"

7 Chapter 7: Building and Maintaining Relationships

Jason S. Wrench; Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter; Katherine S. Thweatt; and Carolyn Hurley

Introduction

Over the course of our lives, we enter into—and move on from—a variety of relationships. For many people, close relationships are a key ingredient for a fulfilling life. Research from the Pew Research Center (Goddard, 2023; Goddard & Parker, 2025) highlights several insights into how Americans experience and communicate within these relationships:

  • Most Americans report having between one and four close friends, while 38% say they have five or more.

  • In these friendships, people commonly talk about topics like work, family, current events, physical and mental health, pop culture, and sports.

  • We depend on close relationships—such as those with romantic partners, family members, or friends—for social support.

  • At the same time, younger adults in the U.S. are increasingly reporting feelings of loneliness.

Given how essential communication is to creating and sustaining meaningful relationships, this chapter explores how we use communication to build, maintain, and sometimes even let go of our interpersonal connections.

7.1 The Nature of Relationships

We’ve all experienced a wide range of relationships throughout our lives. But what makes something a relationship? How often do we need to see each other? Do we both have to agree that we’re in a relationship? Is following someone on social media enough to qualify?

To better understand the relationships in our lives, we’ll start by exploring key characteristics that define relationships—and the different types and purposes they serve.

7.1.1 Defining Relationships

A relationship is a “connection established when one person communicates with another” (Beebe, Beebe, & Redmond, 2019). These connections can be built in a variety of contexts—family, work, school, shared hobbies, or common experiences. And they serve different purposes: task-oriented, work-related, or social and emotional.

Relationships can also be understood through the lens of choice. Communication scholars often differentiate between relationships of choice and relationships of circumstance (Beebe, Beebe, & Redmond, 2019):

  • Relationships of circumstance are formed due to factors beyond our control—such as our family members, classmates, coworkers, or in-laws. We didn’t choose these individuals, but circumstances brought us together.

  • Relationships of choice, on the other hand, are relationships we actively seek and maintain, like close friendships, romantic partnerships, or mentors.

This distinction is important because our level of investment, expectations, and communication patterns often differ depending on whether the relationship was chosen or circumstantial.

Consider how you might interact with a sibling versus a best friend, or with a coworker versus a partner. The reasons we enter and sustain these relationships—and how we communicate within them—can vary significantly based on their origin.

Table 1. Examples of Relationships of Choice & Circumstance

Choice Circumstance
Partners

Spouses

Best friends

Friends

Acquaintances

Activity partners

Parent-child

Siblings

Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins

Distant relatives

Coworkers/colleagues

Neighbors

Classmates

Teachers

7.1.2 Purposes of Relationships

We typically form and maintain relationships for one or more of the following purposes:

  • Work-related relationships help us achieve professional or career goals. These connections often arise in the workplace and may involve collaboration, mentorship, or networking.

  • Task-related relationships exist to accomplish a specific goal. Once the task is complete—such as a school project or athletic season—the relationship may dissolve or evolve into something else.

  • Social relationships provide emotional benefits such as affection, inclusion, and support. These relationships are often built on personal choice and include friends, romantic partners, and sometimes family members.

It’s important to note that relationships can serve multiple purposes. For example, a classmate might start as a task-related partner on a project but later become a close friend. A romantic partner may provide both emotional support and collaboration on life goals.

Where does family fit in?
Family relationships are typically considered relationships of circumstance, but in terms of purpose, they often serve social and emotional functions, like offering affection, a sense of belonging, and life support. At times, family relationships can also be task-oriented, especially when caregiving or shared responsibilities are involved.

Consider your own relationships. Which ones provide emotional support? Which ones help you meet goals or complete tasks? Do some do both? The purpose of a relationship can evolve over time, and understanding the roles they play helps us communicate more effectively within them.

7.1.2 Relationship Characteristics

However, all relationships are not the same. The following relationship characteristics help define and differentiate our relationships with others. These characteristics are: duration, contact frequency, sharing, support, interaction variability, and goals (Gamble & Gamble, 2014).

Relationship Characteristics:

  1. Duration
  2. Contact Frequency
  3. Sharing
  4. Support
  5. Interaction Variability
  6. Goals

Some friendships last a lifetime, others last a short period. The length of any relationship is referred to as that relationship’s duration. People who grew up in small towns might have had the same classmate till graduation. This is due to the fact that duration with each person is different. Some people we meet in college and we will never see them again. Hence, our duration with that person is short. Duration is related to the length of your relationship with that person.

