. Clearly, re-
search demonstrates the importance of perceived equity in the mainte-
nance of friendship across the lifespan and in different types of friendships
(e.g., long distance, cross-sex).
uals both create and react to their social worlds; unlike passive bystanders,
intimates have choices and make decisions while also responding to part-
choices and decisions. Last, totality represents the understanding
that “social phenomena are defined by the relations among their character-
istics, not by the characteristics themselves” (Montgomery, 1993, p. 206).
Consequently, Montgomery argued that even the term relational mainte-
nance inaccurately portrays relationships as static entities; instead, Mont-
gomery and other dialecticians (e.g., Rawlins, 1994) observed that
relationships are sustained.
Extending a dialectical view of friendship, Rawlins (e.g., 1989, 1992,
1994) has investigated how friends sustain their relationships amid
ever-present and ever-changing tensions. Looking across stages of young
adult friendship in particular, Rawlins (1989) posited that two broad ana-
lytical classes of dialectic tensions exist: (a) contextual dialectics and (b)
interactional dialectics. First, Rawlins stated that two contextual dialectics
emerge based on how friendship is defined within American culture: Pub-
lic-private and Ideal-Real. Because public roles constrain friendships, ten-
sion arises between the private negotiation of a close, voluntary
relationship and the public display of the relationship within the confines
of social appropriateness (Rawlins, 1989). This “double agency” of friend-
ship is readily visible in cross-sex friendships where both friendship part-
ners are married to others (Rawlins, 1982, 1989). Although definition of
and closeness with the friendship is private, the friendship pair also must
operate within culturally bound social conventions (Rawlins, 1989).
Stated differently, some may view adult cross-sex friendships with suspi-
cion, whereas no suspicion would likely arise if the same “friendship” were
presented as a relationship between colleagues. The Ideal-Real dialectic
refers to the discrepancies between what is desired from a friend and the
daily realities of sustaining a voluntary relationship that must compete
with more formal social ties. With regard to interactional dialectics,
Rawlins (1989) offered f our specific tensions thought to characterize
young friendships: Independence-Dependence, Affection-Instru-
mentality, Judgment-Acceptance, and Expressiveness-Protectiveness
(Rawlins, 1989, 1992).
Baxter et al. (1997) identified similar tensions in young adult friend-
ships within the context of a Loyalty-Disloyalty dialectic. The two most
frequently reported tensions with regard to conflicting loyalties within
friendships were general time dilemmas and specific time demands. More
specifically, perceived obligations (general) as well as previously made
commitments (specific) appeared to constrain respondents, thereby creat-
ing a dilemma between wanting to be independent and feeling obligated to
spend time with friends.
In a similar vein, Rawlins (1994) a1so examined friendship dialectics
within middle adulthood (30 to 40 years old). One central dialectic that
4. MAINTAINING FRIENDSHIPS +=a- 8,5
/utachmentThecx-ynd rriendshp
A final theoretical perspective is attachment theory. Initially framed
within the infant-caregiver relationship (Bowlby, 1973, 1982), attach-
ment theory (AT) posits that the bonds developed between a child and the
primary caregiver provide a context from which all other close relation-
ships must be understood (Collins & Read, 1990). Specifically, AT predicts
that sense of security depends on the initial infant-caregiver bond
whereby security and stimulus reduction are provided through consistent,
comforting responses from the caregiver (attachment figure) during an in-
times of need or distress, particularly as the infant develops and ex-
plores (Armstrong & Roth, 1989).
The degree to which young children recognize and react to (in)consistent
comfort from their attachment figure creates the foundation for under-
standing three primary attachment styles: secure, anxious or ambivalent,
and avoidant (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1973,
1982). Whereas secure infants have confidence in their attachment
ability to comfort or soothe based on the consistent support
when needed, avoidant children have had limited exposure to comfort from
the caregiver when distressed; subsequently, avoidant children display little
desire to achieve closeness and do not seek comfort. In between these two
styles, anxious or ambivalent infants perceive their caregivers to be unreli-
able sources of support and, therefore, are easily upset, are difficult to
soothe, and demonstrate high degrees of separation anxiety.
4. MAINTAINING FRIENDSHIPS ++ 8;
MAINTENANCE STKAT~GIES
Although it is important for friends to talk about their own lives, re-
search also suggests that the provision of social support (i.e., being
other-oriented) offers a central means by which friendships are maintained
(Barbee, Gulley, & C unningham, 1990; Burleson & Samter, 1994; Canary
et al., 1993; Fehr, 2000; Hays, 1984; Messman et al., 2000; Nardi &
Sherrod, 1994). Scholars have found that comforting, giving advice, and
providing ego support are primary functions of friendships.
The final strategy identified consistently in the literature is avoidance
(e.g., Ayres, 1983; Canary et al., 1993; Messman et al., 2000; Nix, 1999).
Although this strategy may be perceived as a less than ideal means to main-
tain relationships, research supports that avoiding particular topics or peo-
ple might help to sustain relationships. Such a perspective is consistent
with a dialectical perspective on maintenance (discussed previously),
where time together might be balanced by time apart, and openness bal-
anced by closedness (see Baxter, 1994).
Although these four strategies appear consistently throughout the litera-
ture, several other strategies have emerged that might also function to sus-
tain friendships. For example, several studies have noted that antisocial
strategies can be used to maintain friendships (e.g., Canary et al., 1993; Nix,
1999), whereas others have explicitly identified affection as a maintenance
strategy (e.g., Hays, 1984; Rose, 1985). 0 ne explanation for the inconsis-
tent reporting of this latter strategy could stem from the assumption that
friendships are affectionate simply by definition (Hays, 1988); therefore, it
might appear redundant to list this as a maintenance strategy. Additionally,
the inconsistent reporting of both strategies in the literature might be be-
cause such strategies are used less frequently to maintain friendships. Con-
versely, social desirability effects might explain why these strategies appear
less frequently. Individuals responding to surveys might be unwilling to ac-
knowledge their use of antisocial strategies with someone they presumably
hold dear. On the other end of the spectrum, friends might not be willing to
acknowledge the role of overt affection in their relationships due to social
norms against displays of affection for same-sex relationships (Fehr, 1996).
Several other maintenance strategies should be noted. Burleson and
Samter (1994) argued that conflict management was a vital social skill in
the maintenance of friendships. Canary et al. (1993) found that friends re-
ported using humor, sharing tasks, social networks, assurances, positivity,
and cards/letter/calls. In partial support for these categories, Messman et
al. (2000) a1so f ound the reported use of positivity as a means for maintain-
ing cross-sex friendships, and Johnson (2000) found the use of telephone
calls and e-mail as a means for maintaining long-distance friendships. Fu-
ture research should strive to ascertain the extent to which these addi-
tional strategies might be used to maintain friendships, as well as the
extent to which such strategies foster desired relational characteristics
such as satisfaction and commitment.
‘-?o +e DAINTON, ZELLEY, LANGAN
CROSS-SEX l=RlENDSHIP.S
Although sex differences per se may not have a clear impact on the ways
that relationships are maintained, clear differences emerge in the enact-
ment of same-sex and cross-sex friendships. For heterosexual individuals,
maintaining a cross-sex friendship involves the affection, companionship,
intimacy, and assistance found in same-sex relationships, but it also in-
volves downgrading sexuality (Monsour, 1992, 1996). Indeed, one of the
fundamental challenges of cross-sex friendships is confronting the expec-
tation that such relationships should ultimately lead to romantic or sexual
relationships (Monsour, 1996). Yet, friendships themselves are typically
exemplified by a lack of sexual intimacy (Gaines et al., 1998). Such is the
paradox of cross-sex friendships.
Werking (1997) argued that opposite-sex friendships (as compared to ro-
mantic involvements) can be characterized in four ways: They involve attrac-
tion of the spirit, not the body; they are more egalitarian than romantic
relationships; they do not entail exclusivity, as do romantic relationships; and
they are an end in themselves, not a means to an end. Buhrke and Fuquo
(1987) found that both men and women have an average of three close oppo-
site-sex friends, although, single women and married men and women tend to
prefer same-sex friendships to opposite-sex friendships (Rose, 1985).
92 -is=+ DAINTON, ZELLEY, LANGAN
sexes, several scholars have found that men are somewhat more motivated
by sexual attraction in their pursuit of cross-sex friendships than are
women (Buss, 1994; Rose, 1985).
Indeed, it appears that one of the major challenges in cross-sex friend-
ships is dealing with sexuality. Some cross-sex friendships fail this challenge,
as both men and women report having had sex with cross-sex, ostensibly pla-
tonic friends (Buhrke & Fuqua, 1987). Much of the research on cross-sex
friendship suggests that sexual activity between opposite sex friends is a rel-
atively infrequent occurrence, however (Messman et al., 2000). For exam-
ple, according to Fuiman, Yarab, and Sensibaugh (1997), only one in seven
respondents noted having engaged in sexual activity with a friend of the op-
posite sex. On the other hand, Afifi and Faulkner (2000) found that one half
of participants (5 1%) had h ad sex with at least one platonic friend, and one
third (34%) of those who had engaged in sex reported having had sex with a
4. MAINTAINING FRIENDSHIPS 3t 93
How friendships are enacted changes over the lifespan (e.g., Matthews,
1986; Patterson et al., 1993; Rawlins, 1992). If the nature of friendships
changes as people age then it is important to highlight how the means to
maintain friendships might also vary over time. The next section highlights
variations in how friendships are sustained in four periods: childhood, ado-
lescence and young adulthood, adulthood, and older adulthood.
‘74 -ee DAINTON, ZELLEY, LANGAN
childhood
It is inappropriate to collapse all childhood friendships into one category
because friendships themselves vary a great deal throughout the lifespan.
Still, as a whole, children view friends as playmates, whereas individuals in
other developmental stages view friends as confidants (Burleson & Samter,
1994). In the following paragraphs several views are presented that distin-
guish friendship during childhood from friendship occurring in other de-
velopmental stages.
For instance, Burleson (1994) o b served that children count as friends
virtually all people with whom they come in frequent contact, engage in
mutual activities, and share material resources such as toys. In other
words, children view friendship as consistent with repeated contact and
mutual interest in playthings and pastimes. Similarly, Gottman and
Mettetal(l986) f ound that early childhood peer relations focus on coordi-
nated interaction. Even more precisely, Rawlins (1992) categorized the
features of childhood friendship into three groupings based on age range
and behavior. For example, he grouped the friendships of 3 to 7 year olds as
momentary physical playmates, whereas the friendships of 6 to 9 year olds
are characterized by activity and opportunity. The friendships of 8 to 12
year olds are characterized by equality and reciprocity. These distinctions
coincide with the literature reviewed previously (e.g., Burleson, 1994;
Gottman & Mettetal, 1986).
In each of the above descriptions, young friendships appear as
rather simple and lacking in sophistication. In fact, Rawlins (1992) sug-
gested that friendships often end over quarrels and negative ex-
changes because young children lack the ability either to repair the damage
or to imagine the friendship enduring beyond the conflict. Conversely,
other researchers have suggested that friendships are more highly
developed than they appear. For example, Whaley and Rubenstein (1994)
argued that toddlers are quite capable of complex and committed friend-
ships and that these young children worked at sustaining their relation-
ships through rituals and routines. Similarly, Howes, Droege, and
Matheson (1994) found that children in long-term friendships demon-
strated more efficient communication. The children in Howes et study
extended and clarified each behaviors; as a result, they had little
need for negotiation or conflict.
As children age, affective tone and degree of closeness between the chil-
dren, as well as the nature of the tasks that they pursue suggests friendship
closeness (Shulman, Elicker, & Sroufe, 1994). Moreover, younger children
prefer same-sex partners, but by eighth-grade cross-sex preferences
emerge, with boys preferred for telling jokes and stories, and girls pre-
ferred for giving advice and lifting spirits (Clark, 1994).
4. MAINTAINING FRIENDSHIPS =+ 95
Adulthood
The friendships of middle adulthood, defined by Rawlins (1992) as matu-
rity to middle age (30 to 6.5 years old), are less frequently studied than
those of the other age groups. However, several key areas of concern asso-
ciated with relational maintenance can be identified. First, Rawlins (1992)
argued that, for this age group, friendships can most clearly be distin-
guished as either communal (i.e., emotionally supportive) or agentic (e.g.,
socially facilitative, activity oriented). Many adult friendships are those of
convenience, meaning that friendships are the byproducts of
other roles such as co-workers, neighbors, or kin. This reliance on agentic
friendships throughout middle adulthood most likely results due to the
time constraints adults face in the wake of family and work pressures.
Maintaining friendships becomes particularly problematic during adult-
hood as dating and marriage result in withdrawal from the friendship net-
work (Milardo, Johnson, & Huston, 1983). Indeed, unmarried friends rely
on time together as a maintenance strategy to a much greater extent than
do married friends (Rose, 1985). On the other hand, married friends re-
port greater use of affection as a maintenance strategy than do single
friends (Rose & Serafica, 1986). Ironically, divorce also compounds the
difficulties of maintaining friendships (Rawlins, 1992). Divorced individu-
als frequently feel isolated from the friendship networks they maintained
when they were married. Given focus on romantic pair bonding
during adulthood, adult friends have lower expectations regarding the
need to spend time together to maintain their friendships (Rawlins, 1994).
In terms of managing problematic events, adult friends argue over nu-
merous issues including contrasting ideas, inappropriate disclosures, indi-
vidual freedoms, rule violations, third parties, and time management
4. MAINTAINING FRIENDSHIPS =a- 97
older Adulthood
Researchers more frequently study friendship in older adulthood, most
notably because of the presumed health benefits associated with friend-
ship. Patterson et al. (1993) f ound that friendships between elderly people
are most often characterized by devotion, reciprocity, closeness, under-
standing, shared experience, and attraction. These authors argued that el-
derly people have more complex views of friendship than do younger
people, as older adults focus both on reciprocity and the consequences of
friendship loss. Moreover, given a lessening of time constraints, as well as
the opportunities that retirement communities and nursing homes pro-
vide, older adulthood may offer a time where friendships are more active
and numerous (Matthews, 1986). Of course, these opportunities are also
tempered by the more frequent deaths of those in friendship circle
(Matthews, 1986). Finally, and relative to younger cohorts, older adults re-
port fewer cross-sex friendships, and their friends also tend to be similar in
terms of age (Matthews, 1986).
Older friendships fall into three categories (Matthews, 1986;
Rawlins, 1992). First, independent friendship types are agentic; that is,
they are activity oriented and socially facilitative. Those with discerning
friendships are characterized by deep attachments to the friend. Finally,
acquisitive types include friends from the past, as well as new relation-
ships. Importantly, Matthews (1986) f ound that elderly people may main-
tain established friendships differently than new friendships. Specifically,
the maintenance of established relationships involved more self-disclosure
and the provision of more services.
CONCLUSIONS
Adams, R. G., & Blieszner, R. (1994). An integrative conceptual framework for friend-
ship research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 163-l 84.
Afifi, W. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). On being “just friends”: The frequency and im-
pact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 17, 205-222.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attach-
ment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Armstrong, J. G., & Roth, D. M. (1989). Attachment and separation difficulties in eat-
ing disorders: A preliminary investigation. International Journal of Eating Disorders,
8, 141-155.
Ayres, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and per-
ceived usage. Communication Quarterly, 3 1, 62-67.
Barbee, A. P, Gulley, M. R., & Cunningham, M. R. (1990). Support seeking in close re-
lationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 7, 531-540.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A
test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61,
226-244.
Baxter, L. A. (1990). Dialectical contradictions in relationship development. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 69-88.
Baxter, L. A., Mazanec, M., Nicholson, J., Pittman, G., Smith, K., & West, L. (1997).
Everyday loyalties and betrayals in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 14, 655-678.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New
York: Guildford.
Berger, C. R., Weber, M. D., Munley, M. E., & Dixon, J. T. (1977). Interpersonal rela-
tionship levels and interpersonal attraction. In B. Rubin (Ed.), Communication year-
book 1 (pp. 245-262). N ew Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Berger, H. A., Shaffer, L. S., Freeman-Witthoft, B., & Freund, H. A. (1998). Friends
and lovers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 623-636.
4. MAINTAINING FRIENDSHIPS 3t, y?
Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. G. (1992). Adult f riendship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss, Vol. I : Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic
Books. (Original work published 1969)
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Buhrke, R. A., & Fuqua, D. (1987). S ex d i ff erences in same- and cross-sex supportive
relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 339-352.
Burleson, B. R. (1994). F riendship and similarities in social-cognitive and communica-
tion abilities: Social skill bases of interpersonal attraction in childhood. Personal Re-
lationships, 1, 371-389.
Burleson, B. R., & Denton, W H. (1992). A new look at similarity and attraction in mar-
riage: Similarities in social-cognitive and communication skills as predictors of at-
traction and satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 59, 268-287.
Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1994). A social skills approach to relationship mainte-
nance: How individual differences in communication skills affect the achievement
of relationship functions. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and
relational maintenance (pp. 61-90). New York: Academic Press.
Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1996). S imilarity in the communication skills of young
adults: Foundations of attraction, friendship, and relationship satisfaction. Commu-
nication Reports, 9, 127-l 39.
Buss, D. M. (1994). Th e evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.
Buunk, B. & Prins, K. S. (1998). L oneliness, exchange orientation, and reciprocity in
friendships. Personal Relationships, 5, 1-14.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in
marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243-267.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Strategic and routine interaction. In D. J. Canary &
L. Stafford (Eds.), C ommunication and relational maintenance (pp. 3-22). San
Diego, CA: Academic.
Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., &Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analysis
of relational maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives, friends,
and others. Communication Research Reports, 10, 5-14.
Canary, D. J., & Zelley, E. D. (2000). C urrent research programs on relational mainte-
nance behaviors. Communication Yearbook, 23, 30.5339.
Clark, R. A. (1994). 1 and gender preferences for conversational
partners for specific communicative objectives. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 11, 313-319.
Cole, T., & Bradac, J. J. (1996). A lay theory of relational satisfaction with best friends.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 57-83.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relation-
ship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
644-663.
Davila, J., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). Attachment insecurity and the distinction be-
tween unhappy spouses who do and do not divorce. Journal of Family Psychology,
15, 371-393.
Derlega, V J ., Barbee, A. I?, & Winstead, B. A. (1994). Friendship, gender, and social
support: Laboratory studies of supportive interactions. In B. R. Burleson, T. L.
Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, inter-
actions, relationships, and community (pp. 136-l 72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Ha-
ven, CT Yale University Press.
Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital rela-
tionships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143-l 58.
loo s=+ DAINTON, ZELLEY, LANGAN
Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on main-
taining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, IO, 163-l 73.
Egland, K. L., Spitzberg, B. H., & Zormeier, M. M. (1996). Flirtation and conversa-
tional competence in cross-sex platonic and romantic relationships. Communication
Reports, 9, 105-l 17.
Elkins, L. E., & Peterson, C. (1993). Gender differences in best friendships. Sex Roles,
29, 497-508.
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fehr, B. (1999). Stability and commitment in friendships. In J. M. Adams & W. H.
Jones (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and stability (pp. 259-280).
New York: Academic/Plenum Press.
Fehr, B. (2000). The life cycle of friendship. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.),
Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 7 l-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fuiman, M., Yarab, P, & Sensibaugh, C. (1997, July). Justfriends?An examination ofsex-
ual, physical, and romantic aspects of cross-gender friendships. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Network on Personal Relationships, Oxford, OH.
Gaines, S. O., Bledsoe, K. L., Farris, K. R., Henderson, M. C., Kurland, G. J., Lara, J. K.,
Marelich, W. D., Page, M. S., Palucki, L. J., Steers, W N., & West, A. M. (1998).
Communication of emotion in friendships. In P A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero
(Eds.), Hundb oo k of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications,
and contexts (pp. 5 1 O-53 1). New York: Academic.
Gottman, J., & Mettetal, G. (1986). Sp eculations about social and affective develop-
ment: Friendship and acquaintanceship through adolescence. In J. M. Gottman& J.
G. Parker (Eds.), Conversations of friends (pp. 192-237). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Guerrero, L. K. (1996). Attachment-style differences in intimacy and involvement: A
test of the four-category model. Communication Monographs, 63, 269-292
Hays, R. B. (1984). Th e d eve 1o p ment and maintenance of friendship. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 1, 75-98.
Hays, R. B. (1985). A longitudinal study of friendship development. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 48, 909-924.
Hays, R. B. (1988). Friendships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relation-
ships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 391-408). Chichester: Wiley.
Hays, R. B., & Oxley, D. (1986). S ocial network development and functioning during a
life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 305-3 13.
Howes, C., Droege, K., & Matheson, C. C. (1994). Pl ay an d communicative processes
within long- and short-term friendship dyads. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 1 I, 401-410.
Johnson, A. J. (1999, November). Using routing and strategic communication and ac-
tivities to maintain friendships: Examining geographically close and long-distance
friendships. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Confer-
ence; Chicago, IL.
Johnson, A. J. (2000, July). A role theory approach to examining the maintenance of geo-
graphically close and long-distance friendships. Paper presented at the International
Network on Personal Relationships Conference; Prescott, Arizona.
Jones, D. C. (1991). Friendship satisfaction and gender: An examination of sex differ-
ences in contributors to friendship satisfaction. Journal of SociaZ and Persona2 Rela-
tionships, 8, 167-l 86.
Kerns, K. A. (1994). A longitudinal examination of links between mother-child attach-
ment and friendships in early childhood. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 11, 379-381.
4. MAINTAINING FRIENDSHIPS -a- 101
Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). L ovestyles and attachment styles compared: Their
relations to each other and to various relationship characteristics. Journul ofSocial ?X
Personal Relationships, 5, 439-471.
Matthews, S. (1986). Friendships through the life course. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, eq-
uity, and the use of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 67-94.
Mikulincer, M., & Selinger, M. (2001). Th e interplay between attachment and affilia-
tion systems in same-sex friendships: The role of attachment style.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 81-l 06.
Milardo, R. M., Johnson, M. I?, & Huston, T. L. (1983). Developing close relationships:
Changing patterns of interaction between pair members and social networks. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 964-976.
Monsour, M. (1992). Meanings of intimacy in cross- and same-sex friendships. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 2 77-295.
Monsour, M. (1996). C ommunication and cross-sex friendships across the life-cycle: A
review of the literature. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 20 (pp.
375-414). Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Montgomery B. M. (1993). Relationship maintenance versus relationship change: A di-
alectical dilemma. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 205-223.
Nardi. P M., & Sherrod, D. (1994). Friendships in the lives of gay men and lesbians.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 185-200.
Nix, C. L. (1999, November). But a “real” friend treat me that way?An exami-
nation of negative strategies employed to maintain friendship. Paper presented at the
National Communication Association Convention; Chicago, IL.
Pataki, S. P, Shapiro, C., & Clark, M. S. (1994). Ch i Id acquisition of appropriate
norms for friendships and acquaintances. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 11, 427-442.
Patterson, B. R., Bettini, L., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1993). The meaning of friendship
across the life-span: Two studies. Communication Quarterly, 41, 145-160.
Paul, E. L., & Kelleher, M. (1995). Precollege concerns about losing and making friends
in college: Implications for friendship satisfaction and self-esteem during the college
transition. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 5 13-52 1.
Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships: Style of conflict res-
olution and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6,
505-510.
Rabby, M. K. (1997, November). Maintaining relationships via electronic mail. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association; Chi-
cago, IL.
Rawlins, W K. (1982). Cross-sex friendship and the communicative management of
sex-role expectations. Communication Quarterly, 30, 343-352.
Rawlins, W. K. (1989). A dialectical analysis of the tensions, functions and strategic
challenges of communication in young adult friendships. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.),
Communication yearbook, 12 (pp. 157-l 89). Newbury, CA: Sage.
Rawlins, W. K. (1992). F riendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life-
course. Hawthorne, NY Aldine de Gruyter.
Rawlins, W K. (1994). Being there and growing apart: Sustaining friendships during
adulthood. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relutionul
maintenance (pp. 275-294). New York: Academic Press.
Roberto, K. A., & Scott, J. l? (1986). Equity considerations in the friendships of older
adults. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 241-247.
102 w DAINTON, ZELLEY, LANGAN
Jon A. Hess
LTriversity of Missouri-Columbia
Few scholars would deny that some relationships are nonvoluntary, but the
majority of relational communication theory focuses on relationships
formed by voluntary association (Galvin & Cooper, 1990). Family scholars
(e.g., Coleman SKGanong, 1995; Galvin & Cooper, 1990) often discuss the
impact that nonvoluntary association has on families, but by and large, the
5. MAINTAINING UNDESIRED RELATIONSHIPS 3t- 102
It is clear that strong negative affect experienced more or less regularly, perhaps
even exclusively, in a relationship many would consider as close on other grounds
is not unusual. At the least, a classification scheme that excluded such relation-
ships from the domain of close relationships would exclude many family rela-
tionships. (p. 115)
Assumption+:U-wanted Relationships
Can be HeaIthy Relationships
For something like 10,000 years, people have been warring with each other,
fighting other nations, sparring with their neighbors, hating their colleagues,
quarreling with their loved ones, arguing with one another, and suffering the
pangs of despised love without the benefit of scientific research into relation-
ships and their problems. (p. 278)
5. MAINTAINING UNDESIRED RELATIONSHIPS 3t, 107
The study of unwanted relationships is one area where research has the
potential for significantly improving the quality of human life. One pur-
pose of this chapter is to suggest research directions that might help people
learn how to make undesired relationships healthy relationships.
CONCIZPTUAL FXAMIEWORK
eliminate social ties with someone, people are likely to interact with that
person when social norms make such behavior expected. However, when
maintaining a relationship interferes with higher-order goals, such as ac-
complishing a task or presenting a certain face, the relationship becomes
undesired. For example, a student who was talking in class about undesired
relationships reported an incident with a friend who needed temporary
housing, but became a nuisance after moving in. When this lifestyle
began interfering with the plans, the relationship became unwanted.
Another student mentioned a work relationship that was undesired be-
cause the co-worker interfered with the objectives she was trying to ac-
complish (task goals). Other people have spoken of relationships that were
unwanted because friends and family did not approve (social interaction
goals) or because they were publicly embarrassed by the other be-
haviors (impression management goals).
For goal interference to make a relationship unwanted, the interference
must have a lasting effect over time. Goals are not always consistent, and
they can change suddenly from one time to another (Berger, 2000). If a re-
lationship interferes with a goal on one or two occasions, then it is more
likely to be an interaction that is undesired rather than the relationship it-
self. For instance, a person may wish to avoid talking to a close friend when
he or she has pressing deadlines, but still value the relationship. More en-
during objectives must be obstructed for the relationship to be undesired
on the basis of goals.
people prefer that their perceptions fit together harmoniously. For rela-
tionships, two perceptions are relevant: affect and relational association
(Heider, 1958). Wh en affect is negative, people prefer a lack of relational
association. Thus, continued maintenance of the relationship is seen as un-
desirable.
