Chapter 9. 9. Relationships with Romantic Partners

Romantic love may not be essential to life, but it may be essential to joy

Scott had led a British team trying to be the first to reach the South Pole. Arriving at their goal on January 17, 1912, they were stunned to find a tent erected on the site. Inside wasa note left by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen: he had beaten Scott’s team by a month. Defeated, Scott and his comrades began the 800-mile return trip, beset by snow blindness, hunger, and exhaustion. The weather worsened, and one by one his team members perished.

Huddled inside his shelter, Scott crafted a note to Kathleen that was at once passionate, practical, upbeat, and astonishingly selfless. Longing and sentiment poured from his pen: “You know I have loved you, you know my thoughts must have constantly dwelt on you. . . the worst aspect of this situation is the thought that I shall not see you again. . . .

Oh what a price to pay—to forfeit the sight of your dear dear face!” He grieved the lost chance to see his son mature, “ . . . what dreams I have had of his future.” But he praised Kathleen’s practicality, and entreated her “to take the whole thing very sensibly as I am sure you will. . . . Make the boy interested in natural history, if you can, it is better than games.”

Though suffering from frostbite, he remained relentlessly upbeat. “There is a painless end, so don’t worry—How much better it has been than lounging in comfort at home.” In the most striking passage of all, Scott granted Kathleen romantic liberty: “Cherish no sentimental rubbish about remarriage—when the right man comes to help you in life you ought to be your happy self again. I hope I shall be a good memory.”

Eight months later a recovery team reached Scott’s encampment. Searching the remnants of his tent, they found Scott’s personal journal and his letter to Kathleen. They then built a tomb of ice and snow over the bodies of Scott and his companions, and placed a cross on top to mark the site.

In the years that followed, Scott would be honored across Britain as a tragic hero. Dozens of monuments were raised, and memorial funds created to support the families of the fallen. In January of 2007, Scott’s letters and journal were donated for display at the University of Cambridge. But in the dim light of his tent in March 1912, with storms raging and death approaching, Sir Robert Falcon Scott was just another human being trying to capture in writing the multifaceted complexity of romantic love. To read his words is to be reminded that love is not singular, but plural: it is many things at once, including passion, practicality, commitment, respect, sentiment, and selflessness.

Throughout time and across cultures, people have fallen in love with one another. When each of us discovers love for ourselves, we honor that legacy, sharing in an experience that is both uniquely and universally human. We also find that romantic love is a multiplicity of elements, some of which seem contradictory. Our affairs may be all about passion, but they also bring with them the rewards (and costs) of companionship. Our love for others may be selfless and giving, yet we’re driven to build and sustain only those relationships that benefit us the most, and end those that don’t. Although romance may be sentimental and otherworldly, the maintenance of love is decidedly practical. Romantic relationships are hard work, entailing constant upkeep to survive the innumerable and unforeseen challenges that threaten them.

In this chapter, the first of four on relationships, you’ll learn:

Printed Page xxx

Defining Romantic Relationships

Romantic love may not be essential to life, but it may be essential to joy. Life without love would be for many people like a black-and-white movie—full of events and activities but without the color that gives vibrancy and provides a sense of celebration. Beyond the theories, beyond the research, romantic love is one of life’s compensations for drudgery, illness, and, perhaps in some small way, for mortality.²

—love researchers Clyde and Susan Hendrick

We often think of romantic relationships as exciting and filled with promise—a joyful fusion of closeness, communication, and sexual connection. When researchers Pamela Regan, Elizabeth Kocan, and Teresa Whitlock (1998) asked several hundred people to list the things they associated most with “being in love,” the most frequent responses were trust, honesty, happiness, bondedness, companionship, communication, caring, intimacy, shared laughter, and sexual desire. But apart from such associations, what exactly is romantic love? How does it differ from liking? How does interpersonal communication shape love relationships? The answers to these questions can help you build more satisfying romantic partnerships.

People experience different types of love

Printed Page 282

LIKING AND LOVING

Most scholars agree that liking and loving are separate emotional states, with different causes and outcomes (Berscheid & Regan, 2005). Loving, in contrast, is a vastly deeper and more intense emotional experience and consists of three components: intimacy, caring, and attachment (Rubin, 1973).

The ideal combination for long-term success in romantic relationships occurs when partners both like and love each other.

Printed Page

DIFFERENT TYPES OF ROMANTIC LOVE

Though most people recognize that loving differs from liking, many also believe that to be in love, one must feel constant and consuming sexual attraction toward a partner. In fact, many different types of romantic love exist, covering a broad range of emotions and relationship forms. At one end of the spectrum is passionate love, a state of intense emotional and physical longing for union with another (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992). For example, in Helen Simonson’s best-selling novel Major Pettigrew’s Last Stand (2011), Ernest and Jasmina are lovers facing bitter opposition from friends and family because of their interethnic romance (he is English, she Pakistani). After sharing the night together at a secluded lodge, they awake and celebrate their passion.³

People who are passionately in love experience an intense longing to be physically near one another. What other traits or experiences do you associate with passionate love?

In the early morning he stood by the empty lake and watched a lone bird, falcon or eagle, gliding high on the faintest of thermals. He raised his arms to the air, stretching with his fingertips, and wondered whether the bird’s heart was as full as his own. As he gazed, the French door was pushed open and she came out, carrying two mugs of tea, which steamed in the air. “You should have woken me,” she said, “I hope you weren’t fleeing the scene?” “I needed to do a little capering about,” he said. “Some beating of the chest and cheering—manly stuff.” “Oh, do show me,” she said, laughing, while he executed a few half-remembered dance steps, and kicked a large stone into the lake. “Do I get a turn?” she asked. She handed him a mug for each hand and then spun herself in wild pirouettes to the shore where she stomped her feet in the freezing waters. Then she came running back and kissed him while he spread his arms wide and tried to keep his balance. “Careful,” he said, feeling a splash of scalding tea on his wrist. “Passion is all very well, but it wouldn’t do to spill the tea.”