Second, contact frequency is how often you communicate with their other person. There are people in our lives we have known for years but only talk to infrequently. The more we communicate with others, the closer our bond becomes to the other person. Sometimes people think duration is the real test of a relationship, but it also depends on how often you communicate with the other person.

The third relationship characteristic is sharing. The more we spend time with other people and interact with them, the more we are likely to share information about ourselves. This type of sharing often involves private, intimate details about our thoughts and feelings. We typically don’t share this information with a stranger. Once we develop a sense of trust and support with this person, we can begin to share more details.

The fourth characteristic is support. Think of the people in your life and who you would be able to call in case of an emergency. The ones that come to mind are the ones you know who would be supportive of you. They would support you if you needed help, money, time, or advice. For instance, if you need relationship advice, you would probably pick someone who has relationship knowledge and would support you in your decision. Support is so important. It was found that a major difference between married and dating couples is that married couples were more likely to provide supportive communication behaviors to their partners more than dating couples (Punyanunt-Carter, 2004).

The fifth defining characteristic of relationships is the interaction variability. When we have a relationship with another person, it is not defined on your interaction with them, rather on the different types of conversations you can have with that person. When you were little, you probably knew that if you were to approach your mom, she might respond a certain way as opposed to your Dad, who might respond differently. Hence, you knew that your interaction would vary. The same thing happens with your classmates because you don’t just talk about class with them. You might talk about other events on campus or social events. Therefore, our interactions with others are defined by the greater variability that we have with one person as opposed to another.

The last relationship characteristic is goals. In every relationship we enter into, we have certain expectations about that relationship. For instance, if your goal is to get closer to another person through communication, you might share your thoughts and feelings and expect the other person to do the same. If they do not, then you will probably feel like the goals in your relationship were not met because they didn’t share information. The same goes for other types of relationships. We typically expect that our significant other will be truthful, supportive, and faithful. If they break that goal, then it causes problems in the relationship and could end the relationship. Hence, in all our relationships, we have goals and expectations about how the relationship will function and operate.

7.2 Relationship Formation

Understanding why we form relationships is only part of the picture. To build meaningful connections, we also need to understand how relationships begin in the first place. Whether it’s a friendship, romantic partnership, or professional connection, certain factors influence who we’re drawn to and why we choose to engage. In this section, we’ll explore the process of relational formation through the lens of interpersonal attraction theory (Duck, 1993; Graziano & Bruce, 2008)—which examines how factors such as proximity, similarity, physical attractiveness, and reciprocal liking may lead to new connections.

7.2.1 Understanding Attraction

By Eva Rinaldi - https://www.flickr.com/photos/evarinaldiphotography/34732955995/in/album-72157680824643334/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68196882
Figure 7.1. An example of physical attraction. Celebrity Zac Efron at a Red Carpet premiere.

Before we build relationships, something must first draw us toward another person. This initial pull is known as interpersonal attraction, the force that brings people together and motivates us to pursue a connection (Duck, 1993). Whether you’re meeting someone in class, online, or through mutual friends, attraction plays a key role in whether we choose to engage further. But attraction isn’t a one-size-fits-all concept—it can take on different forms depending on the context and the individuals involved.

Researchers have identified three primary types of attraction: physical, social, and task. Physical attraction refers to the degree to which you find another person aesthetically pleasing. What is deemed aesthetically pleasing can alter greatly from one culture to the next. We also know that pop culture can greatly define what is considered to be physically appealing from one era to the next. For example, in the U.S. in the 1950s, curvy women like Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor depicted an industry standard of “beauty” , whereas in the 1990s, supermodels who were thin and tall dominated the screens. Although discussions of male physical attraction occur less often, they are equally impacted by pop culture. In the 1950s, you had solid men like Robert Mitchum and Marlon Brando as compared to the heavily muscled men of the 2010s like Joe Manganiello or Zac Efron.

Women Singing Together
Figure 7.2. This is an example of social attraction. Women Singing Together, smiling and having fun.