Negative affect can arise from a variety of sources. Wiseman and Duck
(1995) reported that when asked to describe friends and enemies, people
typically reported endearing qualities of friends (e.g., loyal, caring) and
malicious actions by enemies (e.g., inflicted emotional pain, lied to oth-
ers). When discussing the subject of relationships with disliked partners,
students often talk about disliking others because of incompatible per-
sonalities, antisocial behavior, or heinous actions by the other, such as be-
ing judgmental, pushy, or harassing. Once people develop an enduring
dislike for another person, relational interaction with that person be-
comes unwanted.
Tactic Definition
115
tended that the family is one of the most violent institutions an ordinary
person is likely to encounter. Berscheid claimed that most of the anger and
hostility people experience in daily life is directed toward a relative.
Well-documented communication behaviors that are antagonistic or hos-
tile include chronic disconfirmation and double-binds (Watzlawick et al.,
1967), verbal aggressiveness (Infante & Wigley, 1986), and boundary vio-
lations (Peterson, 1992).
One study on the maintenance of relationships with disliked partners
found that all respondents reported using hostile tactics from time to time
(Hess, 2000). Although most people reported antagonizing their disliked
partners only occasionally (possibly only when most frustrated or when an
enticing opportunity presented itself), a few respondents indicated favor-
ing antisocial tactics more often. Research suggests that such behavior will
often invite counterattacks and escalation (DeRidder, Schruijer, &
Rijsman, 1999), w h ic h means that it is not usually the most rational inter-
action strategy. So, it may be that people interact this way when they feel
immune to retaliation or when they cannot control their anger. It is also
possible that some people use antisocial acts as a way of expressing or
achieving control, as is often the case with abusive relationships (Johnson,
1995). Closer examination of these relationships might reveal the causes
of hostility and the effects it has on the people involved. Although the re-
search on verbal and physical abuse makes it clear that such behavior has
detrimental outcomes in relationships (Cahn, 1996), the range of impacts
that small to moderate degrees of nonabusive hostility has in unwanted re-
lationships is less clear.
Undesired relationships are, and always will be, one of the more diffi-
cult relationships that people encounter. Because they are an inevitable as-
pect of social interaction, everyone must face such relationships
throughout the course of their lives. It is for challenging relations such as
these that the relational research holds much promise. Learning how to
manage such relationships in productive ways provides benefits for theory
construction and for practical application.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Attridge, M. (1994). Barriers to dissolution of romantic relationships. In D. J. Canary &
L. Stafford (Eds.), C ommunication and relational maintenance (pp. 141-164). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Axelrod, R. (1984). Th e evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Ayres, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and per-
ceived usage. Communication Quarterly, 3 1, 62-67.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New
York: Guilford.
Bell, R. A., Daly, J. A., & G onzalez, C. (1987). Affinity-maintenance in marriage and its
relationship to marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
49, 445-454.
Berger, C. R. (1997). PI anning strategic interaction.. Attaining goals through communi-
cative action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berger, C. R. (2000). Goal detection and efficiency: Neglected aspects of message pro-
duction. Communication Theory, IO, 156-l 66.
Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H.
Harvey, T L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson
(Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110-168). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Berscheid, E., Boye, D., & Walster, E. (1968). Retaliation as a means of restoring equity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 370-376.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. (1989). The relationship closeness inventory:
Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 57, 792-807.
Bogdan, R. J. (1994). G rounds for cognition: How goal-guided behavior shapes the
mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bormann, E. G. (1990). Small g rou p communication: Theory and practice. New York:
Harper & Row.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). Th e f un d amental topoi of relational communica-
tion. Communication Monographs, 51, 193-2 14.
Brinkman, R., & Kirschner, R. (1994). Dealing with people you stand: How to bring
out the best in people at their worst. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Byrne, D., & Murnen, S. K. (1988). Maintaining loving relationships. In R. J. Sternberg
& M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 293-310). New Haven, CT Yale
University Press.
Cahn, D. D. (1996). Family violence from a communication perspective. In D. D.
Cahn & S. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Family violence from a communication perspective (pp.
I-l 9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
122 w HESS
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). C oncealing meaning from overhearers. JournaL
of Memory and Language, 26, 209-225.
Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. H. (1995). Family reconfiguring following divorce. In. S .
Duck &J. T. Wood (Eds.), Confronting relationship challenges (pp. 73-108). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeRidder, R., Schruijer, S. G., & Rijsman, J. B. (1999). Retaliation to personal attack.
Aggressive Behavior, 2.5, 91-96.
Dickens, W J., & Perlman, D. (1981). Friendship over the life-cycle. In S. Duck & R.
Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships: VOL. 2. Developing personal relationships
(pp. 91-122). New York: Academic Press.
Dillard, J. P, Segrin, C., & Harden, J. M. (1989). P rimary and secondary goals in the
production of interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs, 56,
19-38.
Drigotas, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I go or should I stay? A dependence
model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62-87.
Duck, S. (1987). H ow to lose friends without influencing people. In M. E. Roloff & G.
R. Miller (Eds.), lnterpersonalprocesses: New directions in communication research
(pp. 278-298). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Duck, S. (1994a). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Duck, S. (1994b). Stratagems, spoils and a tooth: On the delights and dilem-
mas of personal relationships. In W R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark
side of interpersonal communication (pp. 3-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Finello, K. (2000, November). Do you attract people rather repel? Self p. 134.
Fleming, J. H., & Darley, J. M. (1991). Mixed messages: The multiple audience prob-
lem and strategic communication. Social Cognition, 9, 25-46.
Fleming, J. H., Darley, J. M., Hilton, J. L., & Kojetin, B. A. (1990). Multiple audience
problem: A strategic communication perspective on social perception. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 593-609.
Fritz, J. M. H. (1997). Responses to unpleasant work relationships. Communication Re-
search Reports, 14, 302-311.
Fritz, J. M. H., & Omdahl, B. L. (1998, November). Effects of negative peer interactions
on organizational outcomes. Paper presented at the annual convention of
the National Communication Association, New York, NY.
Galvin, K. M., & Cooper, P J. (1990, June). Development of involuntary relationships:
The stepparent-stepchild relationship. Paper presented at the annual convention of
the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland.
Gottman, J. (1994). Why marriages fail. The Family Therapy Network, 41-48.
Greene, J. 0. (1984). Evaluating cognitive explanations of communication phenom-
ena. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 241-254.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hess, J. A. (2000). Maintaining nonvoluntary relationships with disliked partners: An
investigation into the use of distancing behaviors. Human Communication Research,
26, 458-488.
Hess, J. A. (in press). Distance regulation in personal relationships: The development
of a conceptual model and a test of representational validity. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships.
Hewitt, P L., & Flett, G. L. (1996). Personality traits and the coping process. In M.
Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications
(pp. 410-433). New York: Wiley.
5. MAINTAINING UNDESIRED RELATIONSHIPS +=a- 123
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. F., & Schaefer, J. A. (1996). Coping, stress resistance, and
growth: Conceptualizing adaptive functioning. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.),
Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 24-43). New York: Wiley.
Infante, D., & Wigley, III, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model
and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 6 1-69.
Johnson, M. I? (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms
of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psycholo-
gist, 39, 341-350.
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T L., Levinger, G.,
McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Analyzing close relation-
ships. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G.
Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships
(pp. 20-67). N ew York: W. H. Freeman.
Kinney, T. A. (1998). The psychosomatic effects of negative interactions. Psychoso-
matic Medicine, 60, 114.
Krippendorff, K. (1989). The power of communication and the communication of
power: Toward an emancipatory theory of communication. Communication, 12,
175-196.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1991). L ecus of control. In J. F! Robinson, P R. Shaver, & L. S.
Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol.
1, pp. 4 13-499). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lempert, L. B. (1997). The line in the sand: Definitional dialogues in abusive relation-
ships. In A. Strauss &J. Corbin (Eds.), G rounded theory in practice (pp. 147-l 70).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Levinger, G. A. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 2 7, 19-28.
Levinger, G. A. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Jour-
nal of Social Issues, 32, 2 l-47.
Levitt, M. J., Silver, M. E., & France, N. (1996). Troublesome relationships: A part of
human experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 523-536.
Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. W (2000). Motives to remain platonic, eq-
uity, and the use of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 67-94.
Newcomb, T. M. (1968). Interpersonal balance. In R. I? Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J.
McGuire, T M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, &I? H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of
cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 28-5 1). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Peterson, M. R. (1992). At personal risk: Boundary violations in professional-client re-
lationships. New York: W. W. Norton.
Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1996). In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.),
Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 434-451). New York: Wiley.
Precker, M. (2000, September 19). You bug me! Dallas Morning News, pp. lC-2C.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). G eneralized expectancies for internal versus external control of re-
inforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Rubin, Z. (1973). Likingandl oving: An invitation to social psychology. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.
Rusbult, C. E. (1987). R esp onses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The
“exit-voice-loyalty-neglect” model. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate rela-
tionships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 209-237). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
124 -c=+ HESS
*2
Maintaining -Distance
Relations a $35
Brooks A. Aylor
La Salle University
127
128 -e- AYLOR
WHAT IS AN LDR?
Controversy exists concerning how to measure distance relationships.
Those studying LDRs have generally taken one of three approaches to de-
fining them. The first approach is to use the number of miles separated to
distinguish between distance and geographically close relationships. That
is, researchers have established a minimum number of miles necessary for
a relationship to be operationalized as a distance relationship.
For example Carpenter and Knox (1986) operationalized LDRs as part-
ners separated by more than 100 miles, but Schwebel, Dunn, Moss, and
Renner (1992) established a criterion of only 50 miles separated. Still oth-
ers (e.g., Stafford & Reske, 1990) reported the average number of miles
separating partners in LDRs, yet did not report how they distinguished
LDRs from GCRs.
Others have specified geographical boundaries (e.g., state lines) to de-
fine an LDR. Instead of the miles that separate residences, these research-
ers have focused on the city or state of residence as the criterion to
determine distance relationships. Helgeson (1994), in her examination of
relational dissolution in LDRs, defined an LDR as one in which one partner
130 -t++ AYLOR
lives outside the city limits of the other residence, whereas Ste-
phen (1986) re q uired that partners live in different states or different
parts of the same state. Canary et al. (1993) defined LDRs as relationships
in which the partners lived in separate towns.
A third school of thought has been to allow respondents to define if the
relationship is a distance relationship, regardless of the number of miles or
geographic boundaries that separate partners. Some studies (e.g., Dainton
and Aylor, 2001) h ave included a question similar to the following:
A version of this approach was used by Ficara and Mongeau (2000). They
asked respondents to indicate if they were not able to see each other “as
much as they would like primarily due to geographic separation.” Maguire
(1999) allowed respondents to indicate “if they were unable to see each
other on a regular basis (e.g., daily or weekly) due to time and/or distance
constraints.” Guldner and Swensen (1995) posed the statement, “my part-
ner lives far enough away from me that it would be very difficult or impossi-
ble for me to see him or her every day.”
Researchers such as Dellman-Jenkins et al. (1993) argued that allowing re-
spondents to define if their relationship is a distance relationship is more valid
than “miles separated” or “geographic boundary” standards because a
self-defined approach “is based on definitions, and their own
sense of reality in dating situations. To paraphrase W I. Thomas: If people de-
fine a situation as real, it becomes real in its consequences (p. 2 13) .” As was
previously noted, “miles separated” standards vary considerably across stud-
ies. Additionally, respondents often have difficulty accurately reporting the
number of miles separating themselves. Thus, a strict application of a “miles
separated” criterion may not accurately measure all distance relationships.
Although most of this research has focused on GCRs, some research has
examined these characteristics in LDRs. Taken together, these findings
suggest that, contrary to popular opinion, individuals in LDRs experience
the same or even greater levels of satisfaction and commitment relative to
their GCR counterparts.
For example, Guldner and Swensen (1995) found no differences be-
tween those in LDRs and GCRs on satisfaction or commitment. Similarly,
Govaerts and Dixon (1988), in their study of commuter marriages, found
no significant differences in satisfaction between the two groups. Stafford
and Reske (1990) reported that individuals in LDRs were more satisfied
with and committed to the relationship (defined as more in love) than their
counterparts in GCRs. They argued that this might be explained by the
tendency of those in LDRs to idealize their partners due to restricted
face-to-face communication.
Although the majority of studies seem to suggest that LDR partners ex-
perience the same or greater levels of satisfaction and commitment, an ex-
ception was the work of Holt and Stone (1988). They reported negative
relationships between both distance apart and satisfaction and time be-
tween visits and satisfaction. Additionally, in a longitudinal study of
long-distance and geographically close marriages, Rindfuss and Stephen
(1990) found that couples that were geographically separated at the time
of the study were significantly more likely to be divorced after 3 years. It
should be noted, however, that the generalizability of these findings has
been questioned because much of the sample consisted of military cou-
ples, a population that experiences higher divorce rates than the general
population (Guldner & Swensen, 1995; Rohlfing, 1995).
In addition to satisfaction and commitment, Dainton and Kilmer
(1999) argued that trust is an important relational characteristic, particu-
larly among partners who are geographically separated. Less attention has
been given to trust relative to satisfaction and commitment in geographi-
cally close relationships, but research does suggest that trust is critical to
relational quality (Canary & Cupach, 1988) and is positively related to re-
lational maintenance (Canary & Stafford, 1993). Interestingly, as Dainton
and Kilmer (1999) noted, trust has rarely been a focus of studies of LDRs.
Westefeld and Liddell (1982), in their qualitative analysis of coping strate-
gies of partners in LDRs, did imply that trust was critical for the long-term
success of LDRs. But this relationship has not been empirically tested. This
is particularly puzzling given the geographical separation and increased un-
certainty levels in distance relationships.
In summary, research on relational characteristics in distance relation-
ships suggests an interesting paradox. On the one hand, LDR partners face
the previously mentioned challenges and unique relational demands rela-
tive to their GCR counterparts based on the nature of a distance relation-
ship. On the basis of this research, one might conclude that distance
132 +==+ AYLOR
Some years later, Holt and Stone (1998) and Wilmot and Carbaugh
(1986) performed quantitative examinations of the effectiveness of cer-
tain behaviors in LDRs. Holt and Stone suggested that two strategies were
effective in maintaining LDRs, including frequent visits and visualizing
(i.e., daydreaming about the partner). They noted that visualizing posi-
tively affected relational satisfaction among partners with a “preference
for visual or verbal response modes of cognitive processing” (p. 137) but
that frequent visits benefited partners regardless of processing modes.
Although more empirical in nature than the typology offered by
Westefeld and Liddell (1982), the scope of this investigation was limited
to two behaviors. It can also be argued that visiting partner is a general
6. LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS =a 133
Armour, S. (1998, November 23). Married . . . with separation: More couples live apart
as careers put miles between them. USA Today, C2-C4.
Aylor, B., & Dainton, M. (2002). Patterns of communication channel use in the mainte-
nance of long-distance relationships. Communication Research Reports, 19,
118-129.
Ayres, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and per-
ceived usage. Communication Quarterly, 31, 62-67.
Bell, R., Daly, J., & Gonzalez, M. (1987). Affinity-maintenance in marriage and its rela-
tionship to marital satisfaction. JournaZ of Marriage and the FumiZy, 49,
445-454.
Canary, D., & Cupach, W (1988). Relational and episodic characteristics associated
with conflict tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 305-325.
Canary, D., & Stafford, L. (1993). P reservation of relational characteristics: Mainte-
nance strategies, equity, and locus of control. In P J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal
communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 237-259). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Canary, D., Stafford, L., Hause, K., &Wallace, L. (1993). An inductive analysis of rela-
tional maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives, friends, and
others. Communication Research Reports, 10, 5-l 4.
Carpenter, D., & Knox, D. (1986). Relationship maintenance of college students sepa-
rated during courtship. College Student Journal, 28, 86-88.
Clemente, F?(1998). The state of the Net: The newfrontier. New York: McGraw-Hill.
138 +=+ AYLOR
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, &
maintenance in long-distance versus geographically close relationships. Communi-
cation Quarterly, 49, 172-l 88.
Dainton, M., & Kilmer, H. (1999). Satisfaction, commitment, trust and expectations in
the maintenance of long-distance versus geographically-close relationships. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association;
Chicago.
Dainton, M, Stafford, L., & Canary, D. (1994). Maintenance strategies and physical af-
fection as predictors of love, liking, and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Re-
ports, 7, 88-98.
Dellmann-Jenkins, M., Bernard-Paolucci, T., & Rushing, B. (1993). Does distance
make the heart grow fonder? A comparison of college students in long-distance and
geographically-close dating relationships. College Student Journal, IO, 2 12-2 19.
Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital rela-
tionships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143-158.
Dindia, K., & Canary, D. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintain-
ing relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 163-l 73.
Duck, S. (1988). Relating to others. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Ficara, L., & Mongeau, I? (2000, November). Relational uncertainty in long-distance
college student dating relationships. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
National Communication Association; Seattle, WA.
Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. (1984). Commuter marriages: A study of work and family.
New York: Guilford Press.
Govaerts, K., & Dixon, D. (1988). “. . . Until careers do us part”: Vocational and marital
satisfaction in the dual-career commuter marriage. international Journal for the Ad-
vancement of Counseling, 11, 265-28 1.
Guldner, G., & Swensen, C. (1995). T ime spent together and relationship quality:
Long-distance relationships as a test case. Journal of social and Personal Relation-
ships, 12, 313-320.
Helgeson, V (1994). Long-distance romantic relationships: Sex differences in adjust-
ment and breakup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 254-265.
Holt, I?, & Stone, G. (1988). Needs, coping strategies, and coping outcomes associated
with long-distance relationships. Journal of College student Development, 29,
136-141.
Knox, D. (1992). Ch oices in relationships. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
Lloyd, S., Cate, R., & Henton, J. (1984). Predicting premarital relationship stability: A
methodological refinement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 71-76.
Lund, M. (1985). Th e d evelopment of investment and commitment scales for predict-
ing continuity of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
2, 3-23.
Maguire, K. (1999). Does distance make the heart work harder? A comparison of the
maintenance strategies of long-distance and proximal relationships. Paper presented
at the annual conference of the National Communication Association; Chicago.
Maines, J. (1994). Long-distance romances. American Demographics, IS, 47.
Rindfuss, R., & Stephen, E. (1990). Marital noncohabitation: Separation does not make
the heart grow fonder. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 259-270.
Rohlfing, M. (1995). anybody stay in one place anymore?” An exploration of
the under-studied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In J. Wood & S.
Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 173-196).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS +=a 139
Michael K. Rabby
The University of Central Florida
Joseph B. Walther
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
shadowing voice within the next 15 years. Yet communication via e-mail
seems exotic to those just discovering it, banal to those who have used it for
a while, and acts as a lifeline to those who use it on a daily basis to commu-
nicate with others at work and home.
Although e-mail has not achieved the universality that the telephone
has, the signs point to a similar pattern of assimilation. For example, people
presumed both would have dehumanizing effects at first, but that has not
proven to be the case. As Mitchell (1995) noted, “Telephony did not re-
place face-to-face contact.. . . Rather, it created a new form of contact; it
extended and redefined the sphere of interaction and cohabitation” (p.
35). Scholars are only starting to construct the introduction in the tome of
research on CMC. As with the telephone, early theories about CMC, such
as the cues-filtered-out approaches (Culnan & Markus, 1987), assumed
that CMC would be less socially oriented and personal then face-to-face
communication. However, this has not proven true. In fact, communica-
tion via the Internet often reaches levels referred to as hyperpersond com-
munication: communication that is more intimate and sociable than that
found in equivalent, offline interactions (Walther, 1996).
With the movement toward increasing use, CMC has proven to be a valu-
able tool for many people to initiate, develop, and maintain relationships.
CMC offers people a venue through which they can meet new people with
whom they share similar interests (Rintel & Pittam, 1997). Often, people
meet and form relationships online that hold great importance in their lives
(Turkle, 1995). CMC h as also provided a new forum for people to maintain
previously established relationships with friends and family (Rabby, 1997).
This chapter focuses on the ways that CMC affects personal relation-
ships. We will review how CMC affords new ways to meet people to form
relationships, and affects the way they come to know one another. The
manner. in which relationships develop is subject to some similarities and
some differences than the trajectories of face-to-face dynamics, which
some research has described, although not in ways that entirely fit with a
focus on personal relations. Finally, this chapter examines how CMC may
be used in the maintenance of ongoing relationships-its role and
evaluation of its potency-and in social support online.
1998), e-mail (Stafford, Kline, & Dimmick, 1999), and Internet Relay Chat
or IRC (Rintel & Pittam, 1997). One distinction that can be made among
these forms is that some are asynchronous and others are synchronous.
Asynchronous forms are those in which the message sender and message
reader are not online at the same time, where there is some kind of
store-and-forward capacity. The most common of these is e-mail, a comput-
erized letter delivered instantly to another person at the choosing,
but that is read by the receiver at his or her convenience. Usenet
Newsgroups are a second type of asynchronous channel. These consist of a
series of electronic bulletin boards that enable people to post messages on a
wide variety of topics, which can be read by as many as thousands of other
people. To communicate on Usenet, instead of communicating to specified
addressees, one posts a message to the topic, that is, for anybody who can ac-
cess it in a public forum. Other types of asynchronous bulletin boards are be-
coming common via Web sites, for facilitating group discussion.
Synchronous, or real-time CMC, includes chat rooms and MUDS/
MOOS. Like newsgroups, chatrooms remain open to anybody who can ac-
cess them, may be topically organized, and are text-based. Chatrooms ap-
pear in a variety of forms, such as IRC and in proprietary systems like
America Online. As a user types a message on the screen, and sends it to
the system, the message appears to all others connected to the same virtual
space. MUDS are game-oriented participatory chats, with rich text-based
descriptions of rooms and scenes. They feature programmable objects
(represented in text), and text-based descriptions each player selects as
users compete or socialize with one another. MOOS, similarly, feature de-
scriptions of architecture and decor, as well as other players, although
MOOS tend to be more oriented to socializing than game playing.
Instant messaging services represent a recent addition to the family of
synchronous CMC media. Popularized by the ICQ network and the AOL
Instant Messenger service, instant messaging combines features of e-mail
and chatrooms. Instant messaging is frequently used as a one-to-one me-
dium. Like a chatroom, communication occurs in real time if both parties
are present. Instant messaging lets users know instantly when messages ap-
pear for them, allowing them to respond to partners immediately. It also
lets one know who among friends are online at a given time.
Not all of these types of CMC are the same, although research has paid insuf-
ficient attention to the effects that the differences among them may have (see
Nass & Mason, 1990). One distinction mentioned earlier is the degree of syn-
chrony and asynchrony. Although more research is needed, one study has
found, insofar as relational communication is concerned, that synchronous
I++ += RABBYAND WALTHER
The first role that CMC serves in relationships is that of a medium for ini-
tial exchange. Although many relationships that begin online migrate
offline, the majority of the research in this area has explored entirely pure
virtual relationships. Some scholars such as Wellman (1994) have explored
the possibilities of strong communities rising up in the wake of online inter-
action. Wellman et al. (1996) suggested that the Internet has replaced the
semiprivate meeting spaces of coffee shops, cafes, pubs, and parks. Now,
people interface with each other entirely in private. Entire communities
7. RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE VIA CMC ++t- 143
have formed as a byproduct of the Internet and other types of CMC (e.g.
Baym, 1997; Curtis, 1997; Parks & Roberts, 1998; Sproull & Faraj, 1997).
Within these communities, personal relationships frequently emerge.
In a virtual community we can go directly to the place where our favorite sub-
jects are being discussed, then get acquainted with people who share our passions
. . . Your chances of making friends are magnified by orders of magnitude over the
old methods of finding a peer group. (p. 27)
The presence of online relationship formation is, on the one hand, no sur-
prise; Parks and Floyd (1996) concluded that the Internet provides just an-
other place to meet and talk, like so many venues in the offline world. On
the other hand, it is still a curious idea that people may develop relation-
ships in an environment in which they cannot see, hear, or verify the physi-
cal existence of their partners. Although not theoretically necessary for
7. RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE VIA CMC 3t. 147
ers have few alternatives when it comes to finding out about each other,
aside from such interrogatives and self-disclosures, although doing so
nevertheless involves a greater degree of intimacy than FtF strangers
have reason to develop. These initial, innocuous exchanges may be the
foundation for the intensity that some online relationships acquire.
Despite the differences in the how people initially meet, if the relational
partners feel close enough to each other they will use a variety of media and
even FtF contact to maintain their relationships. In fact, the development
of relationships online may simply be temporally retarded in comparison
to FtF relationship development. At this point, research on CMC as both a
primary means of communication, and as a supplement, starts to overlap.
Given the shifting dynamics of CMC, it is not surprising that the com-
munication strategies that people use in CMC also vary. The one consis-
tent feature of all types of CMC is the lack of formal rules. Some
informal rules do hold throughout a variety of CMC. For example, when
a person shouts (WRITING EVERYTHING IN ALL CAPITAL LET-
TERS), it is said to indicate anger. However, other communication be-
haviors do not carry such universal meanings, such as writing in all
lower-case letters. To some, this indicates laziness and powerlessness.
In other cases, such as between two close friends, it translates more pos-
itively. Likewise, the well-known group of emoticons, or typed-out,
sideways representations of facial expressions, are almost universally
described as functioning like nonverbal behavior and substituting for
the comparative lack of nonverbal cues that is part of CMC. Recent re-
search has found, however, that despite highly consensual recognition
among CMC users of the semantic meanings associated with several
emoticons, they have very little syntactic effect on message interpreta-
tion. That is, in combination with affectively valenced verbal messages,
they do not consistently add positive or negative meaning. Rather, a
negativity effect obtains: A negatively-valenced verbal message or a neg-
ative (frowning) emoticon skews message interpretation negatively,
whereas positive emoticons (smiles, winks) have no combinatorial ef-
fect (Walther & 2001). Other language and cue variations
that have potency in the offline world also resonate online. For instance,
Selfe and Meyer (199 1) d emonstrated that the linguistic patterns tradi-
tionally associated with power and status are also conveyed in
text-based CMC. Adkins and Brashers (1995) demonstrated that such
powerful versus powerless speech variations affect interpersonal im-
pressions online. Users of powerless language (operationalized as
7. RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE VIA CMC +=a- 14?
hedges, qualifiers, and tag questions) were perceived as less credible, at-
tractive, and persuasive than users of powerful language.
Different politeness, or face-saving strategies are also present in online
discussions (Hiemstra, 1982). Witt, Wheeless, Reyna, and Swigger (2000)
found that variations in verbal immediacy corresponded to ratings of
conversational effectiveness. The time of day at which messages
are sent, and the speediness of replies interact with message content to af-
fect the perceived dominance/submissiveness and intimacy of e-mail ex-
changes walther & Tidwell, 1995). F or instance, an affectionate e-mail
message sent after normal business hours conveys greater intimacy than it
does as if sent during the day, whereas an e-mail task request sent at night
conveys more dominance than a daytime task request.