If you’ve been passionately in love before, these feelings likely are familiar: the desire to stretch for the sky, dance, laugh, and splash about, coupled with a strong desire to touch, hold, and kiss your partner. Studies of passionate love support the universality of these sentiments, and suggest that five things are true about the experience and expression of passion. First, people in the throes of passionate love often view their loved ones and relationships in an excessively idealistic light. For instance, many partners in passionate love relationships talk about how “perfect” they are for each other and how their relationship is the “best ever.”

Second, people from all cultures feel passionate love. Studies comparing members of individualistic versus collectivistic cultures have found no differences in the amount of passionate love experienced (Hatfield & Rapson, 1987). Although certain ethnicities, especially Latinos, often are stereotyped as more “passionate,” studies comparing Latino and non-Latino experiences of romantic love suggest no differences in intensity (Cerpas, 2002).

Third, no gender or age differences exist in people’s experience of passionate love. Men and women report experiencing this type of love with equal frequency and intensity, and studies using a “Juvenile Love Scale” (which excludes references to sexual feelings) have found that children as young as age 4 report passionate love toward others (Hatfield & Rapson, 1987). The latter finding is important to consider when talking with children about their romantic feelings. Although they lack the emotional maturity to fully understand the consequences of their relationship decisions, their feelings toward romantic interests are every bit as intense and turbulent as our adult emotions. So if your 6- or 7-year-old child or sibling reveals a crush on a schoolmate, treat the disclosure with respect and empathy, rather than teasing him or her.

Fourth, for adults, passionate love is integrally linked with sexuality and sexual desire (Berscheid & Regan, 2005). In one study, undergraduates were asked whether they thought there was a difference between “being in love” and “loving” another person (Ridge & Berscheid, 1989). Eighty-seven percent of respondents said that there was a difference and that sexual attraction was the critical distinguishing feature of being in love.

Finally, passionate love is negatively related to relationship duration. Like it or not, the longer you’re with a romantic partner, the less intense your passionate love will feel (Berscheid, 2002).

Although the “fire” of passionate love dominates media depictions of romance, not all people view being in love this way. At the other end of the romantic spectrum is companionate love: an intense form of liking defined by emotional investment and deeply intertwined lives (Berscheid & Walster, 1978). Many long-term romantic relationships evolve into companionate love. As Clyde and Susan Hendrick (1992) explain, “Sexual attraction, intense communication, and emotional turbulence early in a relationship give way to quiet intimacy, predictability, and shared attitudes, values, and life experiences later in the relationship” (p. 48).

Between the poles of passionate and companionate love lies a range of other types of romantic love. Sociologist John Alan Lee (1973) suggested six different forms that range from friendly to obsessive and gave them each a traditional Greek name: storge, agape, mania, pragma, ludus, and eros (see Table 9.1 for an explanation of each). As Lee noted, there is no “right” type of romantic love—different forms appeal to different people.

Despite similarities between men and women in their experiences of passionate love, substantial gender differences exist related to one of Lee’s love types—pragma, or “practical love.” Across numerous studies, women score higher than men on pragma (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1988, 1992), refuting the common stereotype that women are “starry-eyed” and “sentimental” about romantic love (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976). What’s more, although men are often stereotyped as being “cool” and “logical” about love (Hill et al., 1976), they are much more likely than women to perceive their romantic partners as “perfect” and believe that “love at first sight is possible,” that “true love can overcome any obstacles,” and that “there’s only one true love for each person” (Sprecher & Metts, 1999).

Printed Page 285`

KEY ELEMENTS OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

We know that loving differs from liking and that people experience different types of love. But what exactly does it mean to have a romantic relationship? A romantic relationship is a chosen interpersonal involvement forged through communication in which the participants perceive the bond as romantic. Six elements of romantic relationships underlie this definition.

Depictions of romantic love are often found in art, movies, literature, poetry, music, and other media, but they rarely detail the everyday interpersonal communication that makes successful relationships work.

Although men are stereotyped in the media as “commitment-phobic,” this stereotype is false. Both men and women view commitment as an important part of romantic relationships (Miller, Perlman, & Brehm, 2007). Several studies even suggest that men often place a higher value on commitment than do women. For example, when asked which they would choose, if forced to decide between a committed romance or an important job opportunity, more men than women chose the relationship (Mosher & Danoff-Burg, 2007). Men also score higher than women on measures of commitment in college dating relationships (Kurdek, 2008). These trends aren’t new. Throughout fifty years of research, men have consistently reported more of a desire for marriage than have women, and described “desire for a committed relationship” as more of a motivation for dating (Rubin, Peplau, & Hill, 1981).

The second dialectic is autonomy versus connection. We elect to form romantic relationships largely out of a desire to bond with other human beings. Yet if we come to feel so connected to our partners that our individual identity seems to dissolve, we may choose to pull back and reclaim some of our autonomy.

The final dialectic is the clash between our need for stability and our need for excitement and change—known as novelty versus predictability. We all like the security that comes with knowing how our partners will behave, how we’ll behave, and how our relationships will unfold. Romances are more successful when the partners behave in predictable ways that reduce uncertainty (Berger & Bradac, 1982). However, predictability often spawns boredom. As we get to know our partners, the novelty and excitement of the relationship wears off, and things seem increasingly monotonous. Reconciling the desire for predictability with the need for novelty is one of the most profound emotional challenges facing partners in romantic relationships.