The second type of attraction is social attraction, or the degree to which an individual sees another person as entertaining, intriguing, and fun to be around. We all have finite sources when it comes to the amount of time we have in a given day. We prefer to socialize with people that we think are fun. These people may entertain us or they may just fascinate us. No matter the reason, we find some people more socially desirable than others. Social attraction can also be a factor of power. For example, in situations where there are kids in the “in-group” and those that are not. In this case, those that are considered popular hold more power and are perceived as being more socially desirable to associate with. This relationship becomes problematic when these individuals decide to use this social desirability as a tool or weapon against others.

Woman in Blue Suit Jacket
Figure 7.3: This is an example of task attraction. Woman in Blue Suit Jacket smiling at her coworkers, all working at computers.

The final type of attraction is task attraction, or people we are attracted to because they possess specific knowledge and/or skills that help us accomplish specific goals. The first part of this definition requires that the target of task attraction possess specific knowledge and/or skills. Maybe you have a friend who is good with computers who will always fix your computer when something goes wrong. Maybe you have a friend who is good in math and can tutor you. Of course, the purpose of these relationships is to help you accomplish your own goals. In the first case, you have the goal of not having a broken down computer. In the second case, you have the goal of passing math. This is not to say that an individual may only be viewed as task attractive, but many relationships we form are because of task attraction in our lives.

7.2.2 Reasons for Attraction

Now that we’ve looked at the basics of what attraction is. Let’s switch gears and talk about why we are attracted to each other. There are several reasons researchers have found for our attraction to others including proximity, physicality, perceived gain, similarities and differences, and disclosure.

Physical Proximity

When you ask some people how they met their significant other, you will often hear proximity is a factor in how they met. Perhaps, they were taking the same class or their families went to the same grocery store. These commonplaces create opportunities for others to meet and mingle. We are more likely to talk to people that we see frequently.

Physical Attractiveness

In day-to-day interactions, you are more likely to pay attention to someone you find more attractive than others. Research shows that males place more emphasis on physical attractiveness than females (Samovar, & Porter, 1995). Appearance is very important at the beginning of the relationship.

Perceived Gain

Theory Spotlight: Social Exchange Theory

Social Exchange Theory (SET) helps explain why we start, maintain, or even end relationships based on a simple premise: people seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Think of it like a relationship balance sheet. If your relationship with someone brings you more benefits—like support, laughter, or companionship—than stress or frustration, you’re more likely to keep investing in that relationship.

Rewards can include emotional closeness, validation, or even practical help (like a roommate who always does the dishes). Costs might be emotional strain, lack of reciprocity, or time commitments. When the scales tip too far into the “cost” zone, people may begin to reevaluate the relationship.

This theory also introduces the idea of comparison levels—your personal standards based on past experiences or cultural expectations. You might think, “I deserve a partner who listens to me” or “At least this friendship isn’t as toxic as my last one.” These comparison levels shape how satisfied (or dissatisfied) we feel.

A good relationship will have fewer costs and more rewards. A bad relationship will have more costs and fewer rewards. Often, when people decide to stay or leave a relationship, they will consider the costs and rewards in the relationship.

Ultimately, Social Exchange Theory reminds us that relationships aren’t just about feelings—they’re also about perceived fairness, effort, and return on investment.

When we feel drawn to someone—whether as a friend, romantic partner, or collaborator—one key reason is often the rewards we associate with that person. In the context of interpersonal attraction theory, rewards refer to the positive outcomes or benefits we expect to gain from being around someone.

  • Rewards are the things we want to acquire. They could be tangible (e.g., food, money, clothes) or intangible (support, admiration, status).
  • Costs are undesirable things that we don’t want to expend a lot of energy to do. For instance, we don’t want to have to constantly nag the other person to call us or spend a lot of time arguing about past items.

According to Social Exchange Theory (see sidebar), we tend to be attracted to people who offer us high rewards with relatively low costs (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). For instance, you might feel drawn to someone because they make you laugh (social reward), boost your confidence (emotional reward), or help you with class assignments (task reward). When we perceive that being in a relationship with someone is likely to be rewarding, that perception increases our attraction to them.

This doesn’t mean attraction is purely transactional—but it does suggest that our minds often evaluate relationships in terms of what we gain or stand to lose, even if we’re not consciously doing the math.

When seeking new relationships, we tend to look for others that can help us or benefit us in some way.  This type of relationship might appear to be like an economic model and can be explained by exchange theory (Stafford, 2008). In other words, we will form relationships with people who can offer us rewards that outweigh the costs.