Perhaps the most distinctive differences in the ways that people com-
municate occur in asynchronous communication and synchronous com-
munication. In asynchronous types of CMC, the user has the
opportunity to carefully construct the message and can even edit and
change it at well before sending it. Thus, e-mail messages are frequently
well organized and contemplated. At other times, they have sentences
that would sound appropriate orally but not written. As one sender
wrote in an e-mail: “On Monday Bob and I are going to the Bush concert
then on Thursday I turn 21 but I really wait for the semester to be
over.” This reflects the conversational tone that many messages take.
Ferrara, Brunner, and Whittemore (1991) identified the tone of CMC
as featuring an emergent register- a hybrid form of language between
spoken and written prose.
In synchronous communication, the rules vary even more. People often
talk in fragments, and ignore punctuation except when they want to indi-
cate emphasis. Rintel and Pittam (1998) published several excerpts from
dialogues in a public IRC room, and discovered numerous instances of this.
In this excerpt, they show an IRC member exiting an interaction:
Other research has revealed that exaggerated intimacy can become part
of the fun of online interaction. Just as flaming may become a norm in some
online groups (Lea, Fung, & Spears, 1992), so may signals of affec-
tion. In the groups studied in Walther and (1992) research, it be-
came common for one group to sign each message with the and
signifying hugs and kisses; another group signed, “Love, Kara,” or whatever
their names were. Although clearly jocular in tone, no such jocular affec-
tion was exchanged in parallel FtF groups. The question arises as to what
effect, if any, these stylistic differences have on relationships. In other
words, how does this tendency to exaggerate emotional messages in CMC
influence the relationship? Although research still awaits, it seems reason-
able to expect some effect. The major theories that describe relational ef-
fects of CMC are consistent with this expectation.
The SIDE theory of CMC (Lea & Spears, 1992; Spears & Lea, 1994) ex-
amines the development of relationships online not as interpersonal ones,
but as social relationships. This distinction, which is often overlooked in re-
lationships research (cf. Sanders, 1997), is a fundamental one in SIDE. Lea
and Spears defined interpersonal cues as those cues that distinguish one
person from another. Such cues are most apparent in FtF interaction visu-
ally; that is, when we see another person, it is immediately apparent that
the target person is individually different from oneself. Because CMC is, in
most cases, visually anonymous-that is, it does not present visual, identi-
fying cues-CMC users can become deindivuated online. The
deindividuation dynamic interacts with whatever identity may be most sa-
lient to a communicator. Whether that identity is role-based or based on
some salient social category (e.g., both students, both Dutch, etc.), if it is a
social rather than an individually oriented identity, we experience greater
attraction to others who share that identity. On the other hand, when the
salient identity is individualistic-one is aware of onesself as an individual
and is looking for individual differences in others online-the
deindividuation dynamic is muted, or even leads to dislike or disparage-
ment of the other (since we generally like similar and dislike dissimilar oth-
ers). Moreover, when a common social identity is active, CMC
participants more closely adhere to the norms of the group, and value those
who reciprocate those norms.
The SIDE approach has been used to explain how CMC participants,
especially in groups (and more especially where there is an outgroup as
well as an ingroup) become attracted to one another. It is important to
note, however, that this attraction is considered to be social in nature-so-
cial attraction-rather than interpersonal attraction: One is just as at-
tracted to any member of the group, and the members are essentially
7. RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE VIA CMC =a 131
H~perpersona~ CMC
Using salient social identities as a starting point that can lead to an elec-
tronic personal relationship, the Hyperpersonal Perspective (Walther,
1996) draws together several theories to explain how online relations
may become particularly intense and intimate. Acknowledging SIDE
theory, it is expected that users make overattributions about their online
partners, and when facilitating conditions are present (e.g., expected fu-
ture interaction, and some perceived similarity), users “fill in the blanks”
in desirable ways, interpreting messages favorably and constructing com-
mensurate impressions of online partners. When creating messages,
CMC users are posited to engage in selective self-presentation. A wired
variant of normal, offline impression management, the selectivity of
CMC affords communicators even greater leverage than FtF interaction
does. Online one can present oneself as one wishes, withholding or re-
vealing what they want, when they want. Moreover, users may refocus
their cognitive efforts to the task of writing, ignoring the ambient stimuli,
turn-taking, physical self-monitoring, and other tasks that accompany
FtF communication. The channel allows them to stop and choose
phrases, and to edit and rewrite in a way that FtF interaction does not.
Finally, the reciprocal influences of idealized perception and selective
presentation may create a self-confirming prophecy among sender and
receiver, leading to unexpected reward and intensity. This perspective
has received some confirmation in educational and group settings (e.g.,
Chester & Gwynne, 1998; Walther, 1997), and its approach suggests that
it should pertain in dyadic personal relations, albeit empirical verification
in the latter domain still awaits.
A recent test in the context of groups shows promise across domains,
however. Walther, Slovacek, and Tidwell(2001) examined whether CMC
152 +s+ RABBYAND WALTHER
partners sustained greater intimacy and attraction when they got to know
each other over time through electronic text alone, or whether photo-
graphs of their partners either helped or hindered their affinity. Reasoning
that short-term partners needed a head start but that long-term partners
would achieve hyperpersonality via text, half of some long-term groups
and short-term groups were shown photos of one another prior to an online
discussion, whereas the other half of the long-term and short-term groups
saw only text. Results revealed that the short-term partners achieved
greater intimacy and attraction with a photo but that the long-term part-
ners had less. Overall, the greatest affinity was achieved among those
long-term partners who never saw each other. The old aphorism that “a
picture is worth a thousand words” seems not to be the case when it comes
to relationships online.
Although CMC may be surprisingly useful for forming intimacy on-
line, CMC may not seem as useful to those for whom relationships origi-
nate offline. There appears to be a self-serving bias in the evaluation of
CMC as a method to get to know someone, based on where the relation-
ship began. In unpublished research by Dodds, Frost, Knudson, Smith,
and Thompson (1995), a questionnaire was posted for members of an
electronic discussion list for persons in long-distance relationships who
used CMC to keep in touch with their partners. Thirty participants re-
plied, 44% of whom were male, and 56%, female. Two-thirds of the par-
ticipants had first met their partners online, whereas the other third met
offline; all used e-mail as the primary method of communication with
their partners at the time of the study. The way in which the relationship
started had significant effects on evaluation of CMC and
their beliefs about relationships. Those who met their partners via the
Internet more strongly agreed with the statement, “on-line relationships
feel just as real as relationships I have had off-line,” than did those who
met offline. Likewise, they felt more strongly that “it is good that e-mail
offers the opportunity of getting to know character before any
physical involvement, ” than did those who met conventionally. Those
who met online were more likely to disagree with the statement, “you
cannot realistically say that you love someone who you have never met in
real life.” Ironically, the origination bias seemed to drop when asked
about the potential for misunderstanding: It was those who had met FtF
who more strongly agreed with the statement, “there is more opportu-
nity for misunderstanding in the physical presence of a loved one than
there is via E-mail.” These responses suggest that the hyperpersonal at-
traction potential of CMC may not be universal, but tightly bounded to
strictly or originally virtual relationships. To the extent that it brings
added dimensions to the maintenance of existing relationships is unclear.
At the same time, the message management aspects of CMC appeal to
those in a variety of relational contexts (see also Walther & Boyd, 2002).
7. RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE VIA CMC -+ 153
CMC AS A SUPPLEMENT:
RW-ATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE
[ G]uess what I got in the mail yesterday? it was an easter card from me to richard
in san francisco. it was return to sender - wrong address. that really sucks. i re-
cently asked him if his address was still the same and he told me it was. i try to
keep in touch and look what happens? i think i am going to write you any-
more either . . . just kidding?
Simply put, people avoid each other by not communicating, which then
signals avoidance and antisocialness.
This emphasis on the positive, proactive relational maintenance strate-
gies also comports with (1986) study, which suggests that peo-
ple tend to idealize their long-distance relationships. The potential for the
distanciation imposed by CMC has a similar effect, at least in personal rela-
tionships. When one communicates largely through e-mail he or she loses
the sense of that bad manners, slow speech, frequent cursing, and
other undesirable habits.
In essence, the content of these messages held no real surprises. In these
cases the messages used in CMC resembled the messages used in FtF inter-
actions. The relational partners know each other, they have already formed
7. RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE VIA CMC -+t- 135
CONCLUSIONS
Although scholars have only begun to explore relationships that use CMC
as well as the influence it has on relational maintenance strategies, some in-
formation about the nature of CMC interactions and their contributions to
relational maintenance emerges.
First, from one perspective, despite some unique features, there is re-
ally nothing radical about CMC. It simply offers people another opportu-
156 -I+- RABBYAND WALTHER
nity to meet and communicate with others. Given that CMC can often
represent simply another context in which people can maintain their rela-
tionships, it is not too surprising that behaviors do not deviate much from
the behaviors exhibited in other contexts. CMC might be more notable for
its banality than anything else. Very often, the messages contain recount-
ing of daily life, such as in this example: “I am going to one of con-
certs tonight. He plays in the Blue Band and some concert band. Anyways,
the concert is outside and if it rains, which it is right now, we have to
go. Other than that, everything is same old-same old.”
Most CMC interactions in developed relationships tend to involve mi-
nor issues. The evidence thus far indicates that major relational events
(e.g., conflict) are usually reserved for other types of media and FtF inter-
actions.
Yet in other respects, CMC turns relationship processes upside down. It
is conventionally inconceivable to start a conversation with a stranger be-
fore having seen the person, at least without some telecommunication.
Well-known theories about impression and relationship formation such as
Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) are premised
in face-to-face contact. The potency of interpersonal revelations and dis-
coveries -whether in new or existing relationships-may take greater
weight online without the usual nonverbal mechanisms to buffer them.
And such surprises may be just as likely constitute enticements as frustra-
tions, as seen in this e-mail message captured midway through a virtual stu-
dent project in Walther (1997):
Hey Mayte, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to compile the reading list
for everyone. By the way, this may sound crazy, but you a guy? We tell
from your name; the “Oliver” part looks masculine, but the “bel” nickname could be
feminine. Sorry for such an offensive question. I guess that when you mentioned
naked, I just stand the suspense any longer. Erica (p. 365)
The adjustment that people make to these ambiguous situations will re-
main a phenomenon to track as researchers continue to unfurl the dynam-
ics of interpersonal relationships.
The specific roles that CMC play in relationships continue to increase
and change. The literature thus far has barely scratched the surface of the
specific role that e-mail and other forms of CMC play in relationships.
Stafford et al. (1999) reported that people use e-mail from home for four
primary reasons: interpersonal relationships, gratification opportunities,
personal gain (e.g., learning and information exchange), and business rea-
sons. Participants in (1997) study noted the advantages of using
e-mail over the telephone. They suggested that the low-cost of the me-
dium was the greatest advantage (52.9%). Other popular answers included
convenience (17.9%), the ease with which it allows one to keep in touch
7. RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE VIA CMC 3L
with people (8.8%), and the ability to manipulate text (5.9%). It is not the
characteristics of the medium that people consider an advantage of using
the medium. Instead, the atheoretical and pragmatic reasons of low-cost
and convenience hold the appeal for most.
The precedent of these pragmatic reasons over preferential reasons is
also visible when researchers have investigated what people would
choose if price was no object. With all things being equal, people tend to
indicate they will choose as rich a medium as possible. Sellen (1995)
noted this when she compared satisfaction with long-distance meetings
conducted using audio and visual communication versus audio-only
equipment. She found that, although both were relatively equivalent in
terms of how people handled interactions when using them, participants
felt the video component was important for conversation, and given a
choice, would choose to include it.
Despite how people say they feel, actual usage may depart from such ide-
als. In other domains of CMC research, participants also consistently rate
face-to-face, or at least the telephone, superior to text-based messages for
interpersonally involving encounters. Yet such findings are consistent only
amongprojective tests, that is, questionnaire studies that ask respondents to
indicate what medium would be best to use, given a full range of choices for
every situation (Rice, 1993). Studies that actually observe media selection in
organizations almost never support what the projective tests suggest (e.g.
Fulk, Schmitz, & Ryu, 1995; Markus 1994a), and find instead that users se-
lect media opportunistically, or based on local social conventions that
emerge in specific relationships. Where a medium might be lean, they work
to make it richer (e.g. Markus, 1994b). M oreover, studies of personal media
such as the AT&T Picturephone (Noll, 1992) have concluded that, although
people like to see others, they do not like being seen, for routine communi-
cation. There seems to be a symbolic component to what media are best and
most personal-the more cues the better-which does not stand up to the
demands of the moment when people cannot be in each presence,
cannot be available to talk at the same time, or can not afford the gas, time,
airfare, or phone bill that would make such choices actionable.
Ironically, despite the avowed preference for higher-bandwidth media,
CMC may nevertheless contribute to more intimate and satisfying rela-
tionships than richer media or face-to-face conversations. Despite its
lower preference rating, the dynamics of CMC might improve relations,
perhaps unbeknownst to its users. It appears that people, aware of
shortcomings but less cognizant of its benefits, overaccommodate in stra-
tegic and highly coded ways the potential weaknesses of the medium.
Users, not systems, are what make a medium rich or lean.
The contemporary questions have to do with whether the unique prop-
erties of CMC enhance, diminish, or otherwise alter the dynamics of these
158 +a RABBYAND WALTHER
Canary, D. J., Stafford, L. S., Hause, K. S., &Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analy-
sis of relational maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives,
friends, and others. Communication Research Reports, IO, 5-14.
Chester, A., & Gwynne, G. (1998). 0 n 1ine teaching: Encouraging collaboration through
anonymity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(2). Retrieved Decem-
ber 1, 2000, from: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue2/chester.html
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1997). Th e in d ness of strangers: On the use-
fulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the
Internet (pp. 303-322). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). I n f ormation technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.
Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W Porter (Eds.),Handbook of organizational communi-
cation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420-443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Curtis, P (1998). Mudding: S ocial phenomena in test-based virtual realities. In S.
Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 121-142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cutlip, J ., Friedman, R., & Wolicki, J. S. (1996, J anuary 22). The joys and drawbacks of
e-mail. LegaZ Times, S32.
Dodds, D., Frost, K., Knudson, K., Smith, J., & Thompson, S. (1995). Investigating the
phenomenon of on-line relationships: A review and questionnaire study. Unpublished
paper, University of Manchester at Northwestern University.
Duck, S. (1994). Steady as (s) he goes: Relational maintenance as a shared meaning sys-
tem. In D. J. Canary & L. S. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational mainte-
nance (pp. 45-60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an
emergent register. Written Communication, 8, 8-34.
Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Ryu, D. (1995). Cognitive elements in the social construction of
technology. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 259-288.
Gunn, D. O., & Gunn, C. W (2000, September). The quality of electronically main-
tained relationships. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of
Internet Researchers; Lawrence, KS.
Hiemstra, G. (1982). Teleconferencing, concern for face, and organizational culture. In M.
Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 6 (pp. 874-904). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jacobson, D. (1999). Impression formation in cyberspace: Online expectations and
offline experiences in text-based virtual communities. Journal of Com-
puter-Mediated Communication, .5(l). Retrieved January 3 1, 2001, from:
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issuel/jacobson.html
Johansen, R., DeGrasse, R., & Wilson, T. (1978). Group communication through com-
puters: Vole. 5. Effects on workingpatterns. Menlo Park, CA: Institute for the Future.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-
mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 32 l-34 1.
Lea, M., T., Fung, I?, & Spears, R. (1992). “Flaming” in computer-mediated
communication: Observations, explanations, implications. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts
of computer-mediated communication (pp. 89-112). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Markus, M. L. (1994a). El ec t ronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organiza-
tion Science, 5, 502-527.
Markus, M. L. (1994b). Finding a happy medium: Explaining the negative effects of
electronic communication on social life at work. ACM Transactions on Information
Systems, 12, 119-l 49.
Merkle, E. R., & Richardson, R. A. (2000). Digital dating and virtual relating: Concep-
tualizing computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations, 49.
187-192.
7. RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE VIA CMC s=+ 161
Mitchell, VI! J. (1995). City of bits: Space, place, and the infobahn. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Nass, C., & Mason, L. (1990). On the study of technology and task: A variable-based
approach. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication tech-
nology (pp. 46-67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf.
Noll, A. M. (1992). Anatomy of a failure: Picturephone revisited. Telecommunications
Policy, 16, 307-316.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communica-
tion, 46, 80-97.
Parks, M. R., & Roberts, L. D. (1998). ‘Making The development of personal
relationships on-line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of So-
cial and Personal ReLationships, 1.5, 517-537.
Pew Research Center. (2000). Tracking online life: How women use the Internet to culti-
vate relationships with family and friends. Retrieved May 10, 2000, from: http://
www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report= 11
Rabby, M. K. (1997, N ovember). Maintaining relationships via electronic mail. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chi-
cago, IL.
Rheingold, H. (1993). Th e virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Rice, R. E. (1987). New patterns of social structure in an information society. In J. R.
Schement & L. Lievrouw (Eds.), Competing visions, complex realities: Social aspects
of the information society (pp. 107-l 20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare
traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19,
45 l-484.
Rintel, E. S., & Pittam, J. (1997). Strangers in a strange land: Interaction management
on Internet Relay Chat. Human Communication Research, 23, 507-534.
Roberts, L. D., Smith, L. M., & Pollack, C. (1996, September). A model of social inter-
action via computer-mediated communication in real-time text-based virtual envi-
ronments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Psychological
Society, Sydney, Australia.
Sanders, R. E. (1997). Find y our partner and do-G-do: The formation of personal rela-
tionships between social beings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14,
387-415.
Selfe, C. L., & Meyer, P R. (1991). Testing claims for on-line conferences. Written
Communication, 8, 163-l 92.
Sellen, A. J. (1995). R emote conversations: The effects of mediating talk with technol-
ogy. Human-Computer Interaction, 10, 401-444.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or Panopticon? The hidden power in computer-
mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
Sproull, L., & Faraj, S. (1997). Atheism, sex, and databases: The net as a social technol-
ogy. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture ofthe Internet (pp. 35-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Stafford, L. S., Kline, S. L., Dimmick, J. (1999). H ome e-mail: Relational maintenance
and gratification opportunities. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43,
659-669.
Stafford, L. S., & Reske, J. R. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance
relationships. Family Relations, 39, 274-279.
102 -ii=+ RABBYAND WALTHER
Vincent R. Waldron
Arizona State University West
I was friends with my supervisor and had a pretty good relationship with this
other employee and his family. We had all worked together for several years,
through some challenging times, helping each other out, kind of like a team.
When he (the other employee) got a bad review and protested it, I was in the
middle and know what to do. Who should I stick-up for? What would the
other employees think if I defended him but not them? I had to be careful be-
cause the supervisor was my friend, but she was my boss too! The other em-
ployee ended up not talking with me anymore. He ended up leaving and partly
blamed me for a lack of loyalty to him. I lost my friendship with him and his wife.
They never even invited me to their house after that. It took a long time for things
to become “normal” again around the office.
--Wald?-on (2002)
Power Differences
Networks
Any given work relationship is nested within a complex system of vertical
and horizontal networks. The communication of co-worker peers is influ-
enced in part by their individual relationships with those in power and
their perception of the supervisory relationships their peers enjoy (Sias &
Jablin, 1995). Who is in favor? Who can I trust? Also, the rela-
tionship with his or her leader has consequences for the larger Workgroup
(Lee, 1998a, W aId ron & Hunt, 1992). Will positive or negative career con-
sequences flow from a close association with the boss? Lee (1997) demon-
strated the importance of this updated version of the Pelz effect on peer
communication patterns. Finally, the networked nature of organizational
communication means that relationship maintenance is not merely a
dyadic process; it extends to the maintenance of informal information net-
works and power-enhancing coalitions (Albecht & Hall, 199 1; Waldron,
1999). Employees must tend to a far-flung web of, sometimes, involuntary
relationships, the characteristics of which are determined in part by the
work they do.
?-askcharacteristics
Indeed, task characteristics enhance or constrain opportunities for un-
scripted communication (Waldron, 1994). Simple, well-defined, com-
partmentalized tasks (e.g., assembly work) may reduce
motivation and opportunity for relationship-sustaining interaction. Of
course, some manufacturing environments create opportunities for social
interaction as well, particularly if the task lends itself to small talk among
peers (Waldron, Foreman, & Miller, 1993). In contrast, complex, ambigu-
ous, or interdependent tasks can magnify the importance of relationships
with co-workers and supervisors (Thacker &Wayne, 1995). The quality of
maintenance communication, particularly the degree to which it can occur
opportunistically, is a product of work arrangement. In some workplaces
(e.g., credit card processing centers) the ratio of supervisors to workers can
be quite large, and informal relationship talk with supervisor is al-
most impossible. The relationship is instead based on formal reporting
(Waldron, 199 1). Yet, when work is organized around small creative teams
(i.e., advertising agencies), maintenance of relationships is largely infor-
mal, and absolutely critical to team success (Graen & Wakabayashi, 1994).
Procedural Structure
and final approach concerns the management of identity and social roles.
From this point of view, relationship maintenance is integrated with the
larger process of preserving work roles and avoiding threats to the
self-definitions offered by others. These four theoretical perspectives are
considered in more detail below.
Escalating Situations
Lee & Jablin (1995) Avoidance of 1. I sit as far away as possible in meetings
Interaction 2. I Plan my schedule so as not to encounter him/her
Procrastination 1. I tell him/her that I need more time to think about a matter
2. I tell him/her when it is not a good time for me to help him/her
Deteriorating
Situations
Direct/Open 1. In a nonthreatening manner, I let him/her know that there will be negative
consequences if things change
2. I speak up when I felt treated unjustly
Routine Situations
Lee (1997,1998a, 1998b; Lee & Jablin, 1995) examined tactics used in
deteriorating, escalating, and stable supervisory relationships. As can be
seen in Table 8.1, these two independent lines of research yield fairly con-
sistent tactic categories. However, list of tactics is more extensive
and reported at a finer level of granularity. Such tactics as conversational
refocusing, distortion, and circumspection (Lee & Jablin, 1995) add be-
havioral detail to the Regulative category proposed by Waldron (199 1). As
is common in taxonomic research, differences in grouping terms and level
of analysis account for much of the variance in maintenance behaviors re-
ported in these studies. For example, Small Tulle tactic resembles one
of the behaviors associated with PersonaZ/Informal category.
work makes clear that the occurrence of certain maintenance tactics
depends on the state of the supervisory relationship and the re-
lational intentions. For example, in escalating situations, in which a super-
visor sought to personalize the relationship beyond the
comfort level, a distinct set of tactics emerged. In such cases, the members
forestalled escalation through procrastination and conversational refocus-
ing. These tactics were less evident when the relationship was perceived to
be stable or deescalating.
Career Advancement
Sexual Harassment
well-Beingand.satisFaction
Maintenance communication at work may be associated with personal
well-being, work satisfaction, and a favorable psychological climate
(Odden & Sias, 1997). Stable, supportive relationships with co-workers
can provide a protective buffer when employees are faced with stressful
tasks, personal trauma, burn out, or difficult co-workers (cf., Sias &
Cahill, 1998). The potentially turbulent processes of accepting new work
roles and workplace changes may be eased for individuals who have main-
tained supportive work relationships (K-am & Isabella, 1985; Kramer,
1995, 1996). Indeed, f or some, the maintenance of friendships with
co-workers may be among the most important motives for remaining in a
particular job.
Organizational Outcomes
CONCLUSIONS
The literature reviewed thus far lends itself to several conclusions regard-
ing relationship maintenance tactics and outcomes. After discussing sev-
eral of these conclusions here, directions are presented for new research in
the next sclctinn.
$78 +== WALDRON
l=UTURlE DIRlECTlONS
Theory Development
Albrecht, T. A., & Hall, B. (1991). Facilitating talk about new ideas: The role of personal
relationships in organizational innovation. Communication Monographs, 58,
273-289.
Atwater, L., Roush, I?, & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on self
and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48, 35-59.
Ayers, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and per-
ceived usage. Communication Quarterly, 3 1, 62-67.
Barker, J. B. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437.
Barry, B. &Watson, M. R. (1996). C ommunication aspects of dyadic social influence in
organizations: A review and integration of conceptual and empirical developments.
Communication Yearbook 19, 269-3 17.
Canary, D., & Stafford, L. (1994). C ommunication and relationship maintenance. New
York: Academic Press.
Cox, S. (1999). Group communication and employee turnover: How co-workers en-
courage peers to voluntarily exit. Southern Communication Journal, 64, 18 l-l 92.
Dreher, G., Dougherty, T., & Whitely, W (1989). I n fl uence tactics and salary attain-
ment: A gender-specific analysis. Sex Roles, 20, 535-550.
Fine, G. A. (1986). F riendships in the workplace. In V I. Derlaga & B. A. Winstead
(Eds.), Friendship and social interaction (pp. 185-206). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Fineman, S. (2000). Emotion in organizations (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-
analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 54-70.
Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Devei-
opment of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory over 25 years: Applying a
multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 2 19-247.
Graen, G., & Wakabayashi, M. (1994). Cross-cultural leadership-making: Bridging
American and Japanese diversity for team advantage. In H. C. Triandis, M. D.
8. WORKSETTINGS -+- 183
Tara M. Emmers-Sommer
University of Arizona
The author wishes to thank Rachel Rainwater McClure for her assistance with this chapter and
Dan Canary and Marianne Dainton for their very helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this
chapter.
186 -ii=+ EMMERS-SOMMER
ists: If we value and cherish our close relationships, why would we threaten
their maintenance?
According to Miller (1997), several sources of ammunition exist that in-
fluence engagement in undesirable, adverse behavior toward
their relational partners. These sources of ammunition, if you will, include
use of intimate information against the partner, learning undesirable infor-
mation about the partner, the erosion of illusion about the partner, the loss
of novelty, reduction of maintenance strategies in the relationship, interde-
pendence, loss of gains from the relational developmental period, and ex-
clusion. Miller (1997) furthered that additional elements can fuel negative
behavior in close relationships. For example, the interjection of culture
might affect behavior adversely if partners hail from different cultures
with different cultural values and goals. If opposing goals exist, conflict is
likely to ensue. Similarly, individual differences such as differences in per-
sonality reflected through varied levels of assertiveness, aggressiveness, or
self-esteem (to name a few) between the partners can affect behaviors
negatively. Given that partners do not always treat one another well, the
focus of this chapter is the processes of relational maintenance and repair
in close, personal relationships.