Printed Page 288

Romantic Attraction

Why we are attracted to some people and not others

On the hit TV show Glee, Artie excitedly wheels his chair to the sign-up sheet for the new school song-and-dance club.⁴ When he struggles to reach the list, Tina intervenes and helps him. An instant attraction is sparked. As they spend time together, they quickly learn that they share much more in common than music. Both are intensely intellectual and somewhat “offbeat” in their views. Both struggle with disabilities—Artie is paralyzed from the waist down, and Tina wrestles with a speech impediment. The degree to which they rise above their respective limitations spawns a strong foundation of shared respect. Their mutual attraction deepens and eventually culminates in a kiss—Artie’s first. But when Tina reveals that she was faking her disability, Artie is shattered, and he angrily breaks off their relationship.

Every day, you meet and interact with new people while in class, standing in line at the local coffee shop, or participating in clubs like the one depicted on Glee. Yet few of these individuals make a lasting impression on you, and even fewer strike a chord of romantic attraction. What draws you to those special few? Many of the same factors that drew Artie and Tina together: proximity, physical attractiveness, similarity, reciprocal liking, and resources (Aron et al., 2008). These factors influence attraction for both men and women, in both same- and opposite-sex romances (Felmlee, Orzechowicz, & Fortes, 2010; Hyde, 2005).

On Glee, Artie and Tina’s instant attraction is disrupted when it is revealed that Tina isn’t as similar to Artie as it first seemed. Have you ever misled a romantic interest into thinking you shared a common concern or value? If so, did you eventually confess? What was the outcome?

Printed Page

PROXIMITY

The simple fact of physical proximity—being in one another’s presence frequently—exerts far more impact on romantic attraction than many people think. In general, you’ll feel more attracted to those with whom you have frequent contact and less attracted to those with whom you interact rarely, a phenomenon known as the mere exposure effect (Bornstein, 1989).

Proximity’s pronounced effect on attraction is one reason that mixed-race romantic relationships are much rarer than same-race pairings in the United States. Despite this nation’s enormous ethnic diversity, most Americans cluster into ethnically homogeneous groups, communities, and neighborhoods. This clustering reduces the likelihood that they will meet, regularly interact with, and eventually become attracted to individuals outside their own cultural group (Gaines, Chalfin, Kim, & Taing, 1998). Those who do form interethnic romances typically have living arrangements, work situations, or educational interests that place them in close proximity with diverse others, fostering attraction (Gaines et al., 1998).

You’re more likely to be attracted to people you’re around a lot, but the effect of proximity on attraction depends on your experience with the people. At least one study has found that people feel most negatively toward those whom they find bothersome and those whom they live nearest to.

Although people lust after gorgeous others, most of us end up in long-term relationships with those we perceive to be our equals in physical attractiveness.

Printed Page 290

PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS

It’s no secret that many people feel drawn to those they perceive as physically attractive. In part this is because we view beautiful people as competent communicators, intelligent, and well-adjusted, a phenomenon known as the matching (Feingold, 1988). Research documents that people don’t want to be paired with those they think are substantially “below” or “above” themselves in looks (White, 1980).

Printed Page 290

SIMILARITY

No doubt you’ve heard the contradictory clichés regarding similarity and attraction: “Opposites attract” versus “Birds of a feather flock together.” Which is correct? Scientific evidence suggests that we are attracted to those we perceive as similar to ourselves (Miller et al., 2007). This is known as the birds-of-a-feather effect. One explanation for this phenomenon is that people we view as similar to us are less likely to provoke uncertainty. In first encounters, they seem easier to predict and explain than people we perceive as dissimilar (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Thus, we feel more comfortable with them.

Similarity means more than physical attractiveness; it means sharing parallel personalities, values, and likes and dislikes (Markey & Markey, 2007). Having fundamentally different personalities or widely disparate values erodes attraction between partners in the long run. At the same time, differences in mere tastes and preferences have no long-term negative impact on relationship health, as long as you and your partner are similar in other, more important ways. For example, I like heavier music (Motörhead, Mastodon, Pantera), and my wife hates it. But we have very similar personalities and values, so our attraction and our relationship endure.

Because differences in tastes and preferences don’t predict relationship success, you shouldn’t dismiss potential romantic partners because of their minor likes and dislikes. For example, imagine that you meet someone new who interests you. But in exploring his or her Facebook profile, you find that you have radically different tastes in music, TV, and movies. It would be premature to dismiss the possibility of a romance without first seeing whether you share similarities in personality and values.

Printed Page 291

RECIPROCAL LIKING

A fourth determinant of romantic attraction is one of the most obvious and often overlooked: whether the person we’re attracted to makes it clear, through communication and other actions, that the attraction is mutual, known as reciprocal liking (Aron et al., 2008). Reciprocal liking is a potent predictor of attraction; we tend to be attracted to people who are attracted to us. Studies examining people’s narrative descriptions of “falling in love” have found that reciprocal liking is the most commonly mentioned factor leading to love (Riela, Rodriguez, Aron, Xu, & Acevedo, 2010).

Printed Page 291

RESOURCES

A final spark that kindles romantic attraction is the unique resources that another person offers. Resources include qualities such as sense of humor, intelligence, kindness, supportiveness, and whether the person seems fun, and these attributes are viewed as valuable by both straight persons and gays and lesbians (Felmlee et al., 2010). But what leads you to view a person’s resources as desirable?

Social exchange theory proposes that you’ll feel drawn to those you see as offering substantial benefits (things you like and want) with few associated costs (things demanded of you in return). Two factors drive whether you find someone initially attractive: whether you perceive them as offering the kind of rewards you think you deserve in a romantic relationship (affection, emotional support, money, sex, etc.), and whether you think that the rewards they can offer you are superior to those you can get elsewhere (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). In simple terms, you’re attracted to people who can give you what you want, and who offer better rewards than others.