Similarities and Differences

It feels comforting when someone who appears to like the same things you like also has other similarities to you. Thus, you don’t have to explain yourself or give reasons for doing things a certain way. People with similar cultural, ethnic, or religious backgrounds are typically drawn to each other for this reason. It is also known as similarity thesis. The similarity thesis basically states that we are attracted to and tend to form relationships with others who are similar to us (Adler, Rosenfeld, & Proctor II, 2013). There are three reasons why similarity thesis works: validation, predictability, and affiliation.

  • First, it is validating to know that someone likes the same things that we do. It confirms and endorses what we believe. In turn, it increases support and affection.
  • Second, when we are similar to another person, we can make predictions about what they will like and not like. We can make better estimations and expectations about what the person will do and how they will behave.
  • The third reason is due to the fact that we like others that are similar to us and thus they should like us because we are the same. Hence, it creates affiliation or connection with that other person.

However, there are some people who are attracted to someone completely opposite from who they are. This is where differences come into play. Differences can make a relationship stronger, especially when you have a relationship that is complementary. In complementary relationships, each person in the relationship can help satisfy the other person’s needs. For instance, one person likes to talk, and the other person likes to listen. They get along great because they can be comfortable in their communication behaviors and roles. In addition, they don’t have to argue over who will need to talk. Another example might be that one person likes to cook, and the other person likes to eat. This is a great relationship because both people are getting what they like to do, and it complements each other’s talents. Usually, friction will occur when there are differences of opinion or control issues. For example, if you have someone who loves to spend money and the other person who loves to save money, it might be very hard to decide how to handle financial issues.

Disclosure

Sometimes we form relationships with others after we have disclosed something about ourselves to others. Disclosure, or sharing about yourself, increases liking because it creates support and trust between you and this other person. We typically don’t disclose our most intimate thoughts to a stranger. We do this behavior with people we are close to because it creates a bond with the other person.

Disclosure is not the only factor that can lead to forming relationships. Disclosure needs to be appropriate and reciprocal (Dindia, 2000). In other words, if you provide information, it must be mutual. If you reveal too much or too little, it might be regarded as inappropriate and can create tension. Also, if you disclose information too soon or too quickly in the relationship, it can create some negative outcomes.

7.3 Stages of Relationships

Every relationship goes through various stages. Mark Knapp first introduced The Stage Model of Relationship Development after identifying patterns on the ways many relationships of choice progress (1984; Knapp & Vangelisti, 1992). The following model describes these five stages of coming together, and five stages of coming apart. As you read about the stages, remember that all relationships do not go through ALL stages. You may have only experienced a few relationships that have progressed into a bonding stage. Relationships can also go backwards and forwards through this model. It is normal to experience some de-escalation in a friendship that grows apart, but this can be followed with an escalation period as you and your friend become close again.

Above: Coming together an the following words following stair steps up: Initiating, Experimenting, Intesifying, Integrating, Bonding. Below: Coming apart witht the following words following stair steps down: Differentiating, Circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, terminating.
Figure 7.4 Knapp and Vangelisti Model of Relationships

7.3.1 Coming Together

Do you remember when you first met that special someone in your life? How did your relationship start? How did you two become closer? Every relationship has to start somewhere. It begins and grows. In this section, we will learn about the coming together stages, which include: initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and then bonding.

Initiating

At the beginning of every relationship, we have to figure out if we want to put in the energy and effort to talk to the other person. If we are interested in pursuing the relationship, we have to let the other person know that we are interested in initiating a conversation.

There are different types of initiation. Sustaining is trying to continue the conversation. Networking is where you contact others for a relationship. An offering is where you present your interest in some manner. Approaching is where you directly make contact with the other person. We can begin a relationship in a variety of different ways.

Communication at this initiating stage is very brief. We might say hello and introduce yourself to the other person. You might smile or wink to let the other person know you are interested in making conversation with him or her. The conversation is very superficial and not very personal at all. At this stage, we are primarily interested in making contact.

Experimenting

After we have initiated communication with the other person, we go to the next stage, which is experimenting. At this stage, you are trying to figure out if you want to continue the relationship further. We are trying to learn more about the other person.