As the truism states, “if it broke, fix it.” Indeed, within on-
going close relationships, the process of maintaining is often not so clearly
recognized as when partners are not maintaining, when aspects of the re-
lationship are broken, distressed, challenged, or the like than when the
relationship is stable. This truism, however, implies that relationships are
self-sustaining and effortless, and that effort is not necessary until a prob-
lem arises. This assumption is problematic, as lack of effort to maintain a
relationship will inevitably result in the need for repair at some point in
time (Duck, 1988; Guerrero, Eloy, & Wabnik, 1993). For this reason, it is
nearly impossible to think of maintenance without considering repair. Al-
though both maintenance and repair are separate constructs, they never-
theless exist within the context of the other. Relational repair can, in fact,
be conceptualized as a type of relational maintenance. For instance,
Dindia (1994) labeled relational repair as “corrective maintenance” (p.
100). The coexistence notion of maintenance and repair is further elabo-
rated later in the chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to examine: (a) the notions of relationship
maintenance and repair and how the constructs are brought together by the
presence of a relational transgression; (b) assumptions regarding relational
repair in close relationships; (c) communication strategies used to repair
close relationships; (d) conclusions drawn from the extant literature; and (e)
directions for future research. To begin, the constructs of relational mainte-
nance and repair are addressed within a definitional framework. This defini-
tional framework is to be considered for the remainder of this chapter as
issues regarding relational transgressions and repair are addressed.
9. REPAIR AFTER TRANSGRESSION -=a- 187
TRANSGRi3SlONS
Positive Events
1. Commitment
Cohabiting
Future together
Loss of virginity
Propose/plan marriage
2. Physical Separation
Can manage
Abstinence
4. Expression of Feelings
Expressed feelings
Expressed love
7. Trial separation
Unfaithfulness/Infidelity
Unfaithfulness
Infidelity
--
Negative Events
1. Substance Abuse
Illicit drugs
Alcohol
2. Deceptive Practices
Unfaithfulness
Infidelity
Lying
Flirting
3. Distance
Physical separation
Psychological separation
(avoidance, ignoring, break up)
Psychological separation
(fear of intimacy)
4. Deviant Behavior
Sexual practices
Personal past
5. Inhibiting emotions
Jealousy
Suspicion/lack of trust
(continued on next page)
191
I,$?. -is+ EMMERS-SOMMER
Worries
Stress
J,ack of motivation
Possessiveness
6. Aggression
Violence
Attitude
7, Third Party
Third party
Others
8. Miscellaneous
Rekindling
No identity
Pornography
Rape
Boredom
Stealing
Pet died
Duck (1984) offers two key questions regarding the situations that corre-
spond with relational breakdown and the processes by which individuals
rebuild the relationship: “What breaks down when a relationship breaks
down? How does the answer to that question help to define the corre-
sponding goals of repair interventions?” (p. 163). These issues are impor-
tant when considering responses to a transgression. Specifically, who or
what broke down the relationship in some respect affects goals re-
garding repair interventions (Samp & Solomon, 1998). Similarly, emo-
tional response to the transgression might affect how reparation might be
approached.
As noted earlier, transgressions can take a social form or a relational
form (Metts, 1994). Emotional responses to the transgression also vary,
depending on whether the transgression was social or relational in nature.
Specifically, in the event of a transgression, an individual could feel embar-
I$-?4 +- EMMERS-SOMMER
rassed, could experience guilt or shame, or not really care at all. It is likely
that an emotional experience in light of a transgression will re-
late to how he or she responds to it in terms of reparation.
In a phenomenological examination of guilt and shame, Tangney (1998)
observed the two emotions to be distinct such that shame involved a focus
on the self, and guilt resulted in a focus on particular behaviors. Tangney
also found that motivations in interpersonal relationships differed due to
experiencing either of these emotions, with guilt leading to more adapta-
tion in response to transgressions. In an empirical study, Tangney (1992)
found that guilt was typically aroused by moral transgressions whereas
shame was aroused by both moral (e.g., engaging in deception) and
nonmoral transgressions (e.g., personal failure in a performance situation).
Although both shame and guilt aroused concern about how this
might affect the partner, only shame was related to concern about the part-
evaluation of the offender. This conclusion makes sense given that
someone who committed a moral transgression was not being sensitive to
the feelings in the first place, thus the offender is likely not con-
cerned with the evaluation of him or her. On the other hand, if an
individual commits a nonmoral transgression (e.g., being late in attending
an important occasion for the partner) the individual is likely ashamed for
his or her tardiness and is concerned that the partner will think less of him
or her for the lack of consideration.
In an empirical investigation examining embarrassment, guilt, and
shame, Keltner and Buswell (1996) f ound results similar to
(1992). Specifically, the authors found that embarrassment was most of-
ten associated with transgressions involving social rules and conventions
that guide public interaction. Guilt most often occurred when the trans-
gression involved behaviors that violated responsibilities or behaviors that
harmed others. Similarly, Jones, Kugler, and Adams (1995) found that
guilt was associated with relational transgressions but not nonrelational
transgressions. Finally, shame resulted when the transgression involved a
failure to meet salient personal standards (e.g., being reliable, being
prompt; Keltner & Buswell, 1996). Other research also suggests that asso-
ciating shame with personal failure is consistent across individualistic (i.e.,
values individual goals over group goals) and collectivistic (i.e., values
group goals over individual goals) cultures (Stipek, 1998).
Overall, the emotions experienced by the offender could affect the re-
pair strategies enacted. It appears that experience of shame or embarrass-
ment most often results in the repair of the self. That is, shame results from
a personal failure and embarrassment results from the failure to adhere to a
social convention. Accordingly, personal adjustments must be made so as
not to embarrass or shame oneself. The experience of guilt, however, re-
fleets a situation whereas reparation the partner and repair of the rela-
tionship are in order as guilt is typica experienced due to harm infl icted
9. REPAIR AFTER TRANSGRESSION 31, y/5
on others, also, guilt feelings are abated when the transgression is inten-
tional (McGraw, 1987).
Overall, of the three emotions aroused due a transgression, guilt is
most tied to a relational transgression, although various emotions are ex-
perienced depending on the type of transgression committed. Below, var-
ious repair strategies enacted in response to a relational transgression are
reviewed.
munication strategies were used more when partners wanted to repair the
relationship, whereas spontaneity was more prevalent when the
desire is to maintain the relationship.
Although not labeled relational repair strategies per se, (e.g.,
1980a, 1980b) work examined responses to periodic episodes of decline in
close relationships. Inspired by interdependence theory, Rusbult argued in
her investment model of responses to relational decline that partners
choose responses depending on the levels of investment and satisfaction in
their close relationships as well as quality of alternatives to their close rela-
tionship. Collectively, Rusbult argued that these indicators affect an indi-
level of commitment to their partner and relationship. In turn,
level of commitment affects an response to periodic relational
decline. Specifically, in the event of relational decline, a partner can choose
to: (a) voice his or her dissatisfaction, (b) remain loyal to the partner and
relationship, (c) approach the partner and relationship in a neglectful man-
ner, or (d) engage in exit behaviors, which involve actually leaving the part-
ner and relationship or threatening to do so. Rusbult argued that each
response falls onto a constructive-destructive axis and a passive-active axis
at they relate to the preservation of the relationship. In a word, voice in-
volves an active response that is constructive to the preservation of the re-
lationship. Loyalty entails a passive response that is also constructive to the
preservation of the relationship. On the other hand, neglect reflects a pas-
sive response that is destructive to the preservation of the relationship and
exit involves an active response that is destructive to the preservation of
the relationship. It is important to note that the notions of constructive and
destructive within the context of model refer only to the preser-
vation of a relationship. Indeed, in the event of a dysfunctional relation-
ship, exiting might be the most constructive behavior one could enact in
terms of personal well-being. Nevertheless, the action of exiting is destruc-
tive to the preservation of the relationship.
tionships. The authors also found that the goal to accept fault for the event
was intense and frequent, whereas the goal to avoid addressing the event
was not frequent.
As mentioned earlier, Rusbult (e.g., 1980a, 1980b, 1983) and Rusbult
and others (e.g., Rusbult, Drigotas, &Verette, 1994; Rusbult, Johnson, &
Morrow, 1986a; Rusbult & Verette, 199 1) clearly demonstrated that fac-
tors such as relational commitment, satisfaction, and alternatives to the
relationship affect choices partners make in response to a transgression.
Specifically, Rusbult (1987) indicated that partners who experience low
satisfaction, low investment, and a high quality of alternatives are in-
clined to respond to dissatisfaction with the response of exit. Partners
who experience low satisfaction, low investment, but a poor quality of al-
ternatives are inclined to respond with neglect. Conversely, partners who
experience high satisfaction, high investment, and a poor quality of alter-
natives are likely to respond to dissatisfaction with loyalty. Finally, part-
ners who experience high satisfaction with their close relationship, high
investment, and high quality of alternatives are likely to respond to rela-
tional dissatisfaction with voice. It is important to note, however, that the
relationship between quality of alternatives and the responses of voice or
neglect are weak at best (Rusbult, 1987).
Finally, aspects of an personality, such as levels of
self-esteem, affect repair strategies (Rusbult, 1987). For example, asser-
tive individuals are more likely than responsive individuals to assume con-
trol and exercise optimistic strategies when trying to repair a relationship.
Assertive partners were less likely to use sensitivity strategies, whereas re-
sponsive partners were more likely to engage in listening strategies
(Patterson & Beckett, 1995).
Strategies for managing relational problems can also vary by relationship
type (e.g., Canary & Stafford, 1994). For example, Emmers-Sommer
(1999) found that individuals were most likely to use integrative strate-
gies, as opposed to distributive or avoidance (i.e., passive and indirect)
strategies, when their goal was to repair their closest relationship after a
negative event. Integrative strategies involve partners discussing the mat-
ter in a constructive manner, not seeking concessions, and offering a neu-
tral evaluation of the partner. Distributive strategies involve engaging in
destructive behaviors that do seek concessions from the partner and can in-
volve behaviors such as negative attributions or threats. Finally, avoidance
strategies involve not discussing the issue. Sillars (1980a, 1980b), how-
ever, found that individuals in less close relationships (i.e., college room-
mates) were more inclined to use avoidance or distributive strategies than
integrative strategies in response to conflict. Thus, the type of relationship
one is engaged in as well as the importance of that relationship affect rela-
tional repair choices. Specifically, one can choose to begin dissolving the re-
lationship (e.g., Duck, 1984; Rusbult, 1983), to break off the relationship
108 +=s EMMERS-SOMMER
(e.g., Baxter, 1984, 1985), or to repair the relationship (e.g., Dindia &
Baxter, 1987; Duck, 1984).
Aune et al. (1998) examined a variety of relationship types varying in
closeness and found that repair strategies exercised varied by closeness.
Specifically, in a study of responses to the transgression of deception, Aune
et al. found that close partners (e.g., marrieds) were more likely to engage
in behaviors that communicated the positive aspects of their relationship
in an attempt to repair than were less close relational partners (e.g., co-
workers). Other research also demonstrates that deception is managed dif-
ferently according to relationship type (e.g., Metts, 1989).
(1987) finding that couples most often engage in relational talk strategies
when their goal is to repair the relationship. Similarly, Guerrero,
Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, and Eloy (1995) found that
use of integrative strategies to communicate jealousy resulted in more sat-
isfying relationships. Finally, Courtright, Millar, Rogers, and Bagarozzi
(1990) examined eight couples undergoing counseling due to their dis-
tressed marriages. Following the 6-week counseling sessions and three
taped marital discussions, these researchers found that the spouses who
engaged in direct communication and negotiation behaviors repaired their
marriage. However, the couples that engaged in avoidant, indirect, and de-
creased involvement behaviors terminated their marriages.
use of apologies, excuses, or justifications used in response to a
transgression has also been examined in the literature. Apologies entail the
offender admitting fault and expressing regret for the wrongdoing
(Hunter, 1984). E xcuses involve the offender admitting that the offense
occurred, but not accepting responsibility for the offense. Finally, justifica-
tions involve the offender admitting responsibility for the act, but denying
that the act was an offense (Hunter, 1984; Scott & Lymon, 1968). Hupka,
Jung, and Silverthorn (1987), f or example, found that apologies (e.g., “I
am sorry I was insensitive”) were the preferred response to a transgression,
regardless of intent. Excuses were perceived as weak accounts to a trans-
gression (e.g., been under a lot of stress”). Interestingly, justifications
(e.g., “Everyone loses their temper sometimes and is insensitive, no
different”) were rated the most negatively when the intent was to maintain
the relationship. However, justifications were rated more highly than ex-
cuses when the intent was to terminate the relationship. Transgressors ap-
praised justifications and apologies higher than the violated partners.
Hupka et al.‘s study only examined intent to maintain or terminate the re-
lationship, however, and did not examine when the intent was to repair the
relationship.
Overall, the prescription appears simple: Be nice to your partner to
maintain your relationship, and if you transgress, engage in prosocial, com-
municative behaviors to repair the relationship. Indeed, the research evi-
dence overwhelmingly suggests that engaging in some type of prosocial
behavior (e.g., being positive, talking about the relationship positively) and
engaging in direct, metacommunicative behavior strongly affects close re-
lationship repair (and maintenance) positively (e.g., Aune et al., 1998; Ca-
nary & Stafford, 1992; Dindia, 1989; Dindia & Baxter, 1997;
Emmers-Sommer, 1999; Emmers & Canary, 1996; Samp & Solomon,
1998; Stafford & Canary, 1991). Yet, we are well aware that relationships
are complex and are constantly evolving. Thus, a simple elixir to relational
problems is nonexistent. Nevertheless, the aforementioned findings do
suggest that certain reparations are more effective than others.
LOO -I+=+ EMMERS-SOMMER
CONCLUSION
l=UTUR!E DIRKLTIONS
Afifi, W A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation viola-
tions in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1.5,
365-392.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Aune, R. K., Metts, S ., & Ebesu Hubbard, A. S. (1998). Managing outcomes of discov-
ered deception. The lournul of Social Psychology, 138, 677-689.
Baxter, L. A. (1984). Trajectories of relationship disengagement. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 1, 29-48.
Baxter, L. A. (1985). A ccomplishing relationship disengagement. In S. Duck & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary ap-
proach (pp. 243-265). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A. (1986). Gender differences in the heterosexual relationship rules embed-
ded in breakup accounts, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3,289-306.
Baxter, L. A. (1994). A dialogic approach to relational maintenance. In D. J. Canary &
L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 233-254). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). T urning points in developing romantic relationships.
Human Communication Research, 12, 469-493.
Birchler, G. R., Weiss, R. L., &Vincent, J. I? (1975). M u It imethod analysis of social re-
inforcement exchange between martially distressed and nondistressed spouse and
stranger dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 349-360.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in
marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 239-267.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). M am f t aining relationships through strategic and
routine interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and rela-
tional maintenance (pp. 3-22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., Rogers, L. E., & Bagarozzi, D. (1990). Interaction dynam-
ics of relational negotiation: Reconciliation versus termination of distressed rela-
tionships. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 429-453.
Davis, M. S. (1973). Intimate relations. New York: The Free Press.
Dindia, K. (1994). A multiphasic view of relationship maintenance strategies. In D. J.
Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp.
99-l 12). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital rela-
tionships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143-158.
Duck, S. W (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Duck, S. W (1984). A perspective on the repair of personal relationships: Repair of
what, when? In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 5: Repairingpersonal rela-
tionships (pp. 163-l 84). London: Academic Press.
Duck, S. W (1988). Relating to others. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Emmers, T. M. (1995). Th e p revalence of uncertainty in romantic relationships: Exam-
ining instrumentality in the uncertainty reduction process. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Ohio University.
Emmers, T. M., &Canary, D. J. (1996). Th e e ff ec t o f uncertainty reducing strategies on
young relational repair and intimacy. Communication Quarterly, 44,
166-182.
9. REPAIR AFTER TRANSGRESSION ++i- 203
Patterson, B. R., & Beckett, C. S. (1995). A re - examination of relational repair and rec-
onciliation: Impact of socio-communicative style on strategy selection. Communi-
cation Research Reports, 12, 235-240.
Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). E vents that increase uncertainty in personal re-
lationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593-604.
Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase uncer-
tainty in personal relationships II: Replication and extension. Human Communica-
tion Research, 14, 5 16-547.
Roloff, M. E., & Cloven, D. H. (1994). When partners transgress: Maintaining violated
relationships. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational
maintenance (pp. 23-43). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980a). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test
of the investment model.JournaZofExperimentaZSociaZPsychoZogy 2 6, 172-l 86.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980b). Satisfaction and commitment in friendships. Representative
Research in Social Psychology, 11, 96-l 05.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development
(and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 10 l-l 17.
Rusbult, C. E. (1987). Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The
exit-voice-loyalty-neglect model. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate rela-
tionships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 209-237). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: An inter-
dependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phe-
nomena. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational
maintenance (pp. 115-l 39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D. (1986). Impact of couple patterns of
problem solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 50, 744-753.
Rusbult, C. E., & Verette, J. (199 1). An interdependence analysis of accommodation
processes in close relationships. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 19,
3-33.
Samp, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. (1998). C ommunicative responses to problematic
events in close relationships I: The variety and facets of goals. Communication Re-
search, 25, 66-95.
Scott, M. B., & Lymon, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33,
46-62.
Sillars, A. L. (1980a). The sequential and distributional structure of conflict interac-
tions as a function of attributions concerning the locus of responsibility and stability
of conflicts. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), C ommunication Yearbook 4 (pp. 217-235). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Sillars, A. L. (1980b). Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts. Com-
munication Monographs, 4 7, 180-200.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship
type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 8, 217-242.
Stipek, D. (1998). D i ff erences between Americans and Chinese in the circumstances
of evoking pride, shame, and guilt. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29,
616-629.
Tangney, J. P (1992). Situational determinants of shame and guilt in young adulthood.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 199-206.
9. REPAIR AFTER TRANSGRESSION +=s 205
Tangney, J. l? (1998). How does guilt and shame differ? In J. Bybee (Ed.), Guilt and
children (pp. l-l 7). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.),
The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 53-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Vangelisti, A. L, & Young, S. L. (2000). Wh en words hurt: The effects of perceived
intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relu-
tionships, 17, 393-424.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interper-
sonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
This page intentionally left blank
Cultural Variations
in Maintaining ReIationships
+t++ w
This page intentionally left blank
Stephen M. Haas
University of Cincinnati
20.9
gay and lesbian relationships have been viewed as deviant in U.S. society.
As a result, lesbian and gay male couples experience social stigma and dis-
crimination throughout their lives (Goffman, 1963; McWhirter &
Mattison, 1984). Also Huston and Schwartz (1995) observed that:
The lack of institutional recognition for homosexual couples plays a very power-
ful role in their stability. Heterosexual unions are sanctioned by the church and
the state through the marriage ceremony. The state rewards such unions with
family health insurance, property rights when breakups occur, and institutional
prerogatives such as untaxed inheritance and the right to distribute property af-
ter a death. (p. 114)
Four forms of stigma most profoundly affect gay and lesbian relation-
ships: (a) ignorance-a lack of knowledge of gay and lesbian lifestyles, (b)
homophobia-a persistent fear of homosexuals based in ignorance, (c) prej-
udice-forming negative attitudes towards gays and lesbians as a group,
and (d) oppression-legal and social actions that deny equal treatment and
rights to gays and lesbians (McWhirter & Mattison, 1982). All of these stig-
matizing attitudes and behaviors can have a serious impact on the lives of
gay and lesbian couples, such as loss of employment or housing; rejection
from family, friends, and co-workers; as well as, verbal or physical assault.
What can be particularly damaging is when stigma is internalized by lesbi-
ans and gay men (Lynch, 1987; McWhirter & Mattison, 1982).
Self-oppression (learned and internalized antigay prejudice) can result in
devastating emotional effects for gays and lesbians (e.g., low self-esteem,
embarrassment, social isolation, unwillingness to self-disclose, and even a
lack of comfort in their intimate relationships; Laird, 1993; Ossana, 2000).
These forms of stigma may create internal barriers to establishing and main-
taining successful, long-term, same-sex relationships. Also, lacking the legal
and social validation that binds married couples forces same-sex relation-
ships to rely largely on emotional commitment to maintain them.
Moreover, gay and lesbian individuals may refrain from disclosing their sex-
ual orientation to others for fear of rejection. A lack of openness (popularly
referred to as being “in the closet”) can cause particular problems for
same-sex couples in the form of added relational stress and isolation (Berger,
1990; Haas, 2002; Patterson & Schwartz, 1994). Thus, the absence of legal
and social barriers that help prevent relationship termination in marital cou-
ples make relationship maintenance all the more challenging in same-sex re-
lationships (Attridge, 1994; Patterson & Schwartz, 1994).
Because research on relationship maintenance in same-sex couples has
been sparse to date, this chapter first focuses on research that has explored
characteristics of gay and lesbian relationships that impact maintenance
(e.g., relational quality and satisfaction, sex-role ideology, power dynam-
ics, etc.,). In addition, study findings that address societal assumptions
concerning differences between heterosexual and same-sex relationships
10. RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE IN SAME-SEX COUPLES -+I- 211
Early studies viewed gay men and lesbian women as “perverts” and “devi-
ants” within society. It was not until 1973, when the American Psychiatric
Association removed homosexuality from its list of pathological illnesses,
that researchers began to rethink the study of gays and lesbians. In the late
197Os, researchers began to shift their focus away from “studying homo-
sexuality exclusively from the perspective of toward studying
homosexuality as part of work on ‘alternative or ‘sex
(Peplau, 1982, p. 3).
Despite this shift, much of the early research was grounded in
heterosexist assumptions regarding gay and lesbian lifestyles. One assump-
tion was that gays and lesbians were more sexually promiscuous than het-
erosexuals and were unable to establish and maintain meaningful,
long-term, intimate relationships. The language used in early studies to de-
scribe ongoing same-sex relationships was indicative of this underlying as-
sumption. For example, in studies by Saghir and Robins (1973) and Bell
and Weinberg (1978), ongoing same-sex relationships were referred to
merely as affairs. In their survey of 4,639 gay men and women, Bell and
Weinberg (1978) ex pl ained that “virtually all of the male respondents had
been involved in at least one affair (defined as a ‘relatively steady relation-
with another man) [italics added] during the course of their lives” (p.
86). These researchers also considered only gays and lesbians who lived to-
gether to be “coupled,” and even then, they described these subjects as
“roommates” (p. 9 1). In yet another study, Weinberg and Williams (1974)
interviewed 1,057 gay men about their sexual activity but failed to ask if
any of the men considered their relationships to be long-term. Despite the
fact that most gay men and lesbian women in these early studies reported
wanting to establish a relationship (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Harry, 1982;
Jay & Young, 1977), researchers operated under the assumption that
long-term gay and lesbian relationships were rare.
By the 198Os, researchers began to realize that gays and lesbians do estab-
lish long-term relationships (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek &
Schmitt, 1986b; Mendola, 1980). For instance, in a sample of 405 gay men
and lesbian women, Mendola (1980) f ound that 63% of the men and 70% of
the women reported being in a committed, “marriage-like” relationship.
Peplau and Cochran (1981) and Lewis, Kozac, Milardo, and Grosnick
(198 1) found that gays and lesbians seek out long-term relationships for the
same reasons as heterosexuals: love, commitment, and companionship. Fur-
thermore, Dailey (1979) investigated the heterosexist assumption “that ho-
mosexuals may love each other, but the love expressed is and
really not love at all” (p. 155). Using the Caring Relationship Inventory
(CRI), Dailey f ound no difference between same-sex and heterosexual as-
sessments of love within these relationships. Furthermore, Dailey found
that married heterosexual couples showed greater discrepancy in dyadic co-
hesion than the same-sex couples. Similarly, Peplau and Cochran (198 1)
found that in comparing a sample of 50 lesbians, 50 gay men, 50 heterosex-
ual women, and 50 heterosexual men, there were no differences in feelings
of love or relationship satisfaction. Also, in comparing relationship adjust-
ment and degree of love and liking, again they found no differences (al-
though lesbians and gay men reported higher degrees of positive feelings for
their partners than heterosexuals). In addition, Peplau (1991) found that
gay, lesbian, and heterosexual relationship likes and dislikes were very simi-
lar. In fact, a panel of judges blinded to the sexual orientation of respondents
were unable to differentiate between open-ended responses in this study.
In general, gay men, lesbian women, and heterosexuals have reported fairly
equivalent levels of relational satisfaction on standardized measures such as
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (see Dailey, 1979; Duffy & Rusbult,
1986; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1985-1986, 1986a, 1986b, 1987). Kurdek and
Schmitt (1986b) also found that relationship quality for same-sex and hetero-
sexual couples revolved around similar dimensions: a high level of dyadic at-
tachment, few relationship alternatives, shared decision making, and holding
few beliefs that disagreements are destructive to the relationship. For gay and
lesbian couples, Kurdek (1988, 1989) found that the most important predic-
tors of relationship quality were a focus on trust, similarity, and intrinsic moti-
vation. Emotional expressiveness and equality of power were particularly
important for relationship quality in lesbian couples, but overall, no significant
differences in relationship commitment or quality were found between gay
male and lesbian couples (Kurdek, 1988, 1989).
Sexual PXClUSi”itLJ
The societal assumption that gays and lesbians are more sexually promiscuous
than heterosexuals has been fueled by findings in several studies that some gay
and lesbian relationships negotiate open sexual agreements (Blumstein &
Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1985-1986; Wagner, Remien, &
Carballo-Dieguez, 1998). Sexual exclusivity, or monogamy, has long been ap-
plied as the model for heterosexual relationships by church and state. Despite
this ideal, studies of heterosexual sexual behavior indicate that rates of marital
10. RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE IN SAME-SEX COUPLES +=+I- 213
infidelity range from 26% to 70% for women and from 33% to 75% for men
(Buss, 1994; Fisher, 1987; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey,
Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Shackelford & Buss, 1997).
Like heterosexuals, research has found that many same-sex couples
strive to maintain monogamous relationships as a model (Berger, 1990;
Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek, 1986b;
Mendola, 1980; Peplau, 1991). For example, Mendola (1980) found that
83% of the lesbian women in her study reported being monogamous. Simi-
larly, in their study, Fitzpatrick, Jandt, Myrick, and Edgar (1994) found
that “70 percent of gay males and 80 percent of lesbians had never broken
their monogamy agreement” (p. 273). According to Tuller (1978), the
question of whether to maintain a monogamous relationship:
Berger (1990) f ound that gay male monogamy may have been increased
by fear of HIV infection since the onset of the AIDS epidemic. Berger
(1990) reported that “Of 83 couples who responded . . . 96.4% described
their relationships as monogamous. This differs from pre-AIDS surveys
which showed that only a minority of gay couples were strictly monoga-
mous” (p. 44). The AIDS crisis has less directly affected monogamy among
lesbian women because they are at lower risk for HIV infection within
their relationships (Carl, 1986; Fitzpatrick et al., 1994). However, AIDS
has lead to the loss of friends and relatives for many lesbian women, and as
a result, AIDS-related causes have become a human rights issue for many
politically active lesbians and gay men in general.