Once you’ve experienced attraction because of perceived rewards, the balance of benefits and costs exchanged by you and the other person, known as equity, determines whether a relationship will take root (Stafford, 2003). Romantic partners are happiest when the balance of giving and getting in their relationship is equal for both, and they’re least happy when inequity exists (Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, & Hay, 1985).

What is inequity? People in relationships have a strong sense of proportional justice: the balance between benefits gained from the relationship versus contributions made to the relationship (Hatfield, 1983). Inequity occurs when the benefits or contributions provided by one person are greater than those provided by the other. People who get more rewards from their relationships for fewer costs than their partners are overbenefited; those who get fewer rewards from their relationships for more costs than their partners are underbenefited. Overbenefited individuals experience negative emotions such as guilt, while underbenefited partners experience emotions such as sadness and anger (Sprecher, 2001).

Approximately 50 percent of students surveyed think interracial dating is acceptable, but this masks substantial race and gender differences. While 81 percent of European American and 75 percent of African American men express willingness to date outside their ethnicity, the majority of European American and African American women report negative attitudes toward interracial dating.

Equity strongly determines the short- and long-term success of romantic relationships. One study found that only 23 percent of equitable romances broke up during a several-month period, whereas 54 percent of inequitable romantic relationships broke up (Sprecher, 2001).

Printed Page292

TECHNOLOGY AND ROMANTIC ATTRACTION

I pick my son Colin up from a school “activity night.” “How’d it go?” I ask. “Great!” he exclaims. “I met this really cool girl, and got her number.” “Are you going to call her?” I ask. Colin rolls his eyes at me. “I’m going to text her,” he says. Sure enough, the exchange of text messages begins during the ride home, and as soon as we get through the door, he sprints for the computer and begins exchanging IMs with her.

Today, the enormous range of communication technologies available has refined and enhanced the attraction process. You can establish virtual proximity to attractive others by befriending them on social networking sites (Facebook, Tumblr) and then exchanging daily (or even hourly) updates and posts. Similar to my son Colin, you can assess a prospective partner’s similarity to you and the rewards he or she could offer you by interacting with the person through text-messaging or simply by checking their personal Web pages and online profiles. You can assess physical attractiveness by viewing online photo albums and video clips. On dating sites such as Match.com, eHarmony, or even free sites such as Craigslist, you can enter a set of search parameters—desired age, profession, appearance, interests, sexual orientation—and immediately see a broad range of potential partners.

But despite the conveniences they offer, these technologies also evoke tensions. For one thing, you have to decide how honest to be in your online self-presentations (Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006). Because so many people now use online communication to gauge each other, you may feel great pressure to present yourself as highly attractive—even if that means providing a distorted self-description. In a survey of more than 5,000 online dating service users, misrepresentation of self was commonplace (Hall, Park, Song, & Cody, 2010). Men were more likely than women to exaggerate their education level and income, and women were more likely to lie about their weight. And both men and women over 50 routinely distorted their ages to appear younger. Correspondingly, people view others’ online dating profiles skeptically. Users liken profiles to “résumés”; that is, they are vehicles for marketing one’s “best self,” rather than accurate glimpses into one’s authentic identity (Heino, Ellison, & Gibbs, 2006). Just as people lie on their résumés, so too do online daters presume that others will lie in their profiles. As one online dating service user describes, “Everyone is so wonderful over the Internet. What the Internet doesn’t tell you is that, ‘I’m defensive, I talk about my problems all the time, I can’t manage my money’ ” (Heino et al., 2006, p. 435).

A challenge of online dating is transferring the romance from online to offline. Newer online dating services like HowAboutWe.com focus on just that by encouraging users to plan specific activities with one another. What challenges, if any, have you faced in this transition?

If your goal is to forge an offline romantic relationship, distorting your online self-description is ultimately self-defeating (Ellison et al., 2006). When you mislead someone online about your appearance or other personal attributes and then take your romance offline, your partner will discover the truth. Such unpleasant revelations are commonplace: one study found that 86 percent of people using online dating sites report having met others who they felt had misrepresented their physical attractiveness (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006). When people feel misled, the outcome is often a damaged impression, negative emotion (such as resentment or anger), and an injured or even ruined relationship (McCornack & Levine, 1990). Clearly, the most ethical and practical thing you can do in your online self-descriptions is to accentuate your attractive attributes without resorting to distortion or dishonesty. If you feel you may be “crossing the line” into deception, have a trustworthy friend check your online description or personal profile and assess its authenticity.

Printed Page 293

Relationship Development and Deterioration

How couples come together and separate

Romantic relationships come together and apart in as many different ways and at as many different speeds as there are partners who fall for each other (Surra & Hughes, 1997). Many relationships are of the “casual dating” variety—they flare quickly, sputter, and then fade. Others endure and evolve with deepening levels of commitment. But all romantic relationships undergo stages marked by distinctive patterns in partners’ communication, thoughts, and feelings. We know these transitions intuitively: “taking things to the next level,” “kicking it up a notch,” “taking a step back,” or “taking a break.” Communication scholar Mark Knapp (1984) modeled these patterns as ten stages: five of “coming together” and five of “coming apart.”

Printed Page 293

COMING TOGETHER

Knapp’s stages of coming together illustrate one possible flow of relationship development (see Figure 9.1). As you read through the stages, keep in mind that these suggest turning points in relationships and are not fixed rules for how involvements should or do progress. Your relationships may go through some, none, or all of these stages. They may skip stages, jump back or forward in order, or follow a completely different and unique trajectory.