At this stage, interactions are very casual. You are looking for common ground or similarities that you share. You might talk about your favorite things, such as colors, sports, teachers, etc. Just like the name of the stage, we are experimenting and trying to figure out if we should move towards the next stage or not.

Intensifying

After we talk with the other person and decide that this is someone we want to have a relationship with, we enter the intensifying stage. We share more intimate and/or personal information about ourselves with that person. Conversations become more serious, and our interactions are more meaningful. At this stage, you might stop saying “I” and say “we.” So, in the past, you might have said to your partner, “I am having a night out with my friends.” It changes to “we are going to with my friends tonight.” We are becoming more serious about the relationship.

Integrating

The integrating stage is where two people truly become a couple. Before they might have been dating or enjoying each other’s company, but in this stage, they are letting people know that they are exclusively dating each other. The expectations in the relationship are higher than they were before. Your knowledge of your partner has increased. The amount of time that you spend with each other is greater.

Bonding

The next stage is the bonding stage, where you reveal to the world that your relationship to each other now exists. This only occurs with a few relationships. For example, the bonding stage could be when two partners get engaged and have an engagement announcement. For those that are very committed to the relationship, they might decide to have a wedding and get married. In every case, they are making their relationship a public announcement. They want others to know that their relationship is real.


Not every relationship will go through each of the ten stages. Several relationships do not go past the experimenting stage. Some remain happy at the intensifying or bonding stage. When both people agree that their relationship is satisfying and each person has their needs met, then stabilization occurs. Some relationships go out of order as well. For instance, in some arranged marriages, the bonding occurs first, and then the couple goes through various phases. Some people jump from one stage into another. When partners disagree about what is optimal stabilization, then disagreements and tensions will occur.

In today’s world, romantic relationships can take on a variety of different meanings and expectations. For instance, “hooking up” or having “friends with benefits” are terms that people might use to describe the status of their relationship. Many people might engage in a variety of relationships but not necessarily get married. We know that relationships vary from couple to couple. No matter what the relationship type, couples decided to come together or come apart.

7.3.2 Coming Apart

Some couples can stay in committed and wonderful relationships. However, there are some couples that after bonding, things seem to fall apart. No matter how hard they try to stay together, there is tension and disagreement. These couples go through a coming apart process that involves: differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and terminating.

Differentiating

The differentiating stage is where both people are trying to figure out their own identities. Thus, instead of trying to say “we,” the partners will question “how am I different?” In this stage, differences are emphasized and similarities are overlooked.

As the partners differentiate themselves from each other, they tend to engage in more disagreements. The couples will tend to change their pronoun use from “our kitchen” becomes “my kitchen” or “our child” becomes “my child,” depending on what they want to emphasize.

Initially, in the relationship, we tend to focus on what we have in common with each other. After we have bonded, we are trying to deal with balancing our independence from the other person. If this cannot be resolved, then tensions will emerge, and it usually signals that your relationship is coming apart.

Circumscribing

The circumscribing stage is where the partners tend to limit their interactions with each other. Communication will lessen in quality and quantity. Partners try to figure out what they can and can’t talk about with each other so that they will not argue.

Partners might not spend as much time with each other at this stage. There are fewer physical displays of affection, as well. Intimacy decreases between the partners. The partners no longer desire to be with each other and only communicate when they have to.

Stagnating

The next stage is stagnating, which means the relationship is not improving or growing. The relationship is motionless or stagnating. Partners do not try to communicate with each other. When communication does occur, it is usually restrained and often awkward. The partners live with each other physically but not emotionally. They tend to distance themselves from the other person. Their enthusiasm for the relationship is gone. What used to be fun and exciting for the couple is now a chore.

Avoiding

The avoiding stage is where both people avoid each other altogether. They would rather stay away from each other than communicate. At this stage, the partners do not want to see each other or speak to each other. Sometimes, the partners will think that they don’t want to be in the relationship any longer.

Terminating

The terminating stage is where the parties decide to end or terminate the relationship. It is never easy to end a relationship. A variety of factors can determine whether to cease or continue the relationship. Time is a factor. Couples have to decide to end it gradually or quickly. Couples also have to determine what happens after the termination of the relationship. Besides, partners have to choose how they want to end the relationship. For instance, some people end the relationship via electronic means (e.g., text message, email, social media posting) or via face-to-face.