Nonmonogamy has been found to be more prevalent in gay male couples
than lesbian relationships (Green, Bettinger, & Zachs, 1996). In a recent
study of 75 gay male couples in New York City in which one partner was
HIV positive, Wagner et al. (1998) f ound that 50 of the couples (67%) re-
ported engaging in at least one sexual encounter outside of the primary re-
lationship in the last year. Mendola (1980) found that 49% of the gay males
in her study admitted to having an occasional sexual experience outside
their primary relationship, which is quite similar to the 43% of heterosex-
ual married men in Pietropinto and (1979) study who admit-
ted infidelity. Regardless of sexual orientation, studies have found that
some men do not view outside sexual activity as being tied to emotional
commitment to their primary relationship (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983;
Glass & Wright, 1985; Ossana, 2000; Thompson, 1984; Wagner et al.,
1998). Lee (199 1) pointed out that the ability of same-sex couples to ne-
gotiate open or closed sexual agreements may increase levels of trust and
relational satisfaction, as well as helping to reduce feelings of betrayal often
experienced with marital infidelity.
Overall, research is suggesting that the predominant focus by research-
ers on the dichotomy of open versus closed relationships may in fact be of
less significance in understanding same-sex relationships. For instance,
studies on relationship quality have indicated no difference between sexu-
ally-open versus monogamous gay male couples (Blasband & Peplau, 1985;
Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1985-l 986). Spe-
cifically, Kurdek and Schmitt (1985-l 986) found that sexually open and
closed gay male couples were actually more similar than different in psy-
chological adjustment, dyadic attachment, a positive belief in partner
changability, and relationship quality.
Similarly, some studies have shown no difference in relationship satisfac-
tion or stability between sexually open versus closed heterosexual marriages
(Knapp, 1976; Knapp & Whitehurst, 1977; Ramey, 1975; Watson, 198 1). In
investigations of heterosexual couples who “swing” (an open agreement), no
evidence was found that swinging was harmful to marital or family stability
(Cole & Spanier, 1974; Gilmartin, 1972; Paulson & Paulson, 1971). In fact,
when Rubin (1982) sampled 130 sexually open and 130 sexually exclusive
married and divorced individuals, he found that those who were in sexually
open marriages were no more poorly adjusted than those that were not. For
the divorced couples, those who had been in sexually open marriages were
no more unhappy after the divorce than those in monogamous relationships.
Rubin (1982) concluded that “nothing in this data argues for the view that
sexual openness or exclusivity, in and of themselves, make a difference in the
overall adjustment of a married couple” (p. 107).
In general, the research on both same-sex and heterosexual couples pro-
vides evidence that when relational expectations for sexual behavior are
shared by partners, relationship quality and satisfaction are fairly equiva-
lent across sexually open and sexually exclusive couples. Despite societal
assumptions to the contrary, it appears that nonmonogamy becomes prob-
lematic in relationships only when that value is not shared by partners.
Kelationship Stages
not match those expectations. There was common curiosity and worry
concerning how other gay couples functioned in day-to-day life and deal
with finances, family, outside relationships, etcetera. Scholarly research-
ers also have become interested in exploring the everyday communication
behaviors and strategies that gay and lesbian couples use to maintain their
relationships. The area of relationship maintenance, as well as, the limited
research on maintaining same-sex relationships, is the focus of the remain-
der of the chapter.
manage their privacy from family and members of society, and also, con-
nect with others revealing their life as a couple. Baxter and colleagues ap-
plied a dialectical perspective in analyzing how relational partners
communicatively manage these relational tensions in order to maintain
their relationship over time.
Differences also occurred in the third, fourth, and fifth most frequently
mentioned behaviors. Joint activities, positivity, and relational assurances,
respectively, accounted for the next most frequently mentioned gay and
lesbian responses; whereas positivity (favors and gifts, openness, and affec-
tion) were mentioned by heterosexuals. This may indicate that same-sex
couples spend more time engaging in the same activities together and focus
on reassuring their partner through verbal expressions of love and caring.
Heterosexual couples, on the other hand, may place more emphasis on do-
ing favors or giving gifts, engaging in self-disclosure, and showing physical
affection. Due to the small sample size of this study, however, these find-
ings require further replication.
Finally, in a third study of 20 gay male couples (N = 40) in which one or
both partners were HIV positive or had AIDS (Haas, 1999a, 1999b), a
grounded theory of communicative normalization of illness emerged to ex-
plain the process of maintaining relationships dealing with chronic illness.
More specifically, normalization of illness primarily was found to be
achieved in these gay couples through the communicative management of
two relational dialectics: managing HIV-related communication engage-
ment and avoidance, and communicating to negotiate health autonomy
versus partner involvement.
Managing HIV-related communication involves the need for couples to
negotiate and balance discussions of HIV-related health concerns in order
to keep the relationship from being overwhelmed by the illness in
day-to-day interactions. In these drive for normalization, they fre-
quently utilized a combination of balance and cyclic alternation in manag-
ing the dialectic of openness and closedness of HIV-related
communication. Cyclic alternation appeared to be used more often be-
cause it allows couples to focus completely on HIV when issues arise or at-
tempt to downplay its influence when symptoms are not present. Couples
did appear to lie on a continuum regarding the actual amount of engage-
ment or avoidance of HIV-related communication overall. Following are
some examples of participant comments reflecting the frequency of com-
munication about HIV within their relationships. Alex, an HIV-positive
participant, stated, “We talk about my health almost every day. Probably
every day. We ignore it .” Jerry, another HIV-positive partner, de-
scribed similar HIV-related communication patterns. He commented,
“Daily we talk of HIV bring stress to either one of us. I keep ask-
ing. He says, ‘No, it bother
How couples manage openness about HIV with the other end of the dia-
lectic, communication avoidance of HIV-related topics, was equally impor-
tant. Most of the participants in this study reported that there are times
when they intentionally avoid communication about HIV or AIDS.
Helgeson and Taylor (1993) argued that individuals need to be able to re-
lease themselves from the stress and worry of chronic illness. William, an
224 +s HAAS
HIV-positive partner, described times when his partner did not always want
to be informed because it is a reminder of terminal illness. For dis-
cordant couples, there was a great tension to manage the dialectic of HIV
openness and closedness because any HIV-related communication is a re-
minder of “abnormality” in their struggle to establish normalization. An-
other HIV-negative partner, Larry asserted, “Quite honestly, say we try
to not talk about it [HIV] more than we try to talk about it.” Adam, who is
HIV positive, thinks of avoiding HIV-related communication as a positive
strategy in his relationship. He stated, “a lot of times I just take a positive ap-
proach and if nothing new, you know, I even say anything. And
so, luckily there been a lot new lately.” Avoiding communication
about HIV or AIDS also could be problematic for couples. Ed, an
HIV-positive partner, explained that his avoidance of HIV com-
munication had caused arguments in their relationship: there if an
emergency. Day to day not real interested in it [HIV] . . . I keep my
meds where I would use them. I know the kind of stuff he like
to see very much. And if complaining, it really bothers him. had
arguments about it. ”
In a similar way, relational partners have to communicatively manage
the degree of HIV-negative involvement in monitoring the health
of their HIV-positive partner, so that the positive partner maintains a sense
of autonomy, and yet still feels that the HIV-negative partner cares and is
concerned for their health. Among the discordant couples in this study, the
amount of partner involvement in the healthcare of the HIV-positive part-
ner ranged on a continuum from almost total noninvolvement (e.g., know-
ing nothing about what drugs partner is prescribed or what times he
takes them) to complete involvement (e.g., monitoring complete partner
adherence with his drug regimen). However, due to the drive for normal-
ization, there was a predominant sentiment among HIV-negative partners
that HIV was the positive primary domain. For example, Alan, an
HIV-positive partner, addressed how his HIV-negative partner is not very
involved in the daily management of his health. Alan described feeling that
his health care is his own responsibility:
In general, it was found that too little partner involvement indicates disin-
terest and a lack of concern, whereas over involvement can be interpreted as
being overbearing, smothering, and untrusting of the competence for
self-care. How well couples communicated in managing these extremes had
an impact on effectively maintaining their relationships.
In addition to the emergence of these dialectics, evidence was found for
use of the Canary and Stafford (1992) and Dainton and Stafford (1993)
maintenance behaviors. The specific maintenance behaviors these gay
male couples reported were equity in shared tasks, openness, positivity
and favors, assurances, affection, sharing time together, social networks,
talk of day, and use of calls and letters and e-mail. Particular importance
was mentioned in maintaining equity of shared tasks. Equity was reflected
through a tendency to capitalize on the interests of each partner. Similar to
past research, duties and tasks were performed by one partner or the other
based on personal interest and ability to perform the task, not by role as-
signments. Also, equity was stressed as an important relational feature
helping to avoid establishing a caregiver-receiver relationship that was re-
jected by all couples in this study (see Haas, 2002, for a more detailed dis-
cussion of rejecting notions of “caregiving” by gay male couples). The
reported use of these behaviors by gay male couples coping with HIV pro-
vides additional support for the generalizability of the maintenance behav-
iors in more diverse populations than previously have been studied.
Finally, concerns surrounding same-sex relationship validation and sup-
port were described in this study to be as important to the gay male couples
as HIV-related social support. In other words, social stigma related to HIV
and homosexuality were both major relational stressors in maintaining these
same-sex relationships. Importantly, these couples reported that
HIV-related social support from family, friends, and others functioned both
as illness-related support and relationship maintenance support (Haas,
2002). is in d ing, yet again, highlights the need for social validation and
support as an important factor in same-sex relationship maintenance.
CONCLUSION
Existing research indicates that gay and lesbian relationships do not differ
overall in levels of quality and satisfaction from heterosexual couples (al-
though lesbian couples have scored highest across several studies). Some
differences also are indicated in the research such as more androgynous sex
roles and egalitarian relational ideals within same-sex couples. In addition,
the lack of social and legal validation of same-sex relationships has emerged
as having a large impact on same-sex couples and may require gays and les-
bians to establish greater relational commitment and effort at maintenance
to overcome these barriers. Despite the barriers, gay men and lesbian
women have been found to establish and maintain long-term relational
commitments. Importantly, Schmitt and Kurdek (1987) found that being
in a relationship strengthened positive gay identity, increased
self-concept over those not in a relationship, and that maintaining a rela-
tionship led to a greater belief in ability to have control over life
events and lowered levels of anxiety and depression. These relational bene-
fits underscore the need for additional research in further understanding
relationship maintenance in same-sex couples.
Understanding the communicative strategies and behaviors that gays
and lesbians use to create and maintain relationships in the face of social
stressors also expands our understanding of relational communication in
general. Twenty years ago, Peplau (1982) proposed that studies of
same-sex couples:
Green, R., Bettinger, M., & Zachs, E. (1996). Ar e 1esb ian couples fused and gay male
couples disengaged? In J. Laird & R. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gays in couples and
famiZies (pp. 185-230). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Haas, S. M. (1999a). Relationship maintenance in gay male couples coping with
HIV/AIDS. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, Bell & Howell Co.
Haas, S. M. (1999b, November). A theory of communicative normalization in the rela-
tionship maintenance of couples coping with chronic illness: The case of male couples
with HIV Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication
Association; Chicago.
Haas, S. M. (2002). S ocial support as relationship maintenance in gay male couples
coping with HIV Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, I9( l), 87-111.
Haas, S. M., & Stafford, L. (1998). An initial examination of maintenance behaviors in
gay and lesbian relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15,
846-855.
Haas, S. M., & Stafford, L. (1997, November). Relationship maintenance behaviors in
same-sex and heterosexual couples: An exploratory comparison. Paper was presented
at the annual conference of the National Communication Association; Chicago,
1997.
Harry, J. (1982). D ecision making and age differences among gay male couples. Journal
of Homosexuality, 8, 9-2 1.
Helgeson, V S., & Taylor, S. E. (1993). Social comparisons and adjustment among car-
diac patients. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 117 l-l 195.
Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Huston, M., & Schwartz, P (1995). Th e relationships of lesbians and of gay men. In J. T.
Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp.
89-l 2 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jay, K., & Young, A. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sex-
ual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit Books.
Jones, R. W., & Cecco, J. I? (1982). Th e f emininity and masculinity of partners in het-
erosexual and homosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 8, 37-49.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human
maze. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior
in the human female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Knapp, J. J. (1976). An exploratory study of seventeen sexually open marriages. Jour-
nal of Sex Research, 12, 206-2 19.
Knapp, J. J., &Whitehurst, R. N. (1977). S exually open marriage and relationships: Is-
sues and prospects. In R. W. Libby & R. N. Whitehurst (Eds.), Marriage and alter-
natives: Exploring intimate relationships (pp. 147-l 60). Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman.
Kurdek, L. (1987). S ex role self schema and psychological adjustment in coupled ho-
mosexual and heterosexual men and women. Sex Roles, 17, 549-562.
Kurdek, L. (1988). Relationship quality of gay and lesbian cohabitating couples. Journal
of Homosexuality, 15, 93-l 18.
Kurdek, L. (1989). Relationship quality in gay and lesbian cohabitating couples: A
1 -year follow-up study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 39-59.
Kurdek, L. (1993). The allocation of household labor in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual
married couples. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 127-l 39.
10. RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE IN SAME-SEX COUPLES * rZ:T
Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. I? (1985-l 986). Relationship quality of gay men in closed
and open relationships. Journd of Homosexuality, 22, 85-99.
Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P (1986a). Interaction of sex role self-concept with rela-
tionship quality and relationship beliefs in married, heterosexual cohabitating, gay,
and lesbian couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 365-370.
Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P (1986b). Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual
married, heterosexual cohabitating, gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 7 1 l-720.
Laird, J. (1993). W silences. In E. Imber-Black (Ed.), Secrets
in families and family therupy (pp. 243-267). New York: Norton.
Lee, J. A. (1991). Can we talk? Can we really talk? Communication as a key factor in
the maturing homosexual couple. Journal of Homosexuality, I 7, 143-l 68.
Lewis, R. A., Kozac, E. B., Milardo, R. M., & Grosnick, W. A. (1981). Commitment in
same-sex love relationships. Alternative Lifestyles, 4, 22-42
Lynch, F. R. (1987). Non-ghetto gays: A sociological study of suburban homosexuals.
Journal of Homosexuality, 13, 13-42.
Lynch, J. M., & Reilly, M. E. (1985-1986). R o 1e relationships: Lesbian perspectives.
JournuZ of Homosexuality, 12, 53-69.
Marecek, J., Finn, S. E., & Cardell, M. (1983). G en d er roles in the relationships of les-
bians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 8, 45-50.
McCandlish, B. M. (1982). Therapeutic issues with lesbian couples. JournaZ of Homo-
sexuality, 8, 71-78.
McWhirter, D. P, & Mattison, A. M. (1982). Psychotherapy for gay male couples. Jour-
nal of Homosexuality, 8, 79-9 1.
McWhirter, D. P, & Mattison, A. M. (1984). The male couple: How relationships de-
velop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mendola, M. (1980). The Mendolu report:A new look at guy couples. New York: Crown.
Ossana, S. M. (2000). Relationship and couples counseling. In R. M. Perez, K. A.,
DeBord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with
lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (pp. 275-302). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association
Patterson, D. G ., & Schwartz, I? (1994). The social construction of conflict in intimate
same-sex couples. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (p. 3-26).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paulson, C., & Paulson, R. (1972). Swing in wedlock. Society, 9, 28-37.
Peplau, L. A. (1982). Research on homosexual couples: An overview. Journal of Homo-
sexuality, 8(2), 3-8.
Peplau, L. A. (1991). L es b ian and gay relationships. In J. C. Gonsiorek &J. D. Weinrich
(Eds.), HomosexuaZity: Research implications for public policy (pp. 177-l 96).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (198 1). Value orientations in the intimate relationships
of gay men. Journal of HomosexuaZity, 6(3), l-19.
Peplau, L. A., Padesky, C., & Hamilton, M. (1982). Satisfaction in lesbian relationships.
JournaZ of Homosexuality, 8, 23-3 1.
Pietropinto, A., & Simenauer, J. (1979). H us b an d s and wives: A nationwide survey of
marriage. New York: Times Books.
Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: Guilford Press.
Ramey, J. R. (1975). Intimate groups and networks: Frequent consequences of sexually
open marriage. The Family Coordinator, 24, 5 15-530.
Reece, R., & Segrist, A. E. (198 1). Th e association of selected “masculine” sex-role
variables with length of relationship in gay male couples. Journal of HomosexuaZity,
7, 33-47.
Reilly, M. E., & Lynch, J. M. (1990). P ower-sharing in lesbian relationships. Journal of
Homosexuazity, 19, I-30.
Rubin, A. M. (1982). S exually open versus sexually exclusive marriage: A comparison
of dyadic adjustment. Alternative Lifestyles, 5, 101-108.
Saghir, M. T., &Robins, E. (l973).MaZeandfemalehomosexuuZity:Acomprehensivein-
vestigution. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Schmitt, J. P, & Kurdeck, L. A. (1987). P ersonality correlates of positive identity and
relationship involvement in gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 13, 101-l 09.
Schullo, S. A., & Alperson, B. L. (1984). Interpersonal phenomenology as a function of
sexual orientation, sex, sentiment, and trait categories in long-term dyadic relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 983-1002.
Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). C ues to infidelity. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 23, 1034-1045.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship
type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relution-
ships, 8, 217-242.
Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. M. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic rela-
tional maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of re-
lational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67(3), 306-323.
Thibaut, J. W., &Kelly, H. H. (1959). e social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Thompson, A. I? (1984). Emotional and sexual components of extramarital relations.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 35-42.
Tuller, N. R. (1978). Couples: The hidden segment of the gay world. JournaZ of Homo-
sexuality, 3(4), 331-343.
Wagner, G. J., Remien, R. H., & Carballo-Dieguez, A. (1998). “Extramarital” sex: Is
there an increased risk for HIV transmission? A study of male couples of mixed HIV
status. AlDS Education and Prevention, 1 O(3), 245-256.
Watson, M. A. (1981). S exually open marriage: Three perspectives. Alternative Life-
styles, 4, 3-21.
Weinberg, M., & Williams, C. (1974). M a 1e h omosexuuls. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Stanley 0. Gaines, Jr.
Brunei University
Christopher R. Agnew
Purdue University
ost newlywed couples believe that they will remain married for
the rest of their lives. Such optimism contrasts sharply with current di-
vorce rates (e.g., approximately one-half of all marriages in the United
States end in divorce; Waite, Bachrach, Hindin, Thomson, &Thornton,
2000). The discrepancy between expectation of marital in-
stability and the reality of marital instability is especially pronounced
among interethnic couples, who generally are more likely to divorce
than are intraethnic couples (e.g., approximately two thirds of interra-
cial marriages in the United States end in divorce; Gaines & Ickes,
1997; Waite et al., 2000).
What processes might contribute to the relatively high divorce rate
among intercultural couples (who, collectively, represent a subset of
interethnic couples; Gaines & Ickes, 1997), as compared with intracultural
232 -c=+ GAINES AND AGNEW
INT~KCULTUKAL RIZLATIONSHIPS:
Dll=i=lCULT TO ESTABLISH, DIl=J=lCULT TO MAINTAIN
Some professional and lay observers have interpreted the relatively high
divorce rate among intercultural couples as evidence of underlying individ-
ual and relational pathology. However, neither the establishment nor the
dissolution of intercultural marriages can be regarded as reliable indicators
of individual or relational pathology (Crohn, 1995; Ho, 1990).
Although intercultural marriages can be difficult to maintain, there can
also be difficult to establish in the first place. One of the best predictors of
mutual liking and relationship formation is proximity or propinquity
(Berscheid, 1985), defined as geographic closeness. Within the United
States, members of a particular cultural group generally have few (if any)
opportunities to meet individuals from other cultural groups (Gaines,
Chalfin, Kim, & Taing, 1998), largely because culturally different groups
tend to live in physically separated communities.
Of course, many women and men successfully establish and maintain
stable intercultural marriages. However, successful intercultural marriages
rarely receive the same attention, whether from the mass media or from
the social science literature, that successful intracultural marriages receive
(Gaines & Liu, 2000). Aside from ethnographies (e.g., Gordon, 1964;
Porterfield, 1978; Rosenblatt, Karis, & Powell, 1995) and case studies
(e.g., Baptiste, 1984; Crohn, 1995; Ho, 1990), few empirical studies have
yielded substantive insight into the relationship maintenance processes
that promote marital stability among intercultural couples. Moreover,
much of the research on intercultural marriages has been atheoretical, thus
limiting opportunities for a priori hypothesis testing (Gaines & Liu, 2000).
‘The concepts of rewards and costs are central to reinforcement-based theories in general
(Berscheid, 1985). Another reinforcement-based theory that is relevant to the study of
intercultural relationship processes is resource exchange theory (Foa & Foa, 1974), which postu-
lates that much of human social behavior involves the give-and-take of commodities or resources.
From the perspective of resource exchange theory, individuals are likely to regard interactions
with relationship partners as rewarding to the extent that individuals receive affection (i.e., love,
or emotional acceptance of another person) and respect (i.e., status, or social acceptance of an-
other person) from their partners. Later in this chapter, discussed are the results of a study by
Gaines, Rios, et al. (1999), w h o examined patterns of interpersonal resource exchange among
interethnic and interracial couples.
11. INTERCULTURAL COUPLES ++i- 233
Dyadic relationships do not exist in isolation from the social world or apart
from a existing social network. Although one may fall deeply in
love with someone, it does not necessarily follow that family and
friends similarly will experience loving-or even liking-toward that per-
“58 -t+= GAINES AND AGNEW
COMMITMENT AS A MEDIATOR
OI= RlZLATIONSHIP MAINTlENANCE BEHAVIORS
i Satisfaction
Level
+
,::__\
‘;11/“1 Accorkodate 1
Derogation
of
Alternatives
Willingness
To
Sacrifice
r Perceived
Superiority
ImpactoFCommitmenton Responses
toAccommodativeDiIemma.s
levels of voice and loyalty responses, coupled with low levels of exit and
neglect responses, together constitute accommodation. Rusbult and
Arriaga (1997) argued that exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect may be viewed
more precisely as responses to accommodative dilemmas, or situations in
which an individual is faced with the daunting task of putting the welfare
of the relationship ahead of own welfare precisely when a
behavior (i.e., directing seemingly unprovoked verbal assaults toward the
individual) is at its most self-centered.
In two studies, Wieselquist and colleagues (Wieselquist, Rusbult, Fos-
ter, &Agnew, 1999) f ound that, consistent with predictions, commitment
was a positive predictor of accommodation and related prorelationship
mechanisms (e.g., willingness to sacrifice; see also Van Lange et al., 1997).
However, the studies by Wieselquist and colleagues (1999) were based on
samples of individuals who, for the most part, were in intracultural rela-
tionships. Whether any research in which commitment has been examined
as a predictor of accommodation (or, for that matter, other
pro-relationship behaviors) specifically in intercultural relationships is un-
known. Thus, the prediction that commitment will mediate the impact of
investment model variables on accommodation in intercultural relation-
ships has yet to receive empirical confirmation.
It has already been noted that, even in primarily intracultural relation-
ships, the consistency of commitment as a complete mediator of the impact
of dependence on decision to remain is uncertain (Drigotas &
Rusbult, 1992). A similar finding arose in a set of studies by Rusbult et al.
(199 1) concerning commitment as a mediator of the impact of satisfaction,
alternatives, and investments on responses to accommodative dilemmas. As
mentioned earlier with regard to commitment and dependence, it is possi-
ble that multicollinearity among commitment, satisfaction, alternatives, and
investments obscured the true value of commitment as a direct mediator
(see Pedhazur, 1982; Stevens, 1992). The problem of multicollinearity may
be due in part to similarity in item content among (1980) early
measures of satisfaction, alternatives, investments, and commitment (Surra
& Hughes, 1997). Fortunately, recent efforts to generate investment model
measures with demonstrated discriminant validity have proven successful
(Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998).
In recent years, Rusbult and her colleagues (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989) have
distinguished between perceptions of alternatives (discussed earlier in this
chapter) and derogation of alternutives, the latter of which refers to individu-
active efforts at devaluing, as opposed to simply recognizing, potential al-
ternative. Within conceptual framework, perception of alternatives
is positioned as an antecedent of commitment, whereas derogation of alterna-
11. INTERCULTURAL COUPLES -+ 243
lmpactokommitmenton Perceivedsuperiority
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
‘Some theorists (e.g., Coates, 1999) have proposed that with regard to personal relationship
processes, causal relations between individual and ethnic group, or between individual and society,
are reciprocal. On the one hand, the individual is born into an ethnic group and into a society; vari-
ous socializing agents (e.g., parents, teachers) communicate customs and practices to the individ-
ual (e.g., the expectation that the individual will marry someone from his or her own cultural
group, possibly through arranged marriage). On the other hand, as the individual progresses from
infancy and childhood to adolescence and adulthood, he or she may engage in behaviors (e.g.,
elopement with someone outside own cultural group) that challenges and, possibly, changes
the customs and practices of the ethnic group or society.
11. INTERCULTURAL COUPLES ++ 249
RH=lXiENClZ.S
Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., & Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the
trees: Social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042-l 05 7.
Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, I? A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive
interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relation-
ships. Journul of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 939-954.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behav-
ior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and co-
native components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 2 7, 1190-l 203.
Baptiste, D. A., Jr. (1984). Marital and family therapy with racially/culturally inter-
married stepfamilies: Issues and guidelines. Family Relations, 33, 373-380.
Baptiste, D. A., Jr. (1990). Therapeutic strategies with Black-Hispanic families: Iden-
tity problems of a neglected minority. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, I, 15-38.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A
test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
226-244.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Coun-
seling & Clinical Psychology, 42, 15 5-162.
Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychoLogy (vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 413-484). New York: Random
Hnrlv
2j0 -e=+ GAINES AND AGNEW
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T Gilbert,
S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook ofsocialpsychology (Vol. 2,4th ed.,
pp. 193-281). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (WZ. I : Attachment). New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss PZ. 2: Separation). New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Zoss ml. 3: Loss). New York: Basic Books.
Coates, D. L. (1999). The cultured and culturing aspects of romantic experience in ad-
olescence. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of ro-
mantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 330-363). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Cox, C. E., Wexler, M. O., Rusbult, C. E., & Gaines, S. O., Jr, (1997). Prescriptive sup-
port and commitment processes in close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly,
60, 79-90.
Cramer, E. M. (1972). Significance tests and tests of models in multiple regression.
American Statistician, 26, 26-30.
Crohn, J. (1995). M ixe d marriages. New York: Fawcett Columbine.
Drigotas, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence
model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62-87.
Duck, S. W (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Etcheverry, I? E., &Agnew, C. R. (2001, February). Perceptions ofsocial network support
and commitment to romantic relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Society of Personality and Social Psychology; San Antonio, TX.
Feeney, J., & Noller, I? (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row-Peterson.