Bonding institutionalizes your relationship. Before this stage, the ground rules for your relationship and your communication within it remain a private matter, to be negotiated between you and your partner. In the bonding stage, you import into your relationship a set of laws and customs determined by governmental authorities and perhaps religious institutions. Although these laws and customs help to solidify your relationship, they can also make your relationship feel more rigid and structured.

There are many ways for couples to bond, but the key is that both partners agree and make a deep commitment to each other.

Printed Page 296

COMING APART

Coming together is often followed by coming apart. One study of college dating couples found that across a three-month period, 30 percent broke up (Parks & Adelman, 1983). Similar trends occur in the married adult population: the divorce rate has remained stable at around 40 percent since the early 1980s (Hurley, 2005; Kreider, 2005). This latter number may surprise you, because the news media, politicians, and even academics commonly quote the divorce rate as “50 percent.”⁵ But studies that have tracked couples across time have found that 6 out of 10 North American marriages survive until “death does them part” (Hurley, 2005). Nevertheless, the 40 percent figure translates into a million divorces each year.

In some relationships, breaking up is the right thing to do. Partners have grown apart, they’ve lost interest in one another, or perhaps one person has been abusive. In other relationships, coming apart is unfortunate. Perhaps the partners could have resolved their differences but didn’t make the effort. Thus, they needlessly suffer the pain of breaking up.

Like coming together, coming apart unfolds over stages marked by changes in thoughts, feelings, and communication (see Figure 9.2). But unlike coming together, these stages often entail emotional turmoil that makes them difficult to negotiate skillfully. Learning how to communicate supportively while a romantic relationship is dissolving is a challenging but important part of being a skilled interpersonal communicator.

Most healthy romances experience occasional periods of differentiating. These moments can involve unpleasant clashes and bickering over contrasting viewpoints, tastes, or goals. But you can move your relationship through this difficulty—and thus halt the coming-apart process—by openly discussing your points of difference and working together to resolve them. To do this, review the constructive conflict skills discussed in Chapter 8.

Gender stereotypes dominate our thinking about men and women in romantic relationships, but research discredits many of these damaging presumptions. For example, although women in Western cultures are depicted as sentimental and men as rational, women actually are more likely than men to base their romantic relationship decisions on practical considerations.

Many people find terminating a relationship painful or awkward. It’s hard to tell someone else that you no longer want to be involved, and it is equally painful to hear it. Draw on your interpersonal communication skills to best negotiate your way through this dreaded moment. In particular, infuse your communication with empathy—offering empathic concern and perspective-taking (see Chapter 3). Realize that romantic breakups are a kind of death and that it’s normal to experience grief, even when breaking up is the right thing to do. Consequently, offer supportive communication (“I’m sorry things had to end this way” or “I know this is going to be painful for both of us”) and use grief management tactics (see Chapter 4). Conversations to terminate a relationship are never pleasant or easy. But the communication skills you’ve learned can help you minimize the pain and damage, enabling you and your former partner to move on to other relationships.

Printed Page 299

Maintaining Romantic Relationships

Strategies to sustain romances, even long-distance ones

In the movie Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Joel (Jim Carrey) and Clementine (Kate Winslet) are lovers struggling to maintain a bittersweet romance (Bregman, Golin, Gondry, & Kaufman, 2004). Clementine, an outgoing, self-described “high-maintenance girl,” is the opposite of quiet, bookish Joel, who communicates more with his private journal than with her. Following a fight, Clementine impetuously visits a clinic that specializes in memory erasure and has Joel expunged from her mind. Despondent, Joel follows suit. But the two meet again and find themselves attracted. Eventually discovering the truth—that they aren’t strangers at all but longtime lovers—they face a momentous decision. Do they invest the time and energy necessary to maintain their romance a second time, knowing that they failed so terribly before that they chose to destroy their memories? Or do they end it before their history of relational disaster can repeat itself? They discuss their dilemma:

CLEMENTINE: I’m not a concept, Joel, I’m just a messed-up girl who’s looking for my own peace of mind. I’m not perfect.

JOEL: I can’t see anything that I don’t like about you.

CLEMENTINE: But you will!

JOEL: I can’t.

CLEMENTINE: But you will ! You know, you will think of things, and I’ll get bored with you and feel trapped because that’s what happens with me!

JOEL: OK.

CLEMENTINE: OK?

JOEL: OK.

In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Joel and Clementine decide to take another shot at their relationship despite the risks.

Romantic relationships aren’t always about happiness and celebration. No matter how much you love your partner, you will still experience unpleasant moments such as feeling irked, bored, or trapped. In fact, on any given day, 44 percent of us are likely to be seriously annoyed by a close relationship partner (Kowalski, Walker, Wilkinson, Queen, & Sharpe, 2003). Though such experiences are normal, many people find them disturbing and wonder whether they should end the relationship. But Clementine’s and Joel’s choice in the conclusion of Eternal Sunshine—to accept the inevitable negatives as natural and move forward regardless—offers a message of hope. Wiping our mental slates clean and leaving our partners behind is not the only solution to romantic relationship challenges. Instead, we can choose to harness our interpersonal communication skills and invest the effort necessary to maintain our love.

To this point we’ve talked a good deal about the nature of love, and we’ve traced the stages through which many romances progress. Now let’s shift focus to a more practical concern: how can you use interpersonal communication to maintain a satisfying, healthy romantic relationship?

Printed Page

MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES

Many people believe that love just happens—that once it strikes, it endures. But a basic rule of romantic love is that maintenance is necessary to keep relationships from deteriorating (Stafford, 2003). Relational maintenance refers to using communication and supportive behaviors to sustain a desired relationship status and level of satisfaction (Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000). Across several studies, communication scholar Laura Stafford has observed seven strategies that satisfied couples—no matter their ethnicity or sexual orientation—routinely use to maintain their romances (Stafford, 2010). (See Table 9.2 for an overview of these categories.)