7.4 Relationship Maintenance

You may have heard that relationships are hard work. Relationships need maintenance and care. Just like your body needs food and your car needs gasoline to run, your relationships need attention as well. When people are in a relationship with each other, what makes a difference to keep people together is how they feel when they are with each other. Maintenance can make a relationship more satisfying and successful.

Daniel Canary and Laura Stafford stated that “most people desire long-term, stable, and satisfying relationships” (1994). To keep a satisfying relationship, individuals must utilize relationship maintenance behaviors. They believed that if individuals do not maintain their relationships, the relationships will weaken and/or end. “It is naïve to assume that relationships simply stay together until they fall apart or that they happen to stay together” (Canary & Stafford, 1994).

Relationship maintenance is the stabilization point between relationship initiation and potential relationship destruction (Duck, 1988). There are two elements to relationship maintenance. First, strategic plans are intentional behaviors and actions used to maintain the relationship. Second, everyday interactions help to sustain the relationship. Most importantly, talk is the most important element in relationship maintenance (Duck, 1994).

Laura Stafford and Daniel Canary (1991) found five key relationship maintenance behaviors.

1. Positivity, 2. Openness, 3. Assurancing, 4. Networking, 5. Sharing tasks, 6. Conflict management, 7. Advice.
Figure 7.5 Relationship Maintenance Behaviors
  1. First, positivity is a relational maintenance factor used by communicating with their partners in a happy and supportive manner.
  2. Second, openness occurs when partners focus their communication on the relationship.
  3. Third, assurances are words that emphasize the partners’ commitment to the duration of the relationship.
  4. Fourth, networking is communicating with family and friends.
  5. Lastly, sharing tasks is doing work or household tasks.
  6. Later, Canary and his colleagues found two more relationship maintenance behaviors: conflict management and advice (Canary & Zelley, 2000).

Additionally, Canary and Stafford also posited four propositions that serve as a conceptual framework for relationship maintenance research (Canary & Stafford, 1994).The first proposition is that relationships will worsen if they are not maintained. The second proposition is that both partners must feel that there are equal benefits and sacrifices in the relationship for it to sustain. The third proposition states that maintenance behaviors depend on the type of relationship. The fourth proposition is that relationship maintenance behaviors can be used alone or as a mixture to affect perceptions of the relationship. Overall, these propositions illustrate the importance and effect that relationship maintenance behaviors can have on relationships.

7.5 Tensions in Relationships

Relationship Dialectics

Theory Spotlight: Relational Dialectics Theory

Have you ever wanted both closeness and independence in a relationship? Or felt torn between honesty and privacy with a friend or partner? If so, you’ve experienced what Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT) describes.

Developed by communication scholars Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery (1996), RDT explains how relationships are full of tensions between opposing needs. These tensions—called dialectics—aren’t signs of trouble; they’re natural and ongoing parts of human connection.

Rather than being problems to solve once and for all, these tensions are managed through communication. For example, a couple might balance time together and apart by establishing regular date nights while encouraging personal hobbies.

Relational Dialectics Theory invites us to view communication not just as a way to resolve conflict, but as the way we navigate and co-create meaning within the push and pull of our relationships.

We know that all relationships go through change. The changes in a relationship are usually dependent on communication. When a relationship starts, there is lots of positive and ample communication between the parties. However, there are times that couples go through a redundant problem, and it is important to learn how to deal with this problem. Partners can’t always know what their significant other desires or needs from them.

Dialectics had been a concept known well too many scholars for many years. They are simply the pushes and pulls that can be found every day in relationships of all types. This perspective examines how we must manage these push-pull tensions that arise, because they cannot be fully resolved. The management of the tensions is usually based on past experiences; what worked for a person in the past will be what they decide to use in the future. These tensions are both contradictory and interdependent because without one, the other is not understood. Dialectical tension is how individuals deal with struggles in their relationship. There are opposing forces or struggles that couples have to deal with (Baxter, 2004; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). 