Foa, U. G., &Foa, E. B. (1974).S ocietalstructures ofthe mind. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Gaines, S. O., Jr., Chalfin, J., Kim, M., & Taing, I? (1998). Communicating prejudice in
personal relationships. In M. L. Hecht (Ed.), Communicating prejudice (pp.
163-l 86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gaines, S. O., Jr., Granrose, C. S., Rios, D. I., Garcia, B. F., Page, M. S., Farris, K. R., &
Bledsoe, K. L. (1999). Patterns of attachment and responses to accommodative di-
lemmas among interethnic/interracial couples. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 16, 275-285.
Gaines, S. O., Jr., & Ickes, W (1997). Perspectives on interracial relationships. In S.
Duck (Ed.), Handbook ofp ersonal relationships: Theory, research and interventions
(2nd ed., pp. 197-220). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Gaines, S. O., Jr., Kim, M., Gilstrap, S., Yi, J., Rusbult, C. E., Hardin, D., Gaertner, L.
A., Ramkissoon, M., & Matthies, B. K. (2002). impact of cultural values on accom-
modative responses in the United States and-Jamaica. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Gaines, S. O., Jr., & Liu, J. H. (2000). Multicultural/multiracial relationships. In C.
Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships:A sourcebook (pp. 97-108).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gaines, S. O., Jr., Marelich, W. D., Bledsoe, K. L., Steers, W N., Henderson, M. C.,
Granrose, C. S., Barajas, L., Hicks, D., Lyde, M., Takahashi, Y., Yum, N., Rios, D. I.,
Garcia, B. F., Farris, K., & Page, M. S. (1997). Links between race/ethnicity and cul-
tural values as mediated by racial/ethnic identity and moderated by gender. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1460-I 4 76.
Gaines, S. O., Jr., Reis, H. T., Summers, S., Rusbult, C. E., Cox, C. L., Wexler, M. O.,
Marelich, W D., & Kurland, G. J. (1997). Impact of attachment style on reactions
to accommodative dilemmas in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 4,
93-113.
11. INTERCULTURAL COUPLES * 251
Gaines, S. O., Jr., Rios, D. I., Granrose, C. S., Bledsoe, K. L., Farris, K. R., Page Youn,
M. S., & Garcia, B. F. (1999). R omanticism and interpersonal resource exchange
among African American/Anglo and other interracial couples. Journal ofBZu& Psy-
chology, 2.5, 461-489.
Gaines, S. O., Jr., Work, C., Johnson, H., Page Youn, M. S., & Lai, K. (2000). Impact of
attachment style and self-monitoring on responses to accommodative
dilemmas across relationship types. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, I 7,
767-789.
Gordon, A. (1964). Intermarriage. Boston: Beacon Press.
Gurung, R. A. R., & Duong, T. (1999). M ixing and matching: Assessing the
concomitants of mixed-ethnic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relu-
tionships, 16, 639-657.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, I? (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment pro-
cess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 5 1 l-524.
Ho, M. K. (1990). Intermarried couples in therapy. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Hofstede, G. (1980). consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alterna-
tive partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 967-980.
Johnson, M. P (1991a). Commitment to personal relationships. In W. H. Jones, & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 3, pp. 117-l 43). London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Johnson, M. I? (1991 b). Reply to Levinger and Rusbult. In W H. Jones, & D. Perlman
(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 3, pp. 17 l-l 76). London: Jessica
Kingsley.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms
of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdepen-
dence. New York: Wiley.
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (in press). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A
meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships.
Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. B. (1979). Th eorizing about the quality and stability of mar-
riage. In W H. Burn, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories
about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 268-294). New York: Free Press.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). MultipZe regression in behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Porterfield, E. (1978). Black and White mixed marriages. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rosenblatt, I!! C., Karis, T. A., & Powell, R. D. (1995). Multiracial couples: Black and
White voices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G. (2000). Attachment and
culture: Security in the United States and Japan. American Psychologist, 55,
1093-l 104.
Rusbult, C. E. [ 1980). C ommitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of
the investment model. Journal of Experimental SociaZ Psychology, 16, 172-l 86.
Rusbult, C. E. (1991). C ommentary on “Commitment to personal relation-
ships”: What interesting and new? In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Ad-
vances in personal relationships (Vol. 3, pp. 15 l-l 69). London: Jessica Kingsley.
252 +- GAINES AND AGNEW
Van Lange, l? A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., &
Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. JournaZ ofPersonal-
ity and Social Psychology, 72, 1373-l 395.
Waite, L. J., Bachrach, C., Hindin, M., Thomson, E., & Thornton, A. (Eds.). (2000).
The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment,
pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 942-966.
This page intentionally left blank
Maintai “ages
in Russia: Managing
Societal Influences
and Communication Dynamics
Deborah S. Ballard-Reisch
Marat Zaguidoulline
Daniel J.
University of Nevada, Reno
or U.S. couples, the road to domestic bliss is a rough one. Due to a vari-
ety of complex political, economic, and social factors, it is even rougher for
Russian couples. Although over 90% of Americans (Gottman & Carrere,
1994) and Russians (Boutenko & Razlogov, 1997) will at some time be mar-
ried, a significant percentage of marriages in both countries will end in di-
vorce. For U.S. couples, the odds of divorce are about 50-50 (Olson &
Matskovsky, 1994) with the number of divorces leveling off in recent years
(Teachman, 2000). For Russian couples, the divorce rate is increasing. In
1970, approximately 30% of marriages ended in divorce. By 1995, the rate
had risen to more than 60% (Russian Statistical Yearbook, 1996).
For more than 20 years in both the U.S. (see Adams &Jones, 1999)
and Russia (see Vannoy et al., 1999), the dynamic nature of marriages
‘The authors would like to thank Marcia Sarratea and Mary Elton for their assistance at various
stages of the preparation of this manuscript.
255
zjo -i++ BALLARD-REISCH, ZAGUIDOULLINE, WEIGEL
and high rates of divorce have led social scientists to study why some
marriages succeed while so many others fail. Researchers have contrib-
uted significant time and effort trying to understand what factors
within and outside marriages impact their success, and how strategies
successful couples use to sustain their marriages differ from the strate-
gies of couples who divorce.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore the factors that impact the
maintenance of marriages in Russia in this time of social, political, and eco-
nomic uncertainty. To understand marriages in Russia at the beginning of
the 21 st century, one must first understand the complex array of both
macrolevel and microlevel factors that impinge on family stability. In order
to perform this analysis, the “Ecological influences on marital commit-
ment” component of Ballard-Reisch and (1999) “Model of Com-
munication Processes in Marital Commitment” is used as an organizing
framework. In addition, the results of research in Russia are compared
with research findings on U.S. couples.
Historical Factors
Russian culture has traditionally been grounded in essentialism, the view
that there are inherent biologically based differences between women and
men that manifest themselves in psychological and behavioral differences
(see Vannoy et al., 1999). In the family, fathers were supposed to be author-
ity figures (head of the family) who manifested love for their families not so
much emotionally as practically, by protecting the family and providing for
their needs (Attwood, 1990). They were to maintain order through encour-
aging appropriate behavior and punishing inappropriate behavior. The natu-
ral “masculine approach” of fathers allowed them to exercise necessary
strictness with children, a role contrary to the affectionate and compassion-
ate nature of mothers (heart of the family) (Attwood 1990).
A family thus represented a complementary union of female and male
roles that were to balance each other in the process of the upbringing of
children. In this context, the division of labor in the family was seen as nat-
ural. The primary role of bread-winner required utilization of his
physical strength and other qualities in order to support the family and his
role was coordinated with role in running the household, pleasing
her husband, and caring for their children (Rimashevskaya, 1992).
Overlaying this fundamental essentialism was a belief in the basic supe-
riority of men over women (see Gal & Khgman, 2000). From the time of
the Tsars when the Russian Orthodox Church proclaimed the natural infe-
riority of females to males and the responsibility of males to make certain
that females followed the teachings of the church, until the October Revo-
lution in 19 17, this perspective was the foundation of Russian culture.
Shortly after the October Revolution in 19 17, the Bolsheviks declared
the full economic, social, and political equality of women and men in Rus-
sia and abolished all laws restricting the rights of women. In addition,
228 -es BALLARD-REISCH, ZAGUIDOULLINE, WEIGEL
On the one hand, women gained a sense of gratification, moral superiority, and
power in the household from their centrality and apparent indispensability. T&y
also gained a somewhat different, more autonomous sense of self-worth and
self-esteem from participation in the labor force.. . . On the other hand, the con-
12. MAINTAINING MARRIAGES IN RUSSIA ++I- 25:
d&ions of work, the low wages, and the magnitude of demands on them pro-
duced a sense of victimization and perennial guilt at their never being able to do
enough of anything, especially mothering. (p. 53)
In many ways, Soviet men fared worse than Soviet women. Although
there were at least some positives for women who bore this “double burden”
in terms of self-esteem and self-worth, men found themselves unable to ful-
fill their roles as breadwinners due to economic factors that were beyond
their control and without alternative roles to play. Salaries average workers
received in the 1960s to the 1980s were not enough to provide adequately
for the whole family. To meet a modest subsistence level both spouses had to
work and earn the average national wage (Matthews, 1986). Struggling to
support their families, resilient men held several part-time or temporary
jobs in addition to their full-time jobs (e.g., reselling goods, providing private
services, manufacturing goods at home), engaged in the illegal production of
goods, and took part in small- and large-scale theft from their places of work
(Schapiro & Godson, 1984). This mode of operation normally meant a con-
stant absence of the husband and father from daily family life. Such condi-
tions, compounded by constant shortages of goods and housing (see
Matthews, 1989; Morton, 1987; Seeger, 1984), left Soviet men no grounds
on which to justify their dominant position in the family.
In addition, the communist regime usurped “head of household” as a
masculine image and produced very few alternative pictures of masculinity
linked to roles in the family or household (Gal & Kligman, 2000).
Gal and Kligman summarized what has become a popular conception of
Soviet men. Although dominant in the work place, Soviet men were “dis-
organized, needy, dependent, vulnerable, demanding to be taken care of
and sheltered, to be humored as they occasionally acted out with aggres-
sion, alcoholism, womanizing, or absenteeism” in the home (p. 54).
Summary
Gal and Kligman (2000) made clear that role conflict for both men and
women when combined with lax divorce laws and state support of women
and children led to the extreme fragility of marriage ties. In a culture in which
women are supposed to manage the home and nurture the family, but must
also work full time outside the home in order to supplement the financial sup-
port their husbands give the family, women feel overburdened, oppressed,
and exhausted. In a culture in which men find identity in their ability to be
heads of households, to provide for their families, and yet are unable to do so
because of economic conditions that create a need for their spouses to work,
men become disconsolate. Neither of these conditions bode well for strong,
sustainable marriages and high levels of dissension and divorce are the result.
Economic issues following perestroika did nothing to improve the situation.
2a +i==+ BALLARD-REISCH, ZAGUIDOULLINE, WEIGEL
Economic Factors
The period of economic transition that began in 199 1 led to a more se-
vere deterioration of living standards. Attempts by the government to in-
troduce capitalism quickly resulted in skyrocketing consumer and
industrial prices, decreasing production, increasing unemployment, and
loss of savings. According to the World Bank (1996), from 1989 to 1996,
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Russia declined approximately
50%. In comparison, during the Great Depression in the U.S., the GDP
fell only about 30% (Connor, 2000).
Consumer prices increased a staggering 3,204% from the years 1991
through 1998 (IMF, 2000; United Nations, ZOOOb), whereas monthly
wages increased only 1,915% (Robertson, 2000). To further compound
this problem, government wages were often not paid on time. By February
1999, the government owed wages to 118,076 enterprises totaling approx-
imately $2,7 15 million U.S. dollars (Robertson, 2000). At the end of 1999,
35% of the population had incomes below the subsistence wage (Robert-
son, 2000).
Unemployment has also been a significant problem ranging from 4.8%
of the potential workforce in 1992 to 11.5% in 1998 (Connor, 2000). One
important trend has been the disproportionate number of women unem-
ployed. At times, women have made up more than 90% of the unemployed
in some cities (Sperling, 2000).
Summary
Overall, although the economic situation during the Soviet period was
difficult, the period of economic transition has proven to be even more of a
hardship for Russian families. The economic conditions have a crucial im-
pact on the number of Russian marriages, their duration, reproductive ac-
tivity, and health and life expectancy. These areas are covered in the next
section.
Demographic Factors
The Russian family is in crisis. The population is shrinking, life expec-
tancy is shortened, the marriage rate is declining, and the divorce rate con-
tinues to be high. Population growth has been negative since 1992. In
1998, the population represented only 98.7% of the 1991 population
(Robertson, 2000). Life expectancy at birth has declined from 74.3 years
for women and 63.8 years for men in 1990 to 72.9 years for women and
6 1.3 years for men in 1998 (United Nations, 2000a).
Likewise, marital stability has decreased. The marriage rate declined
from around 8.9% in 1990 (United Nations, 2000a) to 5.8% in 1998 (Rob-
ertson, 2000). Age at marriage increased for women from 22.6 years of age
12. MAINTAINING MARRIAGES IN RUSSIA ==a- &I
in 1990 to 22.7 in 1998 and for men from 24.7 to 25.0 years (United Na-
tions, 2000a). The divorce rate remains high with 59.8% of marriages end-
ing in divorce in 1997 and 59.1% in 1998 (Robertson, 2000).
Women in Russia today will have an average of 1.2 children down from
1.9 in 1990 (United Nations, 2000a). On a positive note, children born
will have a better chance of survival. The infant mortality rate increased
from 1991 to 1993 from 17.8 deaths per 1000 people in 1991 to 19.9 in
1993 and steadily decreased to 16.5 deaths per 1000 people in 1998 (Rob-
ertson, 2000). At the same time, the rate of abortions to live births, al-
though on the decline since 1990, still remains very high with 1,971.l
abortions per 1,000 live births in 1990 and 1,722.3 abortions per 1,000 live
births in 1998. Comparable U.S. statistics indicated 386.9 abortions per
1,000 live births in 1990 and 348.9 per 1,000 in 1996 (United Nations,
2000a). Since Soviet times, abortion has been the major source of birth
control in Russia due in part to the unavailability or low quality of alterna-
tive methods of contraception (Olson & Matskovsky, 1994).
Summary
iors, including sharing tasks and joint activities within social networks
(Dainton & Stafford, 1993), h ave been identified as useful in maintaining
relationships. Some of these areas have been studied within Russian mar-
riages whereas others remain to be studied.
work. Interestingly, however, the picture is not that simple. Results also
indicate that the masculinity subscale of the BSRI, which presupposes a
more instrumental or task oriented approach to relationships, was related
to four of the relational maintenance factors in the Stafford, Dainton,
and Haas (2000) study. The four factors were advice giving, assurances,
openness, and positivity. Instrumentality, however, accounted for signif-
icantly less variance than did sensitivity.
Vannoy et al. (1999) studied masculinity and femininity as they re-
lated to both self- and partner perceptions of marital quality in Russian
marriages. Their findings were consistent with those advanced by
Stafford, Dainton, and Haas (2000). Instrumentality (the masculinity
subscale of the BSRI) was positively related to marital quality in wives
and husbands if used by husbands, but not in either husbands or wives if
used by wives. They saw this finding as “consistent with traditional, patri-
archal assumptions that men are to direct and women are to soothe feel-
ings” (p. 180). More significantly, they found that both self- and partner
assessments of sensitivity (the femininity subscale of the BSRI) were
strongly related to both wives and husbands assessments of marital qual-
ity. They concluded that “husbands and wives who are emotionally sensi-
tive and attuned to the feelings of others increase their own and their
spouses marital quality” (p. 1SO).
Summary
Relationship Trajectories
Approaches to Marriage
Family Types
Based on research with couples in St. Petersburg, Golod (1984, 1996)
identified three predominant family types in Russian society: the patriar-
chal, the child-focused, and the spouse-focused. The patriarchal famiZy
contains a dominant male head of household who is the leader of the fam-
ily. In such a family, women obey men and younger members of the family
show deference to their elders. Roles and communication patterns are
highly traditional with the father seen as provider for and protector of the
family and the mother playing the role of supporter and nurturer. Accord-
ing to Golod (1984, 1996), the patriarchal family type was the dominant
form in Russia prior to World War II.
The second type of family emerged following World War II and was the
dominant form until approximately 1990 and the end of perestroika-the
child-focused family. This type of family placed high value on the well being of
children. Spousal happiness was a secondary consideration. Roles and com-
munication patterns were still highly traditional and the good of the children
was the overarching concern. During this time, it was not uncommon for cou-
ples to choose to stay together for the sake of their children.
The third family type, the spouse-focused family, has emerged since
perestroika and is more aligned with western values. Roles and communi-
cation patterns are typically more egalitarian than in either of the other two
types and the stability of the marriage depends on the desire of spouses to
remain in the marriage and their perceptions of marital quality (Golod,
1984, 1996). Recent research has found that couples who could be classi-
12. MAINTAINING MARRIAGES IN RUSSIA =+i-
fied into this third type report a high level of cooperation in their relation-
ship and a democratic approach to family tasks (see Arutiunian, 1987)
including more flexible approaches to parental responsibilities (see Gurko,
1997). Going beyond family types, research on Russian families has also
examined developmental stages in Russian marriages.
Summary
The goal of the present review was to analyze the factors that impact the
maintenance of marriages in Russia. The Ballard-Reisch and Weigel(l999)
“Model of Communication Processes in Marital Commitment” was used
as an organizing framework, as it allowed for the assessment of external as
well as internal factors that impact relationship development and mainte-
nance processes within marriages.
At the level of societal influence, historical, political, and economic de-
velopments as well as how they have resulted in complex conceptualiza-
tions of roles for women and men both in families and in society as a whole
were explored. At the couple level, within the marital dyad, the emerging
body of literature that focused on specific communication strategies that
couples use to maintain their relationships was examined. In addition,
structures and forms that couples develop in order to manage these power-
ful external factors and at the same time negotiate and develop their per-
sonal relationships were considered.
veloped in the United States, with its vastly different historical background,
will allow researchers to understand the dynamics of Russian marriages.
It is likely that the theory and conceptualizations on which these instru-
ments are based do not correspond adequately with the realities of Russian
marriages. There are certainly indications of conceptual and content dif-
ferences, like the egalitarian versus symbiotic conceptualization of mate
selection, that make the issue of cultural congruence a significant concern.
A related issue is conceptual congruence including linguistic congru-
ence. For example, there is no word for the concept of commitment as ap-
plied to relationships in the Russian ‘language. There are related concepts
like obligation (06X3aTeJIbCTBO), loyalty (npeAaHHocTb), and faithfulness
(BepHocTb), but the overarching concept does not exist. Similarly, the con-
gruence between the meaning of maintaining relationships in Russia versus
the United States has not been adequately assessed. How does one main-
tain a relationship with other half? Is such maintenance necessary?
How is it perceived?
To really understand marriages in Russia, social scientists must take a
grounded approach to inquiry and try to uncover the culture specific con-
cepts underlying relational stability. This will require both the generation
of new theory and the development of culturally appropriate measure-
ment instruments. Russian social scientists, often in collaboration with
U.S. colleagues, are beginning this process.
Further, this literature review has illuminated a variety of avenues for
future research. Although additional research in the three ecological
spheres identified in the Ballard-Reisch and Weigel (1999) model would
add significantly to an understanding of the context within which Russian
marriages exist as well as the dynamic factors both within and outside mar-
riages that impact their resilience, research in the immediate social sphere
is most strongly lacking. In Russia, where webs of relationship are funda-
mental to survival on many levels and where there is significant evidence
that social support and family and friendship networks are of central im-
portance (Ballard-Reisch et al., 1999), there is a clear need to assess the im-
pact of these networks on the resiliency of marriages.
Additionally, research on marriages in Russia has been focused primarily
on self report measures of behavior. As with studies on U.S. couples, it
would be useful to identify and assess the actual use of behaviors married
couples engage in and their impact on relationships.
Finally, it is unclear at this time what beliefs, attitudes, values, and ex-
pectations Russians have regarding marriage and how they effect
relationships. As Russia shifts from a strongly collectivist culture to one
that also acknowledges individual level variables, these questions will be-
come increasingly salient. Investigation of these issues, in addition to the
development of culturally appropriate questionnaires, would aid in an un-
derstanding of the dynamics of marriage in Russia.
-/
772 +=+ BALLARD-REISCH, ZAGUIDOULLINE, WEIGEL
Matthews, M. (1986). The poverty in the Soviet Union: The life-styles of the underprivi-
leged in recent years. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, M. (1989). Patterns of deprivation in the Soviet Union under Brezhnev and
Gorbachev. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Morton, H. W (1987). Housing quality and housing classes in the Soviet Union. In H.
Hertlemann (Ed.), Quality of lif e in the Soviet Union (pp. 95-115). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Morvant, I? (1995). B earing the “double burden” in Russia. Transition 9(8), 4-9.
Noller, I?, & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Marital communication in the eighties. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 52, 832-843.
Olson, D. H., & Matskovsky, M. S. (1994). Soviet and American families: A compara-
tive overview. In J. W Maddock, M. J. Hogan, A. I. Antonov, & M. S. Matskovsky
(Eds.), Families before and after perestroika (pp. 9-35). New York: The Guilford
Press.
Ragsdale, J. D. (1996). G en d er, satisfaction level, and the use of relational maintenance
strategies in marriage. Communication Monographs, 63, 354-369.
Rimashevskaya, N. (1992). P erestroika and the status of women in the Soviet Union. In
S. Rai, H. Pilkington, &A. Phizacklea (Eds.), Women in the face of change: The Soviet
Union, Eastern Europe, and China (pp. 11-19). New York: Routledge.
Rimashevskaya, N., Vannoy, D., Malysheva, M., Meshterkina, E., Pisklakova, M., &
Cubbins, L. (1999). Okno v russkuiu chastnuiu Supruzheskie pary v 1996
godu [A window into Russian private life: Marital couples in 19961. Moscow, Russia:
Academia.
Robertson, L. R. (Ed.). (2000). R ussia & Eurasia facts &figures annual. Vol. 26, Part I:
CJS and Russia. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press.
Roudakova, N.V, & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (2000). Femininity and the double burden:
Dialogues on the socialization of Russian daughters into womanhood. Paper pre-
sented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association Con-
vention, Seattle, WA.
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P (1993). C ommitment processes in close relationships: An
interdependence Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, IO,
175-204.
Russian Statistical Yearbook. (1996). Moscow: Logos.
Schapiro, L., & Godson, J. (Eds.). (1984). The Soviet worker: From Lenin to Andropov.
New York: St. Press.
Seeger, M. (1984). Eye-witness to failure. In L. Schapiro &J. Godson (Eds.), The Soviet
worker: From Lenin to Andropov (pp. 77-107). New York: St. Press.
Sillars, A. L., & Wilmot, W W (1989). Marital communication across the life-span. In J.
F. Nussbaum (Ed.), L 2‘f e -sp an communication: Normative issues (pp. 120-I 47).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Silverman, B., &Yanowitch, M. (1997). N ew rich, new poor, new Russia.. Winners and
losers on the Russian road to capitalism. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Sperling, V (2000). Th e “new” sexism: Images of Russian women during the transition.
In M. G. Field &J. L. Twigg (Eds.), torn safety nets: Health and social wel-
fare during the transition (pp. 173-l 89). New York: St. Press.
Sprecher, S. (1988). I nvestment model, equity, and social support determinants of re-
lationship commitment. Social Psychological Quarterly, 52, 3 18-328.
Stafford, L. (1994). T racing the threads of spider webs. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford
(Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 115-l 39). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
12. MAINTAINING MARRIAGES IN RUSSIA +=+ 272
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship
type, gender, and relational characteristics. JournaZ of Social and Personal Relution-
ships, 8, 217-242.
Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. (2000). M easuring routine and strategic relational
maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational
characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67(3), 306-323.
Sysenko, V A. (198 1). bruku: Problemy, fuktory, usloviia [Marriage sus-
tainability: Problems, factors, and conditions]. Moscow, Soviet Union: Finances &
Statistics Publishing House.
Sysenko, V A. (1983). Supruzheskie konjlikty [Spouse conflicts]. Moscow, Soviet Un-
ion: Finances & Statistics Publishing House.
Teachman, J. D. (2000). Diversity of family structure: Economics and social influences.
In D. H. Demo, K. R. Allen, &M. A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook offumily diversity (pp.
32-58). New York: Oxford.
United Nations. (2000a). Women and men in Europe and North America 2000. New
York: United Nations.
United Nations. (2OOOb). World economic and sociaZ survey 2000: Trends and policies
in the world economy. New York: United Nations.
Vannoy, D., Rimashevskaya, N., Cubbins, L., Malysheva, M., Meshterkina, E., &
Pisklakova, M. (1999). M urriages in Russia: Couples during the economic transition.
Westport, CT Praeger.
Weigel, D. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1997). All marriages are not maintained equally:
Marital type, marital quality, and the use of maintenance behaviors. Paper pre-
sented at the annual conference of the International Network on Personal Relation-
ships. Oxford, OH.
Weigel, D. J., & Weigel, R. R. (1993). Gender roles and family functioning: Gender dif-
ferences in farm families. In C. Berryman-Fink, D. S. Ballard-Reisch, & L. H.
Newman (Eds.), Communication and sex-roZe socialization (pp. 83-97). New York:
Garland Publishing.
White, L. K. (1983). Determinants of spatial interaction: Marital structure or marital
happiness. Journal of Marriage and the FumiZy, 45, 5 11-5 19.
Wood, J. T. (1993). Engendered relations: Interaction, caring, power, and responsibility
in intimacy. In S. Duck (Ed.), S ociaZ context and relationships (pp. 26-54).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wood, J. T. (1995). Relational communication: Continuity and change in personal reZa-
tionships. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
World Bank. (1996). Statistical handbook: States of the former Soviet Union, 2 l(386).
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Zuo, J. (1992). The reciprocal relationship between marital interaction and marital
happiness: A three-wave study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54,870-878.
This page intentionally left blank
Maintaining ReIationships
in Korea and the United
States: Features OF Korean
dture that Affect
Relational Maintenance
Beliefs and Behavior.
Young-Ok Yum
Kansas State University
Daniel J. Canary
Arizona State University
similar vein, Kim and Wilson (1994) noted that, as opposed to Americans,
Koreans are highly collectivistic and tend to view direct requests as the
least effective strategy for accomplishing their goals. Yi and Park (199 1)
stated that Koreans enact a unique communication style that includes indi-
rect expressions of opinions and feelings, and silence. In this manner, Kore-
ans are often implicit or tacit in expressing their affection and do not
expect a partner will exert overt communicative efforts to convey his or
her intent to maintain a relationship. On the other hand, it appears that
Americans anticipate and actively look for signals from a partner that dis-
play relational commitment and other positive qualities. Much of the re-
search on relational maintenance strategies in the U.S. has focused on
explicitly proactive and constructive message behaviors (Guerrero et al.,
1993). Yet, whereas individualism and collectivism provide a general ap-
proach to compare traits and attributes that exist universally across cul-
tures, many cross-cultural scholars maintain that there are other equally or
more important factors that are uniquely found in a certain culture that
may have greater impact on human behavior (i.e., culture-specific ap-
proach; e.g., Triandis, 1995).