You undermine positivity when:

You undermine assurances when:

Constant, daily maintenance is needed to keep romantic relationships alive and healthy.

You undermine task sharing when:

You undermine acceptance when:

You undermine self-disclosure when:

When romantic partners take an interest in each other’s favorite activities, they support each other and deepen the level of intimacy in their relationship. How do you support your partner when you’re in a romantic relationship?

You undermine relationship talks when you:

Fostering healthy relationships with surrounding friends and family appears especially crucial for those involved in interethnic relationships (Baptiste, 1990), and for gay and lesbian couples. Approximately 67 percent of intereth-nic marriages end in divorce, compared with an overall divorce rate of 40 percent, the largest reasons being lack of network support and cultural disapproval (Gaines & Agnew, 2003). Gay and lesbian couples report having suppor-tive environments such as churches or clubs and being treated “the same” as straight couples by their friends and family as especially important for their relationship stability and satisfaction (Haas & Stafford, 1998). You foster supportive social networks when you:

You undermine social networks when you:

Printed Page

MAINTAINING ROMANCE ACROSS DISTANCE

A common challenge to maintaining romantic relationships is geographic separation. At any one time, nearly half of college students are involved in romances separated by geography, and 75 percent will experience a long-distance dating relationship while in school (Aylor, 2003).

People often think that long-distance relationships are doomed to fail. However, long-distance romantic relationships have actually been found to be more satisfying and stable than those that are geographically close (Stafford, 2010). On measures of love, positivity, agreement, and overall communication quality, geographically distant couples score higher than local partners (Stafford & Merolla, 2007). Why? Stafford (2010) offers several reasons. Couples separated by distance often constrain their communication to only that which is positive, steadfastly shying away from troublesome topics that provoke conflict. Geographically distant couples also idealize their partners more. When you’re not around your partner every day, it’s easy to cherish misconceptions about his or her “perfection.” And visits between partners are typically occasional, brief in duration, and passionate. This amplifies the feeling that all their time together is intense and positive—an unsustainable illusion when people see each other regularly (Sahlstein, 2004).

The most difficult maintenance challenge long-distance couples face is not the separation, but their eventual reunion. Almost all couples separated by distance express a desire to be near each other again, and they anticipate that being together will result in dramatic relationship improvements (Stafford, Merolla, & Castle, 2006). But the reality is more complicated. Couples who are reunited following separation are twice as likely to break up, compared with those who remain long-distance (Stafford & Merolla, 2007). Rather than being “all bliss, all the time,” living locally presents a blend of rewards and costs (Stafford, Merolla, & Castle, 2006). On the plus side, couples get to spend more time together, savoring each other’s company and sharing in the “little” things they missed when apart. On the minus side, partners’ cherished illusions about each other are shattered. Reunited couples report realizing for the first time their lovers’ negative characteristics, such as laziness, sloppiness, immaturity, or failure to invest effort in the relationship. They describe a substantial reduction in autonomy, experienced as a loss of time and space for themselves, loss of interaction with friends and family, and irritation with having to be accountable to partners. Reunited couples also report increased conflict, as formerly “taboo” topics become regularly discussed and fought over.

In the movie Like Crazy, college students Jacob and Anna fall in love during their senior year. When immigration laws force Anna to return to her native England, they begin a long-distance relationship. Despite texting, e-mails, and phone calls, the relationship becomes strained. If you have ever been in a long-distance relationship, how did you use communication to ease the distance?

Despite the challenges, you can have a happy and enduring long-distance romance. Here are some suggestions to help maintain such relationships:

Printed Page 306

DECIDING WHETHER TO MAINTAIN

Of course, not all romantic involvements are worth the effort to maintain. In some cases, it may be healthier to end the involvement rather than communicate in ways designed to foster its survival. The decision of whether to maintain or dissolve a struggling romance is one of the most challenging interpersonal decisions we face.

As one way to work through this decision, familiarize yourself with the characteristics of couples whose relationships survive. Four factors—each of which we’ve discussed—appear to be most important in predicting survival of a romantic relationship. First is the degree to which the partners consider themselves “in love.” Couples are more likely to stay together if they think of themselves as in love, are considering marriage or a lifelong commitment, rate their relationship as high in closeness, or date each other exclusively (Hill et al., 1976). Second is equity. Romantic relationships are happiest and most stable when the balance of giving and getting is equal for both partners (Hatfield et al., 1985). Third is similarity. Highly similar couples are more likely to stay together than couples who are dissimilar (Hill et al., 1976). Fourth is network support. A romance is more likely to endure when the couple’s social networks approve of the relationship (Felmlee, 2001; Parks & Adelman, 1983). To determine how well your relationship meets these criteria, ask yourself the following questions:

If you answer “yes” to these questions, your relationship may warrant investment in maintenance. But remember: deciding whether to maintain a struggling relationship or to let it go is a choice only you can make. Friends, family members, pop-culture relationship experts, and even textbooks can’t tell you when to keep or when to leave a romantic involvement. That being said, romantic relationships are in many ways practical endeavors. Your decision to maintain or end a struggling romance should be based on a long-term forecast of your relationship. Stacking your relationship up against those four criteria can give you insight into whether your relationship has a solid foundation on which to invest further effort.

Printed Page 306

The Dark Side of Romantic Relationships

Addressing issues related to romance

Think about the Robert Falcon Scott story that began this chapter. His letter to Kathleen reminds us of the high ideals that love can inspire: compassion, caring, generosity, selflessness. But romance has a dark side as well. As scholar Robin Kowalski pointedly puts it, “people in romantic relationships do a lot of mean and nasty things to one another” (Kowalski et al., 2003, p. 472). And when they do, the result is often unparalleled pain and despair. In this section, we explore some of the most troubling issues related to romance—betrayal, jealousy, intrusion, and violence—and discuss communication strategies for addressing them.

