258 Chapter 9

Relationship Dialectics Theory

relationship dialectics theory argues that someone
who is engaged in a relationship experiences in-
ternal tensions between pairs of motives or desires
that pull him or her in opposite directions. These
tensions are much like those you experience in your
daily lives. For example, you want to work this sum-
mer to earn money to get a new car, but you also
want to go to Hawaii and surf for two months. You
want both, but you can have only one. In a similar
way, you experience tensions between opposites in
your relationship desires. Research generally finds
three such pairs of opposites (Baxter, 2004; Baxter
& Braithwaite, 2007, 2008a; Baxter & Simon, 1993;
Rawlins, 1989, 1992).
VIEWPOINTS emotional The tension between closedness and openness has to do with the conflict
relationshiPs In face-to-face between the desire to be in a closed, exclusive relationship and the wish to be in
relationships, emotional closeness a relationship that is open to different people. This tension manifests itself most
compromises privacy; the closer you during the early stages of relationship development. You like the exclusiveness
become, the less privacy you have. of your pairing and yet you want also to relate to a larger group. Young hetero-
Research on online relationships, sexual men, in interacting with women, use a pattern of messages that encour-
however, indicates that because you’re age closeness followed by messages that indicate a desire for distance, followed
more in control of what you reveal,
by closeness messages, followed by distancing messages—a clear example of the
you can develop close emotional
tension between the desire for closedness and the desire for autonomy (Korobov &
relationships but also maintain your
Thorne, 2006)
privacy (Ben-Ze’ev, 2003). Do you
find this to be true? If not, how would The tension between autonomy and connection, which seems to occur more often
you express the relationship between as the relationship progresses, involves the desire to remain an autonomous, inde-
emotional closeness and privacy in pendent individual but also to connect intimately to another person and to a relation-
online and in face-to-face relationships? ship. You want to be close and connected with another person, but you also want
to be independent (Sahlstein, 2004). This tension, by the way, is a popular theme in
women’s magazines, which teach readers to want both autonomy and connection
(Prusank, Duran, & DeLillo, 1993).
The tension between novelty and predictability centers on the competing de-
sires for newness, different experiences, and adventure on the one hand, and for
sameness, stability, and predictability on the other. You’re comfortable with being
able to predict what will happen, and yet you also want newness, difference, and
novelty.
Each individual in a relationship may experience a somewhat different set of
desires. For example, one person may want exclusivity above all, whereas that per-
son’s partner may want greater openness. There are three main ways that you can
use to deal with these tensions.
First, you can simply accept the imbalance as part of dating or as part of a commit-
ted relationship. You may even redefine it as a benefit and tell yourself something
like: “I had been spending too much time at work. It’s probably better that I come
home earlier and don’t work weekends”—accepting the closeness and giving up the
autonomy.
Second, you can simply exit the relationship. For example, if the loss of autonomy is
so great that you can’t live with it, then you may choose simply to end the relationship
and achieve your desired autonomy.
A third alternative is to rebalance your life. For example, if you find the primary
relationship excessively predictable, you may seek to satisfy the need for novelty else-
where, perhaps with a vacation to exotic places, perhaps with a different partner. If
you find the relationship too connected (even suffocating), you may seek physical and
psychological space to meet your autonomy needs. You can also establish the balance
you feel you need by negotiating with your partner, for example, agreeing that you will
take separate vacations or that each of you will go out separately with old friends once
or twice a week.
 Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Theories, and Communication 259

As you can appreciate, meeting your partner’s needs while also meeting your
own needs is one of the major relationship challenges you’ll face. Knowing and empa-
thizing with these tensions and discussing them seem useful (even necessary) tools for
relationship maintenance and satisfaction.

Social Penetration Theory

Social penetration theory is a theory not of why relationships develop but of
what happens when they do develop; it describes relationships in terms of the
number of topics that people talk about and the degree of “personalness” of those
topics (Altman & Taylor, 1973). The breadth of a relationship has to do with how
many topics you and your partner talk about. The depth of a relationship involves
the degree to which you penetrate the inner personality—the core—of the other
individual.
We can represent an individual as a circle and divide that circle into various
parts, as in Figure 9.2. This figure illustrates different models of social penetration.
Each circle in the figure contains eight topic areas to depict breadth (identified as A
through H) and five levels of intimacy to depict depth (represented by the concentric
circles). Note that in circle 1, only three topic areas are penetrated. Of these, one is
penetrated only to the first level and two to the second. In this type of interaction,
three topic areas are discussed, and only at rather superficial levels. This is the type
of relationship you might have with an acquaintance. Circle 2 represents a more
intense relationship, one that has greater breadth and depth; more topics are dis-
cussed and to deeper levels of penetration. This is the type of relationship you might
have with a friend. Circle 3 represents a still more intense relation-
ship. Here there is considerable breadth (seven of the eight areas InTerpersonal ChoICe poInT
are penetrated) and depth (most of the areas are penetrated to the refusing a Gift positively
deepest levels). This is the type of relationship you might have A coworker with whom you’re becoming friendly
with a lover or a parent or child. gives you a gift that is too intimate for the level
When a relationship begins to deteriorate, the breadth and of your relationship. In fact, you don’t want the
depth, in many ways, reverse themselves in a process called relationship to progress to this level, at least not
depenetration. For example, while ending a relationship, you just yet. What might you say to make your feelings
might cut out certain topics from your interpersonal communica- known?
tions. At the same time, you might discuss the remaining topics
a. Return the gift with a note explaining your
in less depth. In some instances of relational deterioration, how-
feelings.
ever, both the breadth and the depth of interaction increase. For
b. Keep the gift, but make it clear that this will
example, when a couple breaks up and each is finally free from
not advance the relationship.
an oppressive relationship, they may—after some time—begin to
c. Meet face-to-face and explain the situation.
discuss problems and feelings they would never have discussed
d. Say nothing beyond thank you.
when they were together. In fact, they may become extremely

Figure 9.2 Models of Social Penetration

How accurately do the concepts of breadth and depth express your communication in relationships
of different intensities? Can you identify other aspects of messages that change as you go from
talking with an acquaintance to talking with a friend or an intimate?

A B A B A B

H C H C H C

G D G D G D

F E F E F E
1 2 3