The second proposition is that Koreans andAmericans hold different at-
titudes and expectations with respect to personal relationships. For instance,
Koreans (just as Japanese and Chinese) tend to consider free-choice dating
relationships and romantic love as rather “irrelevant and even disastrous to
marriage because they disrupt the tradition of arranged or at least fam-
ily-approved marriage choices” (Simmons, von Kolke, & Shimizu, 1986, p.
328). One of the reasons for this belief is that romantic love frequently en-
tails intimacy and sexual activities that are counter to a long-held virtue of
premarital chastity sought in a marital partner. Likewise, in India and Paki-
stan, a majority of people believe that romantic love and intense emotional
attachment are a threat to the existing family structure and that they
would marry without love (Levine, Sato, Hashimoto, & Verma, 1995).
However, in Western individualistic cultures (e.g., Germany, Sweden, and
France), chastity is less important and may even be seen as a shortcoming
(Buss, 1989).
The expression of intimacy appears to be more common in individualis-
tic (vs. collectivistic) cultures. For instance, Argyle, Henderson, Bond,
Iizuka, and Contarello (1986) reported that intimacy is more strongly re-
lated to marital satisfaction in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic
cultures. Intimacy and commitment were two typical characteristics in the
British romantic relationships, which was not the case for Japanese rela-
tionships. Specific examples of intimacy behaviors in this study were dis-
cussing sex, showing anger, and showing distress. Emotional commitment
was expressed by showing mutual trust, sharing news and schedule, and
displaying faithfulness. On the other hand, collectivists tend to restrain
themselves from expressing (negative) emotions to avoid conflict or losing
280 +- YUMAND CANARY
face, for they have been taught to control emotions and suppress the ex-
pression of spontaneous and honest feelings (Argyle et al., 1986).
Moreover, romantic relationships serve a pragmatic function in Korea
and other collectivistic cultures. Individuals in collectivistic cultures often
seek social status and financial security from their marriage, whereas indi-
viduals in individualistic cultures place more value in love and compatibil-
ity (Kamo, 1993). Th us, dating and marriage are frequently initiated and
sustained by extended-familial interventions in Korea. Korean parents
tend to consider dating and marriage to an “improper” person a disgrace to
the entire family, with improper person meaning person of a lower socio-
economic status, education, or a certain trait. Thus, parents prefer to ar-
range dating and marriage by investigating the socioeconomic status,
family background, occupation, position, and religion of a prospective
partner through an informal or a formal intermediary, for dating is only
seen as preparation for marriage, and marriage is considered an extension
of family network and merging with another family. Accordingly, once a ro-
mantic relationship is formed, it is taken for granted and not seen as special
and valuable, because it is not own conscious and independent choice
and effort that has formed and sustained the relationship. Frequently, it is
the wishes of parents or other authoritative family members that keep
partners together, for they cannot afford to allow anybody to degrade the
the-myon or ol-gool (similar to face in the Western concept) of the entire
family (Lim & Choi, 1996). A s in d ivi d ua 1s care about face, so do families.
Family members often work to save the collective face of family at the ex-
pense of an face. Other important culture-specific features
that may cause variation in relational maintenance communication be-
tween Koreans and Americans are discussed in the next section.
Our third and final proposition is that research has assumed that a lack
of active and constructive communication would induce lower levels of de-
sired relational qualities [e.g., commitment, trust, liking, and control mutu-
ality] for both Koreans and Americans. Canary and Stafford (1994) stated
that commitment, trust, liking, and control mutuality (i.e., agreement
about rightful influence power and decision making) are universal charac-
teristics valued in romantic relationships across cultures. Some studies in-
dicate that communicative endeavors and skills are also viewed important
in non-Western, collectivistic cultures. For instance, Hatfield and Sprecher
(1995) surveyed young college students in U.S ., Russia, and Japan and dis-
covered that younger participants in Japan consider good communication
qualities and skills a critical factor in relationship development. Japanese
participants indicated that good communication qualities are, for example,
understanding, expressiveness and openness, and use of humor. Potential
for success, money, status, and position were relatively unimportant fac-
tors for romantic relationship among these participants. On the other
hand, in a study of Korean husbands and wives, Yi and Park (199 1) found
13. KOREA AND THE U.S. +=a 281
Several cultural features and principles appear to affect Korean beliefs and
attitudes toward an intimate relationship and their styles of relational
maintenance communication: eui-ri, jung, noon-chi, and yon. These four
features also generally coincide with the collectivistic disposition of Kore-
ans. Each is briefly reviewed at this point.
h-h-i
Jung
ings (Lim & Choi, 1996). Similarly, Choi and Choi (1990) identified four
properties of jung, which are duration, togetherness, warmth, and solidar-
ity. In other words, jung requires a long history of interaction, mutual ex-
periences, deeply rooted feelings, and mutual interdependence. Lim and
Choi (1996) further pointed out that jung-associated contacts do not have
to be rewarding, and jung can be established between rivals who have to
meet each other frequently for an extended period of time. You can fre-
quently hear some people say that they can not completely ignore someone
or break up from the relationship because the “damned jung” with him or
her is too thick and strong to cut off, which signifies both negative and posi-
tive feelings. This kind of jung is what Koreans call “bitterness-based jung,”
of which the origin is bitter, but the end is sweet (Lim & Choi, 1996). Jung
can drag a distressed and unhappy relationship for a long, long time.
Noon-chi
Noon-chi represents a uniquely Korean strategy to ascertain the
attitudes, desires, and moods (Lim & Choi, 1996). It is a tacit,
high-context communication tactic that allows a person to understand in-
direct or unspoken messages. Noon-chi is distinct from the Western con-
cept of “reading between the lines” in that people using noon-chi do not
necessarily want their interaction partner to know what the message con-
veyed by noon-chi means or necessarily assume that others will be able to
decipher its correct meaning. For instance, if a person ingratiates his or her
supervisor without that ingratiation being noticed by the supervisor or oth-
ers, then that individual uses noon-chi effectively. If a person does not have
noon-chi, then he or she will most likely be caught while flattering his or her
supervisor. A person with noon-chi tends to be successful in developing and
maintaining relationships, for he or she is capable in identifying what the
situation demands, what a potential date desires (even from a brief con-
tact), how to encode and decode relational messages, and how to present
himself or herself as desirable. Within a relationship, noon-chi helps to sus-
tain a relationship by suppressing negative feelings and avoiding conflict.
Noon-chi is manifested by a competent as well as avoidant communica-
tion tactic used to protect self-image or relationship. For example, people
will often advise a person anxiously preparing for his or her important job
interview to use noon-chi so as to avoid looking incompetent or embarrass-
ing himself or herself in front of a prospective employer. People who read
situational cues well and react promptly are considered being adept in
noon-chi or having good noon-chi. People often use noon-chi to protect their
face (Lim & Choi, 1996). In particular, powerless people tend to use
noon-chi to protect their face and project a positive image.
Korean women are expected to be experts in using noon-chi to keep sta-
bility and harmony in relationship. Traditionally, women have sometimes
284 w YUMANDCANARY
been blamed for a breakup of marriage, for they are supposed to have used
noon& effectively in the first place to prevent it (i.e., keep their spouses
happy and keep them from drifting away from the marriage). Simply put,
the woman has created marital conflict and dissolution, and, eventually,
termination of marriage because she did not have good (or enough)
noon&. In modern Korea, men or women are both encouraged to have
good noon-& to avoid conflict and confrontation that may cause dissolu-
tion of a relationship. Overall, noon-chi is a requisite for a successful rela-
tionship.
Yon
In addition to the three features already discussed, yon helps explain an-
other facet of the typical Korean communication style, that is, passive and
dismissive relational communication behavior, as opposed to the
Euro-American style that involves more proactive relational communica-
tion behaviors (e.g., Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994; Stafford & Ca-
nary, 1991). Yon is a prevalent belief or attitude toward relationship
processes in the Korean culture. Yon is related to the belief that relation-
ships are formed, maintained, and terminated by uncontrollable external
forces, not by conscious efforts (Chang & Holt, 199 1). According to
the yon principle (a.k.a. yuan in Chinese; Chang & Holt, 1991, Goodwin &
Findlay, 1997), relationships are predetermined or sustained by yon, rather
than by active and constructive communicative tactics that partners use. In
other words, a relationship will be maintained only until the relationship
has sufficient yon that ties the partners. Without yon, the relationship will
fall apart no matter what relational maintenance strategy partners enact,
which will naturally discourage individuals from exerting conscious com-
municative efforts to maintain a relationship.
Eui-ri, jung, noon-chi, and yon constitute unique characteristics that
have strategic relevance to communication used within personal relation-
ships in Korea, which help explain a complementary, communal, implicit,
and dismissive Korean communication style that is distinct from a recipro-
cal, exchange-oriented, explicit, and active Euro-American style. These
characteristics also help explain and predict that Koreans are likely to be
indirect and implicit, use hints and avoidant behavior to cope with prob-
lems, whereas Americans tend to engage in overt, positive communication
behaviors in order to continue a relationship by maintaining desired rela-
tional qualities. Although the roles of these cultural features in relational
maintenance, separately or in combination, have not yet been systemati-
cally theorized or empirically tested from either a Korean or Western
(rather, American) perspective, some prior research evidence needs to be
13. KOREA AND THE U.S. =+- 28j
km-chconducted
Most research findings point to cross-cultural differences in relational
maintenance communication, although one should note that these findings
are from cross-cultural comparison of culturally universal traits and fea-
tures (e.g., individualism and collectivism) and that no research has yet at-
tempted to link these culture-specific features to relational
communication. Therefore, based on these findings, one can only specu-
late the implications of these features on maintenance. Yum and Canary
(1997) hypothesized that culture influences the perceived use of relational
maintenance strategies and qualities and compared 273 Koreans and 177
Americans involved in a romantic relationship that lasted at least one year
at the time of data collection. Participants were Korean and American uni-
versity students (American sample consisted of approximately 97%
Euro-Americans and no Korean Americans). For Koreans, the question-
naire was translated into Korean using quasi-back translation method to re-
tain accurate and adequate meanings from the original (Banks & Banks,
1991).
Using Canary and (1992) positivity-assurances-openness-
networks-tasks typology and their measure of relational characteristics
(i.e., control mutuality, liking, commitment, and trust; Canary & Stafford,
1994), Yum and Canary (1997) f ound that American participants reported
the use of all five strategies significantly more than did their Korean coun-
terparts. In addition, as predicted, Americans reported significantly higher
amounts of commitment, liking, control mutuality, and trust than did Ko-
reans. Importantly, correlations between maintenance strategies and rela-
tional characteristics were greater for Americans, suggesting that relational
quality for Americans is more directly connected to maintenance efforts.
However, we should note that maintenance strategies had a significant im-
pact on relational qualities for Koreans as well. These findings indicate that
maintenance behaviors directly influence relational characteristics for
both Americans and Koreans, but more so for Americans. In other words,
for Koreans, the use of positive maintenance strategies (and lack thereof)
13. KOREA AND THE U.S. -=a- 287
thing has gone wrong (Dindia & Baxter, 1987) or after one partner has
found the behavior problematic (Rusbult et al., 1991). One study
specifically investigated problem-solving strategies as part of relational
maintenance and found that individuals reportedly prefer to use construc-
tive strategies as compared to destructive strategies (Yum, 2000). Yum
speculated that problem-solving behavior, especially a negative one, in a
personal relationship also comprises a significant portion of relational
maintenance and that individuals who are likely to report displaying con-
structive behavior in problem solving are less likely to report enacting de-
structive behavior.
Using Rusbult and (1983) exit-voice-loyalty-neglect
(EVLN) typology, Yum (2000) measured the extent to which Koreans and
Americans differ in the use of problem-solving behavior in reaction to part-
problematic behavior. Exit and neglect represent negative prob-
lem-solving behavior (i.e., intent to end the relationship) that likely
jeopardize the stability and continuance of an ongoing relationship,
whereas voice and loyalty are constructive problem-solving strategies used
to show commitment and intent to keep the relationship in tact. Yum
found that Koreans reported the use of both exit and neglect significantly
more than did Americans, although both Koreans and Americans, on aver-
age, relied on these destructive maintenance strategies (i.e., exit and ne-
glect) considerably less than they did constructive strategies (i.e., voice
and loyalty). (Koreans and Americans rated their use of destructive behav-
ior lower than 3 on 7-point scales, whereas they rated constructive strate-
gies greater than 5).
These results comport with a prior finding by Yum (2000) that Koreans
and Americans do not differ in their perceived level of investments and
support the reasoning that Koreans rely on negative strategies more than
do Americans because of such cultural features as yon, eui-ri, jung, and
noon-&. Previously, Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, and Lipkus
(1991), using only a U.S. sample, found that highly invested individuals
were significantly more likely than less invested people to enact construc-
tive behavior, and they were less likely to use destructive behavior. It ap-
pears that, although Koreans and Americans do not differ in their degrees
of investment, they may vary in the extent to which investment affects
communication (probably, due to the functions of these cultural features).
Similar findings exist in the literature that provides indirect support for
the impact of these unique cultural features on Korean maintenance com-
munication in that Koreans tend to employ negative relational mainte-
nance tactics more than positive ones. Yi and Park (1991) conducted a
self-report study with Korean marital couples regarding couple communi-
cation style and found that Koreans employ negative strategies more so
than positive ones. Koreans reported engaging in domineering, authoritar-
ian, submissive (or accommodating), and dismissive communication
13. KOREA AND THE U.S. -+ 289
hlpl icationsfor~utureResearch
The present chapter has shown that Koreans hold unique cultural charac-
teristics and views that generally govern their behavior in personal relation-
ships. Accordingly, future research should consider these features and
their effects on maintaining relationships.
First, future research may need to investigate the potential implications
of these culture-specific characteristics in interethnic and interracial rela-
tionships. When both partners (and close kin members) bring in relational
assumptions and expectancies formed through interaction with others in
their cultures of origin, it is likely that the partners will sometimes encoun-
ter profound differences and difficulties. Partners in these relationships
may need to work harder to maintain them. For instance, Dainton (1999)
found that interracial couples were distinct from same-race couples in that
their stories about their own marriage displayed more emotional attach-
ments and maintenance efforts than did those by same-race couples.
Dainton speculated, meanings and experiences are shaped by
cultural norms regarding how to enact a relationship as well as by everyday
interaction with spouse” (p. 147). Although these culture-bound
meaning structures and experiences must cause initial differences in mari-
tal communication, interracial couples in this study were “more interactive
and in tune with each thoughts,” and “more behaviorally flexible,”
and created a unique “subculture” of marriage (p. 163; probably, to make
up for these differences). results indicate a possibility that cul-
turally unique features may influence biracial relational partners to work to
overcome cultural biases, enrich their relational culture, broaden their rep-
ertoire of maintenance strategies, deepen understanding of each other, and
enhance relational quality. Still, additional large-scale research is war-
ranted to understand how interracial partners interact and connect with
each other and transform their relationship to another level.
Second, methodological limitations of previous studies need to be ad-
dressed in future research endeavors. More in-depth, descriptive, and
field-based observation data are imperative to conduct research that cap-
tures cultural nuances and innuendos occurring during interactions. Al-
though previous studies informed and unveiled general traits and features
associated with maintenance communication styles, researchers need to
collect data from real people through their diaries and logs, and their own
voices through face-to-face interviews. (1999) interview
method was adequate for her purpose by gathering in-depth information
that a large-scale survey might have missed. Numerous previous studies
have employed a self-report measure with college students (e.g., Yum,
13. KOREA AND THE U.S. +=a- 293
2000; Yum & Canary, 1997), leaving questions regarding the representa-
tion of general population. Future studies need to address this issue by
varying methods of data collection (e.g., observation and in-depth inter-
views) and data analysis (e.g., content analysis and path analysis).
Third, we should examine how relational maintenance efforts are linked
to loneliness across cultures. Clearly, the use of proactive and positive
maintenance actions and activities promotes higher quality involvements.
And it appears that people who are lonely, especially chronically lonely, en-
gage in fewer communicative efforts to maintain the relationships they
have (Henson, Dybvig, & Canary, 2001; Spitzberg & Canary, 1985; Yum,
1999). What is less clear concerns whether lonely people in high-context
and collectivistic cultures would benefit from efforts to engage explicitly
in relational maintenance strategies.
Finally, and importantly, as Goodwin (1999) suggested, in order to
make sense of cultural differences in relational maintenance, we need to
develop a comprehensive hypothesis that combine etic, or culturally uni-
versal, factors (e.g., individualism-collectivism and power) with such sa-
lient emit, or culturally specific, factors presented in this chapter. For
instance, people universally prefer positive over negative communicative
behaviors, and proactive maintenance strategies positively link to funda-
mental relational characteristics and qualities. At the same time, it appears
that some cultural features discourage the use of such behaviors, ironically
relying on principles presumably followed to keep close relationships in-
tact. It is possible that high-maintenance relationships are universally
problematic, and that people in some cultures have rules or principles that
guide them in the maintenance of such relationships. Regardless, it appears
that both etic and emit factors must be considered in examining the role of
communication in cross-cultural and intercultural relationships.
Argyle, M., Bond, M., Iizuka, Y., & Contarello, A. (1986). Cross-cultural variations in
relationship rules. Znternational Journal of Psychology, 2 1, 287-3 15.
Attridge, M. (1994). B arriers to dissolution of romantic relationships. In D. J. Canary &
L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 141-163). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Banks, A., & Banks, S. P (1991). Unexplored barriers: The role of translation in inter-
personal communication. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural
interpersonal communication (pp. 171-185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A., & Dindia, K. (1990). Marital perceptions of maintenance strate-
gies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 187-209.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypoth-
eses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, l-l 4.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relationship maintenance strategies and equity in
marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243-267.
294 -E==+ YUMANDCANARY
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and
routine interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and rela-
tional maintenance (pp. 3-22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Chang, H., &Holt, G. R. (1991). Th e concept of yuun and Chinese interpersonal rela-
tionships. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal
communication (pp. 28-57). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chen, G. (1995). 1 erences in self-disclosure patterns among Americans versus Chi-
nese. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, ZS, 84-91. -
Choi, S. C., & Choi, S. C. (1990). Psychological structure of jung (cheong). Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the Korean Psychological Association; Pusan, Korea.
Dainton, M. (1999). Af rican:American, European-American, and biracial
meanings fir and-experiences in marriage. In-T. J. Socha & R. C. Diggs (Eds.), Com-
munication, race, and family: Exploring communication in Black, White, and biru-
ciul families (pp. 147-l 65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of
relationship type, partner similarity, and sex differences. JournuZ of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 10, 255-272.
Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital rela-
tionships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143-l 58.
Frymier, A., Klopf, D., & Ishii, S. (1990). Japanese and Americans compared on the af-
fect orientation construct. Psychological Reports, 66, 985-986.
Gao, G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1995). Attributional confidence, perceived similarity,
and network involvement in Chinese and European American romantic relation-
ships. Communication Quarterly, 43, 431-445.
Goodwin, R. (1999). Personul relationships across cultures. London: Routledge.
Goodwin, R., & Findlay, C. (1997). We were just fated together. Chinese love and the
concept of yuan in Hong Kong and England. Personal Relationships, 4, 85-92.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S.
(1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construal, and in-
dividual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication
Research, 22, 5 1 O-543.
Gudykunst, W B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1996). Communication in personal relationships
across cultures: An introduction. In W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey, & T Nishida
(Eds.), Communication in personaL relationships across cultures (pp. 3-l 6). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guerrero, L. K., Eloy, S. V, & Wabnik, A. I. (1993). in in g maintenance strategies to
relationship development and disengagement: A reconceptualization. Journal of So-
cial and Personal Relationships, 10, 285-304.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1995). and mate preferences in the
United States, Russia and Japan. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26,728-50.
Henson, D. F., Dybvig, K. C., & Canary, D. J. (2001, July). The effects of loneliness and
communication apprehension on relational maintenance behaviors: An attributional
perspective. Paper presented at the International Network on Personal Relation-
ships/International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships Conference;
Prescott, AZ.
Hofstede, G. (1980). consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kamo, Y. (1993). Determinants of marital satisfaction: A comparison of the United
States and Japan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 55 l-568.
Kim, M. S. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conver-
sational constraints. Human Communication Research, 2 1, 128-l 5 1.
13. KOREA AND iHE U.S. =a- 295
Kim, M. S., Hunter, J. E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A. M., Bresnahan, M., & Yoon, H. J.
(1996). I n d ivi d ua l- vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism:
Effects of preferred conversational styles. Communication Monographs, 63,29-49.
Kim, M. S., &Wilson, S. R. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of
requesting. Communication Monographs, 61, 2 1O-235.
Klopf, D. W. (1984). C ross-cultural apprehension research: A summary of Pacific Basin
studies. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness,
reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 157-l 69). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lee, S. W (1994). The Cheong Space: Azone of non-exchange. In G. Yoon & S. C. Choi
(Eds.), Psychology of the Korean people: Collectivism and individualism (pp.
85-99). Seoul: Dong-A Publishing.
Levine, R., Sato, S., Hashimoto, T., & Verma, J. (1995). Love and marriage in eleven
cultures. Journul of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26, 554-571.
Lim, T. S., & Choi, S. H. (1996). Interpersonal relationships in Korea. In W B.
Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relu-
tionships across cultures (pp. 122-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lin, Y. W, & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). C ommitment to dating relationships and cross-sex
friendships in America and China. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,
7-26.
McCroskey (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly & J.
C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communi-
cation apprehension (pp. 13-38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Park, M. S., Cambra, R. E., & Klopf, D. W (1979). Ch aracteristics of Korean oral com-
munication patters. Korea Journal, 19, 4-8.
Roloff, M. E. (1987). C ommunication and reciprocity within intimate relationships. In
M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in com-
munication research (pp. 1 l-38). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: An inter-
dependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phe-
nomena. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational
maintenance (pp. 115-l 39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommo-
dation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53-78.
Rusbult, C. E., & Zembrodt, I. M. (1983). R es p onses to dissatisfaction in romantic in-
volvements: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 19, 2 74-293.
Simmons, C. H., von Kolke, A., & Shimizu, H. (1986). Attitudes toward romantic love
among American, German, and Japanese students. The Journal of Social Psychology,
126, 327-336.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Canary, D. J. (1985). L oneliness and relationally competent com-
munication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 387-402.
Stafford, L. (1994). T racing the threads of spider webs. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford
(Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 297-306). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship
type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 8, 2 17-242.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1991). Intimacy expressions in three cultures: France, Japan, and the
United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1.5, 29-46.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). I n d ivi d uu 2ism & coZZectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
296 +I++ YUMAND CANARY
Wheeler, L., Reis, H., & Bond, M. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in everyday so-
cial life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 79-86.
Yi, J. S ., & Park, S. Y. (199 1). Husbands and wives communication styles in marital in-
teraction. The Journal of Korea Home Management Association, 29, 175-l 90.
Yum, J. 0. (1987). The practice ofuye-r-i in interpersonal relationships in Korea. In D. L.
Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp.
87-100). New York: Academic Press.
Yum, J. 0. (1988). Th e impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and
communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 5.5, 374-388.
Yum, Y. (1999, November). The effect of loneliness on relationship satisfaction and
self/partnerpro-relationship behavior: A cross-cultural comparison between the U.S.
and Korea. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of National Communication
Association, Chicago.
Yum, Y. (2000). C ross-cultural comparisons of links among relational maintenance be-
haviors, exchange factors, and individual characteristics in close relationships. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Yum, Y., & Canary, D. J. (1997, July). The role of culture in the perception of mainte-
nance behaviors and relational characteristics: A comparison between the U.S. and
South Korea. Paper presented at the International Network on Personal Relation-
ships Conference, Oxford, OH.
This page intentionally left blank
Ie
Marianne Dainton
La Salle University
299
300 -c=+ DAINTON
INTEGRATING INSIGHTS
The old cliche that you can “pick your friends but you pick your fam-
ily” speaks to a central issue in relational maintenance; how a relationship is
maintained is in large part dependent on the desire to be in that
relationship. Several authors in this book have focused on the extent to
which a relationship is voluntary, and the implications of choice on rela-
tional maintenance. As Hess (chap. 5, this volume) points out, the majority
of studies have focused on the maintenance of voluntary relationships such
as marriages and friendships. Indeed, most of the chapters in the present
volume also focus on voluntary relationships. The notion of choice is rarely
discussed in this research; the desire to be in the relationship is simply as-
sumed. On the other hand, Hess reminds us that unwanted relationships
are also maintained by people on a regular basis. In particular, Hess identi-
fies three reasons people might maintain unwanted relationships: social
ties (e.g., family relationships); work ties; and proxemic ties (e.g., being
neighbors). Clearly, the extent to which a relationship is desired will im-
pact the maintenance of that relationship.
Moreover, relationships might not be purely voluntary or purely invol-
untary, but exist on a continuum of choice. For example, Vogl-Bauer (chap.
2, this volume) discusses family relationships, which are paradoxically
both voluntary and involuntary. That is, one is born into or raised by a fam-
ily, making such familial relations in part involuntary; short of significant
estrangements, you are “stuck” with your family. However, as Vogl-Bauer
indicates, one might also chooseto maintain family relationships. This dis-
tinction points to important definitional issues related to maintenance. If
maintenance is defined as simply keeping a relationship in existence
(Dindia & Canary, 1993), f am&al relationships may be maintained by vir-
tue of the role relationships inherent in family life; maintenance communi-
cation is probably unnecessary. However, if maintenance is defined as
keeping a relationship in a specified state or condition (Dindia & Canary,
AN EPILOGUE =+ 301
The goal of this chapter is not just to highlight the insights of the previous
chapters in this volume but also to develop a model that might assist future
research. Thus far, the two dimensions that have been identified can be
used as a foundation for that graphical representation. Specifically, if rela-
tionships can be mapped on a continuum from purely voluntary to purely
involuntary, and if the maintenance process can be mapped from the
wholly intentional to the wholly unintentional, then perhaps these two
continua can be placed to capture variations in the maintenance experi-
ence (see Fig. 14.1).
When placing these two continua perpendicular to each other, four
quadrants are created. The first quadrant consists of the intentional
AN EPILOGUE ++i- 305
Voluntary
Quadrant
2
Intentional Unintentional
Involuntary
there is very little existing research that could be placed here. At best,
some of the research into family relationships might be placed here (see
Vogl Bauer, chap. 2, this volume).