Printed Page

BETRAYAL

Betrayal is one of the most devastating experiences that can occur in a close involvement (Haden & Hojjat, 2006). Romantic betrayal is defined as an act that goes against expectations of a romantic relationship and, as a result, causes pain to a partner (Jones, Moore, Scratter, & Negel, 2001). Common examples include sexual infidelity (engaging in sexual activity with someone else), emotional infidelity (developing a strong romantic attachment to someone else), deception (intentional manipulation of information), and disloyalty (hurting your partner to benefit yourself). But any behavior that violates norms of loyalty and trustworthiness can be considered betrayal.

In romantic relationships, partners inevitably behave in ways that defy one another’s expectations and cause disappointment. But betrayal is different. Betrayal is intentional. As a result, it typically evokes two intense, negative reactions in betrayed partners. The first is an overwhelming sense of relational devaluation—the realization that our partners do not love and respect us as much as we thought they did (Leary, 2001). This sense of devaluation, which is triggered most by sexual infidelity and deception, is difficult to overcome and often leads us to abandon our relationships. The second is a profound sense of loss. In the wake of betrayal, we may feel that all the time and effort we invested in our partner and the relationship were a waste, and that intimacy, commitment, and trust have been permanently destroyed (Haden & Hojjat, 2006). Consequently, when you are betrayed by a lover, expect to feel grief over the loss of the relationship that was. (See Chapter 4 for more on grief management.)

Although both men and women view infidelity as treasonous, their perceptions diverge when they’re asked to compare sexual with emotional cheating. Infidelity researcher David Buss presented study respondents with the following dilemma (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992). Imagine you discover that your partner has become interested in someone else. What would distress you more: your partner forming a deep emotional attachment to that person, or your partner enjoying passionate sex with that person? Sixty percent of men said that sex would upset them more, but 83 percent of women said they’d find the emotional attachment more distressing. The same pattern of results was found in samples of men and women from Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Korea, and Japan (Buss et al., 1999; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996; Wiederman & Kendall, 1999).

People struggling to cope with betrayal commonly adopt one of four general communication approaches (Rusbult, 1987). You can actively confront the betrayal, seeking to understand the conditions that led to it and jointly working with your partner to change those causes. You can quietly stand by your partner, choosing to forgive and forget and trusting that, in time, your love will heal the pain you feel. You can stand by your partner but simmer with pain and rage, venting your anger by constantly reminding the person of his or her transgression or withholding sex or other rewards. Or you can simply end the relationship, believing that the emotional costs associated with the betrayal are too substantial to surmount.

Regardless of which approach you take, the hard truth is that, after a betrayal, your relationship will never be the same, and it will never be “better” than it previously was in terms of trust, intimacy, and satisfaction. You certainly can rebuild a strong and enduring relationship, but it will always be scarred. As my therapist friend Joe says, “You will never get over it. You just learn to live with it.”

discussion questions

Printed Page 311

RELATIONAL INTRUSION

Sometimes romantic partners try to control you or behave in ways that invade your privacy. In mild cases, they might check up on you—talking with your friends or family to verify your whereabouts. In more extreme instances, they might search your phone or read your e-mail without permission. Such behaviors are known as relational intrusion: the violation of one’s independence and privacy by a person who desires an intimate relationship (Cupach & Spitzberg, 1998). Intrusion happens in all cultures, is equally likely to be perpetrated by men or women, and occurs both in current relationships and in those in which the partners have broken up (Lavy, Mikulincer, Shaver, & Gillath, 2009).

Within intact romances, two forms of intrusion are common (Lavy et al., 2009). The first is monitoring and controlling. A partner may text you constantly to ensure that you are always accounted for and instruct you to be home by a certain time. He or she may follow you or hire a private investigator to conduct surveillance. People who have experienced this behavior describe it as: “My partner wants to know where I am and what I’m doing all the time,” and “My partner does not let me meet my family or friends without him being present” (Lavy et al., 2009, p. 995). The second form of intrusion is invasion of privacy. This includes nosing or snooping through your belongings, computer, and phone and asking overly personal and suspicious questions designed to “interrogate” you.

For romances that have ended, intrusion is symptomatic of a person’s inability to let go. Of people who report difficulty in dealing with breakups, 79 percent admit behaving intrusively (Dutton & Winstead, 2006). The most common forms of postrelationship intrusion are leaving gifts and messages for the ex-partner, expressing exaggerated levels of affection (such as public serenades or posting love poems), physically following the ex-partner around, and showing up uninvited at the ex-partner’s home or work. If done repeatedly, these latter behaviors may turn into stalking, which is a criminal offense.

For its recipients, relational intrusion is decidedly negative and threatening. If the relationship is intact, intrusion generates strong negative impressions, uncertainty, and relational turmoil (Lavy et al., 2009). As one victim describes, “He was acting so unfair; I no longer was sure about our relationship” (Lavy et al., 2009, p. 999). For people dealing with postrelationship intrusion, anger and fear are common responses, and the intrusion may spark a desire to seek revenge against or act violently toward the intruding partner (Lavy et al., 2009).

What makes intrusion tricky, however, is that perpetrators typically perceive their behaviors positively, as reflecting love, loyalty, or just the desire to stay in touch (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2004). Consequently, they tend to minimize or deny the harms created by their undesirable actions.