Although this foundation provides a template for understanding areas of
research, the chapters presented in this volume also illustrate the impor-
tance of yet another consideration for understanding relational mainte-
nance: the importance of context. Unlike the dimensions of choice and
intentionality, contextual variations do not clearly lie on a continuum. In-
stead, contextual levels can be overlaid on the foundation as a whole, such
that each context can be considered within each quadrant created by the
choice and intentionality continua.
It should be no surprise that context is viewed as an important variable
in maintenance. Indeed, this book was in essence designed to capture the
influence of context through a focus on structural, cultural, and contextual
variations. However, in reading each chapter it becomes clear that context
not only differentiates between chapters, but is also a consideration within
chapters. For example, Ballard-Resich, Zaguidoulline, and Weigel (chap.
12, this volume) use an ecological approach to discuss spheres of influence
in maintaining Russian marriages. Specifically, they discuss the couple
sphere, the immediate social sphere, and the societal influences sphere as
contextual influences on marital maintenance in Russia. Each of these lev-
els can be considered contexts of
‘A focus on contexts emerges from numerous chapters in this volume, as well as previous dis-
cussions of maintenance. However, it is important to acknowledge that Ballard-Reisch and
(1999) model, which is based on (1989) ecological systems approach,
provided a language for the framework described herein. My thinking about context has been
greatly influenced by both and Ballard-Reisch and work.
AN EPILOGUE w 30?
Voluntary
Intentional
Intel
Involuntary
FIG. 14.2. The completed model.
sure his or her partner less (Felmlee, Sprecher, & Bassin, 1990). Or, ten-
sion between team members in an organization can influence the ability of
co-workers who are not directly involved in that tension to maintain their
workplace relationship. In sum, much of previous research has focused on
the systemic context, and some has focused on the relationship between
the self-context and the systemic context, but little has looked at the rela-
tionship between the network context and the systemic context, or the
cultural context and the systemic context.
--i-heNetwork Context
Relationships do not exist in a vacuum, and numerous chapters in this vol-
ume explicitly acknowledge the importance of social networks in relation-
ship maintenance. As Waldron (chap. 8, this volume) notes, any given
relationship is “nested within a complex system of vertical and horizontal
networks.” Although he was talking particularly about workplace relation-
ships, this complex system holds true for other relational forms, as well.
For example, both Haas (chap. 5, this volume) and Gaines and Agnew
(chap. 11, this volume) argue that a lack of societal support for gay and les-
bian relationships and for intercultural relationships makes network sup-
port even more important for couples in these relational types. Even when
there is societal support, however, network support is important. Yum and
Canary (chap. 13, this volume) say that networks are particularly impor-
tant for relational maintenance in Korea, as dating and marriage are typi-
cally initiated by the extended family. Further, network influences such as
the marriage of one friend can impact the ability of friends to maintain
their friendship relationship (see Dainton et al., chap. 4, this volume).
Despite the relative importance of the extended network on the mainte-
nance of relationships, few studies have directly assessed how social networks
inhibit or facilitate relational maintenance. Indeed, although one of Stafford
and (199 1) maintenance strategies is the use of social networks, this
strategy is almost always discussed as something done by an individual or the
dyad, as opposed to something that happens within the network itself. An ex-
ception is the work of Klein and Milardo (2000), who have studied how third
parties influence couple conflict. Future research should continue to explic-
itly focus on the role of the network on relational maintenance.
The final context is that of the culture itself. Cultures include values and
beliefs about relationships, as well as rules for enacting them (Smith,
1966). Such values have enormous implications for the process of relation-
ship maintenance. Yum and Canary (chap. 13, this volume), for example,
310 -i+=+ DAINTON
found that cultural rules may be more important than systemic mainte-
nance efforts in Korea. Further, Ballard-Reisch et al. (chap. 12, this vol-
ume) discuss the cultural view of marriage in Russia, which suggests that
marriage involves two halves uniting. This cultural belief is vital; as
Ballard-Reisch et al. ask, “How does one maintain a relationship with
other half? Is such maintenance necessary?”
The aforementioned examples come from chapters devoted to an exami-
nation of maintenance in cultures outside of the U.S., and so the role of cul-
ture is more direct and obvious. Because so much of maintenance research
has focused on White, middle-class, romantic relationships in the U.S.,
however, the role of culture might not always be so obvious. Indeed,
Stafford (chap. 3, this volume) questions whether research to date has actu-
ally uncovered effective maintenance strategies, or whether it has simply ex-
posed cultural ideology about relationship enactment. At its core, such a
critique provides not only good fodder for discussion, it also illustrates most
clearly the impact that culture might have on relationship maintenance.
Summary
In reviewing Fig. 14.2, then, what we see is that all four contexts can be
studied within all four quadrants. As previously discussed, the majority of
maintenance research falls within Quadrant 1, with most work falling in
the systemic context (Area B) . The clear conclusion is that there are many
avenues of future research available if we wish to complete the picture.
Moreover, it is clear that we are a long way away from the development of a
macro theory of relationship maintenance. Indeed, one of the criticisms
that can be made of maintenance research in general is that published em-
pirical investigations of relationship maintenance have been largely
atheoretical; those studies that do make use of theory have borrowed theo-
ries that were developed for other communication or relational processes.
A review of the chapters of this book indicates that four primary theories
are used in maintenance research: social exchange theory (including eq-
uity), uncertainty reduction theory, dialectical perspectives, and systems
approaches. The remainder of this chapter considers the implications for
the use of these theories given the model developed thus far.
THlEORtETlCAL IMPLICATIONS
Social Exchange
In short, social exchange approaches suggest that people get into and stay
in relationships based on the rewards and costs of those relationships. As
Canary and Zelley (2000) assert, two social exchange theories are promi-
AN EPILOGUE -+ fill
D&&s
Systems Approaches
Stafford (1994) proposed that a systems perspective is ideal for the study
of relational maintenance. Indeed, (1983) study relied on systems
ideas in suggesting that maintenance sustains a equilibrium.
Several of the chapters in this anthology have described a systems ap-
proach to understanding varying relational types. Like social exchange and
dialectical perspectives, there is not a single systems theory that is used;
rather, systems approaches comprise a constellation of theories that share
common metatheoretical assumptions and concepts. In short, systems ap-
proaches center on mutual influence between system members, as well as
between subsystems, systems, and suprasystems.
Because systems approaches focus on the interrelations of parts to form
a whole, no distinction is made between voluntary and involuntary associa-
tions. As long as interaction occurs to bind two or more people together, a
system is formed, regardless of any desire-or lack of a de-
sire-for that interaction. As such, systems approaches can be fruitfully
used for all relational types. Indeed, Waldron (chap. 8, this volume) uses
systems concepts when providing an example of the mutual influence of an
unwanted workplace relationship on the larger network in which it is em-
bedded, as well as the influence of that larger network on the unwanted
workplace relationship. Accordingly, systems perspectives can effectively
be used for both ends of the choice continuum.
Systems perspectives also do not differentiate between intentional and
unintentional communication. One of the most common systems theories
used by communication scholars is the pragmatic perspective of the Palo
Alto group (Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967). Although misquoted
and frequently misunderstood, the Palo Alto first axiom, on the
impossibility of not communicating, directly addresses the notion that not
AN EPILOGUE ++I- 31,:
CONCLUSIONS
REl=lZRlZNClES
Gaines, S. O., Jr., Work, C., J o h nson, H., Page Youn, M. S., & Lai, K. (2000). Impact of
attachment style and self-monitoring on responses to accommodative
dilemmas across relationship types. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17,
767-789.
Goldsmith, D. (1990). A dialectic perspective on the expression of authonomy and
connection in romantic relationships. Western Journal of Speech Communicution,
54, 537-556.
Gottman, J. M., & Carrere, S. (1994). Why men and women get along? Develop-
mental roots and marital inequities. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communi-
cution and relational maintenance (pp. 203-229). New York: Academic.
Guerrero, L. K., Eloy, S. V, & Wabnik, A. I. (1993). Linking maintenance strategies to
relationship development and disengagement: A reconceptualization. Journul of So-
ciul and Personal Relationships, 10, 273-283.
Haas, S. M. (1999, May). S ociul support us relational maintenance in guy mule couples
coping with HIV/Aids. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Interna-
tional Communication Association, San Francisco.
Haas, S. M., & Stafford, L. (1998). An initial examination of maintenance behaviors in
gay and lesbian relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15,
846-855.
Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., Sprecher, S., Utne, M., & Hay, M. (1985). Equity in close
relationships. In W Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp.
9 l-1 7 1). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hofstede, G. (1980). consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Klein, R. C. A., &Milardo, R. M. (2000). Th e social context of couple conflict: Support
and criticism from informal third parties. Journal of Social and Personal Relution-
ships, 17, 618-637.
Lujansky, H., & Mikula, G. (1983). C an equity theory explain the quality and stability
of romantic relationships? British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 101-l 12.
Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, eq-
uity, and the use of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 67-94.
Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). E vents that increase uncertainty in personal re-
lationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593-604.
Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase uncer-
tainty in personal relationships II: Replication and extension. Human Communicu-
tion Research, 14, 516-547.
Rawlins, W K. (1994). B eing there and growing apart: Sustaining friendships during
adulthood. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational
maintenance (pp. 275-294). New York: Academic Press.
Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: An inter-
dependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phe-
nomena. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational
maintenance (pp. 115-l 40). New York: Academic Press.
Smith, A. G. (1966). C ommunicution and culture. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Stafford, L. (1994). T racing the threads of spider webs. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford
(Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 297-306). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Stafford L., & Canary, D. J. (199 1). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship
type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relution-
ships, 8, 2 17-242.
AN EPILOGUE ++i- 321
Stafford, L., & Dainton, M. (1995). P arent-child interaction within the family system.
In T J. Socha & G. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of
theory and research (pp. 3-2 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. (2000). M easuring routine and strategic relational
maintenance: Scale development, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of re-
lational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67, 306-323.
Thibaut, J. W, & Kelley, H. K. (1959). Th e socialpsychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Vogl-Bauer, S., Kalbfleisch, P J., & Beatty, M. J. (1999). P erceived equity, satisfaction,
and relational maintenance strategies in parent-adolescent dyads. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 28, 27-49.
Waldron, V (1991). Achieving communication go& in superior-subordinate relation-
ships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication
Monographs, 58‘289-306.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interper-
sonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
Watzlawick, I?, Bavelas, J. B., &Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communi-
cation: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York:
Norton.
Westefeld, J. S., & Liddell, D. (1982). Coping with long-distance relationships. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 23, 550-55 1.
This page intentionally left blank
Authorindex
123, 129, 130, 131, 133, 137, Cox, D. E., 315, 319
138, 139, 153, 160, 174, 176, Cox, S., 174, 182
182, 187, 188, 193, 197, 198, Cramer, E. M., 243, 250
199, 202, 204, 209, 219, 220, Crohn, J., 233, 235, 250
221, 225, 227, 230, 262, 264, Cubbins, L., 255, 257, 270, 274, 275
273, 275, 277, 280, 282, 284, Culnan, M. J., 142, 160
286, 287, 293, 293, 294, 295, Cunningham, M. R., 89, 90, 98
296, 300, 301, 302, 305, 307, Cupach, W, 131, 137
308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, Curtis, I?, 142, 145, 160
315, 316, 319, 320 Cutlip, J., 144, 160
Carballo-Dieguez, A., 212, 213, 230 Cutrona, C., 219, 227
Carbaugh, D., 132, 133, 139
Cardell, M., 215, 229
Carlson, C. J., 45, 46, 48 D
Carpenter, D., 129, 134, 137
Carrere, S., 255, 273, 302, 320 K. J?,148, 162
Carter, B., 32, 34, 36, 37, 48
Cate, R., 135, 138 Dailey, D. M., 212, 215, 227
Dainton, M., 6, 15, 16, 17, 27, 38, 39,
Chalfin, J., 233, 250 42, 49, 54, 55, 57, 60, 61, 63,
Chang, H., 278, 284,294 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,
Chen, G., 278, 294 72, 74, 75, 77, 91, 102, 129,
Chester, A., 151, 160 130, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137,
Choi, S. C., 283, 294 138, 209, 219, 220, 221, 222,
Choi, S. H., 280, 282, 295 225, 227, 230, 262, 264, 265,
Christensen, A., 105, 123 267, 273, 275, 277, 292, 294,
Cicirelli, VI G., 37, 48 301, 303, 305, 313, 314, 317,
Cissna, K. N., 315, 3 19 319, 321
Clark, H. H., 117, 122 Daley, J., 128, 139
Clark, M. S., 82, 101 Dallinger, J. D., 61, 76
Clark, R. A., 94, 99 Daly, J. A., 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 26, 105,
Clark, W M., 209, 227 121,133,137
Clarke, E., 92, 102 Darley, J. M., 117, 122
Clasen, D. R., 44, 48 Davila, J., 88, 99
Clemente, P., 136, 137 Davis, K. E., 87, 101
Clingempeel, W G., 39, 49 Davis, M. S., 4, 8, 12, 13, 27, 187, 195,
Cloven, D. H., 187, 188, 204 202
Coates, D. L., 248, 250 DeGrasse, R., 145, 160
Cochran, S. D., 212, 229 Dellmann-Jenkins, M., 128, 130, 138
Coffman, C., 22, 26 Delongis, A. M., 219, 227
Cole, A. L., 269, 272 Denton, W H., 86, 99
Cole, C. L., 214, 227, 269, 272 DeRidder, R., 116, 122
Cole, T., 88, 90, 99 Derlega, V J., 90, 91, 92, 99, 102
Coleman, M., 104, 122 Detweiler, J. B., 119, 124
Collins, N. L., 86, 87, 99 Deutsch, M., 81, 99
Collins, W A., 35, 48 Dickens, W. J., 105, 122
Coltrane, S., 266, 272 Diggs, R. C., 57, 61, 62, 75
Connor, W. D., 260, 272 Dimitrova, D., 144, 162
Constant, D., 141, 160 Dimmick, J., 136, 143, 155, 156, 161
Contarello, A., 279, 280, 293 Dindia, K., xiv, xvi, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13,
Cooper, P J., 104, 122 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28,
Courtright, J. A., 199, 202 31, 32, 39, 48, 79, 88, 99,
Coyne, J. C., 219, 227 100, 130, 133, 138, 186, 187,
Cox, C. E., 233, 234, 238, 240, 250 189, 193, 197, 198, 202, 209,
Cox, C. L., 232, 242, 243, 244, 250,
253
$~o ++ AUTHOR INDEX
219, 227, 277, 289, 293, 294, Ficara, L., 129, 130, 133, 138
300, 302,303,318,319 Findlay, C., 284, 294
Dixon, D., 131, 138 Fine, G. A., 173, 182
Dixon, J. T, 80, 98 Finello, K., 103, 122
Dodds, D., 152, 160 Fineman, S., 174, 182
Dougherty, T., 176, 182 Finn, S. E., 215, 229
Dreher, G., 176, 182 Fischthal, A., 166, 182
Drigotas, S. M., 120, 122, 232, 238, Fishbein, M., 238, 249
239, 240, 241, 242, 244, 249, Fisher, H., 213, 227
250, 252; 253; 284; 285, 295; Fitzpatrick, M. A., 31, 32, 33, 37, 39,
308,311,320 41, 48, 49, 52, 65, 66, 76,
Droege, K., 94, 100 213, 227,263,274,317,319
Dsilva, M., 169, 184 Fleming, J. H., 117, 122
Duck, S. W., 2, 16, 27, 39, 48, 52, 53, Flett, G. L., 119, 122
54, 55, 75, 76, 104, 106, 113, Floyd, K., 141, 142, 145, 146, 161
116, 122, 124, 133, 138, 154, Foa, E. B., 234, 250
160, 239, 250, 262, 273, 311, Foa, U. G., 234,250
319 Foreman, C., 165, 176, 177, 184
Duffy, S. M., 212, 227 Foster, C. A., 237, 242, 246, 253
Dunn, R., 129, 139 France, N., 104, 119, 123
Duong, T., 235, 251 Freeman-Witthoft, B., 97, 98
Dybvig, K. C., 293, 294 Freund, H. A., 97, 98
Friedman, R., 144, 160
Fritz, J. M. H., 106, 108, 117, 122
E Frost, K., 152, 160
Frymier, A., 278, 294
Ebesu Hubbard, A. S., 187, 198, 199, Fuiman, M., 92, 100
202 Fulk, J., 157, 160
Edgar, T., 213, 227 Fung, P, 150, 160
Egland, K. L., 92, 100 Fuqua, D., 90, 91, 92, 99
Elicker, J., 87, 94, 95, 102
Elkins, L. E., 90, 100
Ellemers, N., 34, 49 G
Eloy, S. V, 15, 27, 68, 76, 186, 199,
203, 277,279,294,302,320 Gaertner, L. A., 246, 250
Emmers, T. M., 188, 189, 193, 198, Gaines, S. O., Jr., 91, 100, 231, 232,
199,202,313,314,319 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 240,
Emmers-Sommer, T. M., 193, 197, 199, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250,
203
251, 308,320
Etcheverry, P E., 238, 250 Gal, S., 257, 258, 259, 273
Evans, K., 193, 203 Galinsky, E., 24, 26
Gallois, C., 34, 49
J= Galvin, K. M., 33, 36, 38, 48, 104, 122
Ganong, L. H., 104, 122
Gao, G., 278, 294
Faraj, S., 145, 161 Garcia, B. F., 232, 246, 248, 250, 251
Farris, K. R., 91, 100, 232, 246, 248, Gardner, R. R., 147, 159
250,251 Garton, L., 144, 162
Faulkner, S. L., 92, 93, 98 Gebhard, P H., 213, 228
Feeney,J., 245, 246, 250 Gerstel, N., 129, 134, 138
Fehr, B., 80, 88, 89, 90, 100 Giddens, A., 166, 181, 182
Felmlee, D., 309, 3 19 Gilbert, D. G., 113, 124
Ferara, K., 149, 160 Gilbertson, J., 21, 24, 27
Festinger, L., 243, 250 Giles, H., 34, 49
AUTHORINDEX +=+I- 327
Hupka, R. B., 199, 203 Kelley, H. H., 4, 6, 9, 26, 28, 63, 76,
Hurst, M. H., 55, 76 105, 109, 123, 124, 219, 230,
Huston, M., 209, 210, 216, 228 232, 233,234,251,252
Huston, T. L., 96, 101, 105, 123 Keltner, D., 194, 203
Kerns, K. A., 87, 100
Kiesler, S., 141, 160
Kilmer, H., 131, 135, 136, 138
Kim, K., 233, 278, 289,294
Kim, M. S., 246, 250, 278, 279, 289,
Ickes, WI, 231, 237, 247, 249, 250 294,295
Iizuka, Y., 279, 280, 293 Kinney, T. A., 106, 112, 123
Infante, D., 116, 123 Kinsey, A. C., 213, 228
Isabella, L. A., 173, 177, 180, 183 Kirschner, R., 103, 121
Ishii, S., 278, 294 Klein, D. M., 39, 40, 41, 48
Iwaniszek, J., 24.5, 246, 252 Klein, R. C. A., 309, 320
Kligman, G., 257, 258, 259, 273
Kline, S. L., 136, 143, 155, 156, 161
J KIopf, D. W., 278, 290, 294, 295
Knapp, J. J., 214, 228
Knapp, M. L., 3, 19, 27
Jablin, F. M., 22, 23, 27, 165, 167, 173, Knox, D., 128, 129, 134, 137, 138
175, 177, 183 Knudson, K., 152, 160
Jackson, D. D., 112, 116, 117, 124, Kojetin, B. A., 117, 122
316, 321 Kozac, E. B., 212, 229
Jacobson,D., 146, 160 Kram, K. E., 173, 177, 180, 183
Jacquet, S. E., 239, 252 Kramer, M. WI, 177, 179, 183
Jandt, F. E., 213, 227 Krippendorff, K., 112, 123
Jay, K., 211, 228 Kugler, K., 194, 203
Jenkins, E., 179, 183 Kurdek, L. A., 211, 212, 213, 214, 215,
Johansen,R., 145, 160 216, 217, 226, 228,229,230
Johnson, A. J., 88, 89, 90, 96, 100 Kurland, G. J., 91, 100, 232, 245, 250
Johnson, D. J., 197, 204, 242, 243, 245,
246, 251, 252
Johnson, H., 251, 308, 320
Johnson, M. l?, xiii, xvi, 96, 101, 114,
116, 123,239,251,257, 273
Jones, D. C., 88, 90, 92, 100 Lai, K., 251, 308, 320
Jones,W. H., 193, 194, 203, 255, 272 Land, J., 210, 229
Jorgensen,l? F., 199, 203 Lane, M., 33,48
Jung, J., 199, 203 Langan, E., 21, 27
Langston, C. A., 233, 249
Lapidus, G., 258, 273
K Lara, J. K., 91, 100
Larson, J. R., 168, 183
Le, B., 234, 251
Kacmar, K. M., 174, 176, 184 Lea, M., 147, 150, 160, 161
Kahneman, D., 119, 123 Leach, M. S., 36, 48
Kalbfleisch, I? J., 40, 41, 42, 49, 61, 63, Leary, M. R., 193, 203
77, 308,311, 321 Lee, J., 22, 23, 27, 165, 167, 173, 175,
Kamo, Y., 278, 280, 287, 294 183,214
Kaplan, R. E., 6, 7, 27, 169, 183 Lee, J. A., 214, 229
Karis, T. A., 233, 238, 239, 249, 251 Lee, K., 46, 48
Kelleher, M., 96, 101 Lee, S. W, 282, 295
Kellermann, K. A., 147, 159 Lefcourt, H. M., 119, 123
Lempert, L. B., 112, 123
AUTHOR INDEX =a- 32:
P K
Padesky,C., 216, 229 Rabby, M. K., 82, 101, 142, 153, 156,
Page,M. S., 91, 100, 232, 246, 250 161, 180
PageYoun, M. S., 246, 248, 251, 308, Ragsdale,J. D., 63, 64, 66, 77, 266, 274
320 Ramey, J. R., 214, 229
Palucki, L. J., 91, 100 Ramkissoon, M., 246, 250
Park, M. S., 290, 295 Rankin, C., 66, 77
Park, S-Y., 279, 280, 287, 288, 296 Rawlins, W. K., 81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 93,
Parks, M., 71, 76, 77 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 315, 320
Parks, M. R., 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, Ray, G., 20, 28
159, 161, 201, 203 Razlogov,K. E., 255, 272
Pataki, S. l?, 82, 101 Read, S. J., 86, 87, 99
Patterson, B. R., 93, 97, 101, 197, 204 Reece, R., 215, 229
Patterson, D. G., 2 10, 229 Reilly, M. E., 214, 216, 217, 229, 230
Paul, E. L., 96, 101 Reis, H. T., 90, 102, 232, 245, 246, 250,
Paulson, C., 214, 229 278, 296
AUTHORINDEX -=+ 331
Shibazaki, K., 236, 252 Steers, W N., 91, 100, 246, 250
Shimizu, H., 279, 295 Stephen, E., 131, 138
Shulman, S., 87, 94, 95, 102 Stephen, T., 129, 130, 133, 139, 154,
Sias, I? M., 165, 173, 174, 177, 179, 158, 162
181,183 Stevens, J., 241, 242, 247, 252
Sidelinger, R. J., 33, 47 Stipek, D., 194, 204
S&man, S. J., 1, 23, 28 Stone, A. A., 106, 124
Sillars, A. L., 197, 204, 269, 274 Stone, G., 131, 132, 138
Silver, M. E., 104, 119, 123 Strejc, H., 55, 76
Silverman, B., 258, 274 Strube, M. J., 112, 124
Silverthorn, K., 199, 203 Suhr, J., 219, 227
Simenauer, J., 213, 229 Summers, S., 232, 245, 250
Simmons, C. H., 279, 295 Surra, C. A., 239, 242, 252
Simon, E. I?, 43, 47, 220, 227 Swanberg, J. E., 24, 26
Simpson, J. A., 87, 102 Swensen, C., 130, 131, 138
Singh, P, 312, 319 Swigger, K., 149, 162
Slovacek, C., 151, 162 Sysenko, V A., 262, 275
Slovik, L. F., 234, 241, 245, 252, 288,
295
Smith, A. G., 309, 320 T
Smith, J., 152, 160
Smith, K., 84, 85, 98 Taing, P, 233, 250
Smith, L. M., 144, 161 Takahashi,Y., 246, 250
Snyder, M., 105, 121 Tangney,J. P, 194, 204, 205
Soloman, D. H., 193, 196, 199, 204 Taylor, D. A., 105, 121, 185, 202
Spanier, G. B., 5, 28, 52, 76, 214, 227, Taylor, S. E., 223, 228
239, 251 Teachman, J. D., 255, 275
Spears, R., 147, 150, 160, 161 Tepper, B., 169, 176, 181, 183
Sperling, V, 258, 260, 274 Tesch, S. A., 95, 97, 102
Spiegelhoff, M., 15, 28 Thacker, R. A., 165, 174, 183
Spitzberg, B. H., 92, 100, 199, 203, Thibaut, J. W, 4, 6, 28, 63, 76, 109,
293,295 124, 219, 230, 232, 233, 234,
Sprecher, S., 53, 76, 77, 263, 274, 280, 251,252, 312, 321
294, 309,312, 319,320 Thompson, A. E, 213, 230
Springer, C., 193, 203 Thompson, S., 152, 160
Sproull, L., 141, 145, 160, 161 Thomsen, D. G., 113, 124
Sroufe, L. A., 87, 94, 95, 102 Thomson, E., 231, 253
Stafford, L. S., xiii, xvi, 7, 14, 15, 16, Thornton, A., 231, 253
18, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 38, 39, Ticoll, D., 45, 46, 49
42, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55; 56, Tidwell, L. C., 147, 149, 151, 162
57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65. 66, Ting-Toomey, S., 278, 289, 294, 295
67, 68, 69, 70, 71; 72; 73; 74; Tolhuizen, J. H., 18, 19, 28
75, 76, 77, 79, 82, 88, 91, 97, Traupmann, J., 53, 76, 312, 320
99, 102, 129, 130, 131, 133, Triandis, H. C., 248, 252, 279, 295
134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, Tripp, T. M., 114, 124
143, 153, 155, 156, 158, 160, Tschann,J. M., 91, 102
161, 162, 174, 176, 182, 187, Tucker, M. B., 236, 252
197, 199, 202, 204, 209, 219, Tuller, N. R., 213, 215, 226, 230
220, 222, 225, 227, 228, 230, Turkle, S., 142, 162
262, 264, 265, 267, 272, 273, Tversky, A., 119, 123
274, 275, 277, 280, 282, 284,
286, 293, 294, 295, 301, 303, u
305, 307, 308, 311, 312, 314,
316, 317, 319, 320,321 Uhl-Bien, M., 167, 176, 182
Steen, S., 33, 34, 49 Utne, M., 53, 76, 312, 320
AUTHORINDEX +a- 337,
335
330 -+a SUBJECT INDEX