How can you best deal with intrusion? Realize first that intrusion is absolutely unacceptable and unethical. No one has the right to impose themselves on another in an unwanted fashion. If you’re on the receiving end of intrusion, talk with your partner or ex directly about his or her behavior, and firmly express your discontent and discomfort. Use “I” language, avoid “you” language, and make it clear that your privacy is being violated and that the intrusive behavior is unacceptable (“I feel really uncomfortable receiving this gift” or “I am really upset by this, and I feel that my privacy is being invaded”). Importantly, keep your language respectful and polite. Avoid lashing out verbally, especially if you’re angry, as it will only escalate the situation. If the person’s behavior persists, contact local authorities to see what can be done. If you find yourself engaging in intrusive behaviors, desist immediately. The fact that you view your actions as well-intentioned is irrelevant. If you are making a partner or ex feel uncomfortable, you are behaving unethically. If you don’t know how to stop, seek counseling from a licensed therapist.

Printed Page 313

DATING VIOLENCE

Scott and I became friends in grad school, when we both served as instructors with a campus karate club. Scott was originally from Southern California, where he was a kickboxing champion.⁷ He was 6 foot 3, all muscle, and had a very long reach—something I learned the hard way when he caught me with an unexpected back-fist on my nose while sparring!

Soon after our friendship began, Scott met Pam, and the two fell for each other hard and fast. But within a few weeks, Scott confessed to me several concerns: Pam was extremely jealous and constantly accused him of cheating. She called him names, swore at him, and ridiculed his sexual performance. She demanded that he no longer go out with his friends, and when he refused, she threatened to leave him. Visiting him one afternoon, I was stunned to see the glass frame of his black-belt certificate shattered. “Yeah,” he admitted, “Pam threw it at me the other night.” When she learned that Scott was confiding in me, Pam told him a series of lies to alienate him from me: I had “stolen money from him,” I had “hit on her,” I was “gay and wanted him to myself” (never mind that the last two were contradictory). But Scott stayed with her until she put him in the hospital with a broken nose and third-degree burns across his face. She had demanded that he quit karate, and when he refused, she had hit him in the face with a heated clothes iron. When I asked why he didn’t fight back, or at least defend himself (given his abundant skills), he looked at me in disbelief. “I can’t hit a girl, man. I’m not that kind of guy!”

Dating violence affects millions of people, and as Scott’s story shows, despite common beliefs, dating violence knows no demographic boundaries: men and women of all ages, sexual orientations, social classes, ethnicities, and religions experience violence in romantic relationships. According to the Centers for Disease Control, by the time students graduate from high school, 10 percent have experienced dating violence, defined as “being hit, slapped, or physically hurt, on purpose, by a boyfriend or girlfriend in the preceding 12 months” (Centers for Disease Control, 2008). Twenty-one percent of college students report having experienced such violence (National Center for Victims of Crimes, 2008). In addition to physical injuries (and in extreme cases, death), victims of dating violence are more likely than others to suffer from substance abuse, low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, and eating disorders (Ackard & Neumark-Sztainer, 2002).

It’s easy, if you haven’t experienced a violent relationship, to think, “Well, the person should have seen it coming!” But this is false, for at least two reasons (Eisikovits & Buchbinder, 2000). First, violence doesn’t happen all at once—it typically escalates slowly over time. Also, it often doesn’t evolve into full-blown physical violence until relationships are firmly established—making victims all that much more vulnerable, because of their love and commitment. Second, potential abusers often mask their jealousy, violent anger, and excessive need for control in the early stages of a relationship, making it difficult to discern “warning signs” (see Table 9.3 for a detailed list). In Scott’s case, both of these reasons played a role in making him vulnerable. Pam seemed perfectly “normal” in the first few weeks of their relationship. She was funny, attractive, smart, and outgoing. By the time the first incidents occurred, he was already in love. And the destructiveness of her behaviors escalated slowly—starting with minor jealous tantrums, and only evolving into violence after many months. As a consequence, Scott didn’t perceive Pam’s abusiveness as particularly “severe,” until she put him in the hospital.

What should you do if you find yourself in a relationship with a violent partner? First and foremost, let go of the belief that you can “heal” your partner through love, or “save” him or her by providing emotional support. Relationship repair strategies will not prevent or cure dating violence. Your only option is to extricate yourself from the relationship. As you move toward ending the involvement, keep in mind that the most dangerous time comes immediately after you end the relationship, when the abuser is most angry. So, make sure you cut all ties to the abuser, change your phone numbers, and have ready a safety plan: a road map of action for departing the relationship that provides you with the utmost protection. For information on how to develop such a plan, or for help in dealing with an abusive relationship, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline, 1-800-799-SAFE, or visit www.thehotline.org.

Printed Page 314

making relationship choices: Dealing with a Jealous Partner

Printed Page 313

The Hard Work of Successful Love

Love is not singular, but plural

Romantic relationships are most satisfying and stand a greater chance of surviving when you and your partner view your bond without illusions and embellishments. When you do this, when you look love square in the face, you’ll find that it isn’t one simple, clear, obvious thing. Instead, love is complex. Love is triumph and heartache. It is passion and peaceful companionship. It is joy and grief. And keeping love alive is hard work. Some days, your love for your partner will take your breath away. On others, everything they do will annoy you. Most days, it will fall somewhere in between.

The positive communication decisions you make with your partner have a profound effect on the overall happiness and health of your bond. While successful, satisfying love is something you must consciously work at, it is also one of life’s greatest joys.

Romantic relationships endure because partners choose to communicate in ways that maintain their relationship. It’s the everyday communication and effort that you and your partner invest that will most enable you to build a satisfying, intimate bond—and sustain it if that’s what you choose to do. Enduring couples succeed at love by working at it day in and day out—helping each other with studying or the dishes, cheering each other with kind words following disheartening days at school or work, nursing each other through illness, and even holding each other close as one partner lets go of life.

Printed Page 318