The overarching premise to dialectical tensions is that all personal ties and relationships are always in a state of constant flux and contradiction. Relational dialectics highlight a “dynamic knot of contradictions in personal relationships; an unceasing interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies” (Griffin, 2009).The concept of contradiction is crucial to understanding relational dialectics. The contradiction is when there are opposing sides to a situation. These contradictions tend to arise when both parties are considered interdependent. Dialectical tension is natural and inevitable. All relationships are complex because human beings are complex, and this fact is reflected in our communicative processes. Baxter and Montgomery argue that tension arises because we are drawn to the antitheses of opposing sides. These contradictions must be met with a “both/and” approach as opposed to the “either/or” mindset. However, the “both/and” approach lends to tension and pressure, which almost always guarantees that relationships are not easy. Below are some different relational dialectics (Baxter, & Montgomery, 1996):

1) Autonomy-Connection

This is where partners seek involvement but not willing to sacrifice their entire identity. For instance, in a marriage, some women struggle with taking their partner’s last name, keeping their maiden name, or combine the two. Often when partners were single, they might have engaged in a girl’s night out or a guy’s night out. When in a committed relationship, one partner might feel left out and want to be more involved. Thus, struggles and conflict occur until the couple can figure out a way to deal with this issue.

2) Predictability–Novelty

This deals with rituals/routines compared to novelty. For instance, for some mothers, it is tough to accept that their child is an adult. They want their child to grow up at the same time it is difficult to recognize how their child has grown up.

3) Transparency-Privacy

Disclosure is necessary, but there is a need for privacy. For some couples, diaries work to keep things private. Yet, there are times when their partner needs to know what can’t be expressed directly through words.

4) Similarity-Difference

This tension deals with self vs. others. Some couples are very similar in their thinking and beliefs. This is good because it makes communication easier and conflict resolution smoother. Yet, if partners are too similar, then they cannot grow. Differences can help couples mature and create stimulation.

5) Ideal-Real

Couples will perceive some things as good and some things as bad. Their perceptions of what is real may interfere or inhibit perceptions of what is real. For instance, a couple may think that their relationship is perfect. But from an outsider, they might think that the relationship is abusive and devastating.

Another example might be that a young dating couple thinks that they do not have to marry each other because it is the ideal and accepted view of taking the relationship to the next phase. Thus, the couples move in together and raise a family without being married. They have deviated from what is an ideal normative cultural script (Baxter, 2006).

6) Judgement-Acceptance

In our friendships, we often feel the simultaneous need to be accepting of our friends for who they are, but also be honest and open with them. In this example, Phoebe wants to help Joey, but she also thinks he is being unreasonable.

Every relationship is fraught with these dialectical tensions. There’s no way around them. However, there are different ways of managing dialectical tensions:

  • Denial is where we respond to one end. For example, in a romantic relationship, one partner wants closeness (connection) while the other desires more independence (autonomy). The couple might deny the tension by only focusing on closeness, spending all their time together, and ignoring the need for independence, which might lead to issues later.
  • Disorientation is where we feel overwhelmed. We fight, freeze, or leave. For example, a young couple experiencing their first serious conflict may feel overwhelmed by the tension between wanting to stay close (connection) and needing space (autonomy). They might freeze and avoid each other, or have explosive arguments without resolution.
  • Alternation is where we choose one end on different occasions. For example, in a friendship, two people balance the need for openness and privacy. They might choose to be very open and share everything during some conversations, but at other times, they respect each other’s need for privacy, alternating between these two extremes depending on the context.
  • Recalibration is reframing the situation or perspective. For example, a couple experiencing tension between predictability and novelty reframes their perspective by recognizing that their routine doesn’t have to be boring. Instead, they see stability as a foundation that allows them to introduce new experiences, such as traveling together, without destabilizing their relationship.
  • Segmentation is where we compartmentalize different areas. This may sound very similar to alternation, above. For example, in a friendship balancing the need for openness and privacy, the friends may be very open about their romantic relationships, telling each other all of the details of their romantic encounters. But if the subject moves to family relationships, the friends may decide to stay closed off in this area.
  • Balance is where we manage and compromise our needs. For example, when a person realizes that their partner cannot be “perfect”, and changes their standards to a more realistic level.
  • Integration is blending different perspectives. For example, in a long-distance relationship, the couple integrates the desire for both autonomy and connection by scheduling regular virtual dates but also encouraging each other to pursue individual hobbies and social lives outside of the relationship.
  • Reaffirmation is having the knowledge & accepting our differences. For example, partners in a marriage might accept that they will always have different approaches to handling money—one being a saver and the other a spender. They reaffirm their differences by discussing them openly, acknowledging that the tension is a natural and ongoing part of their relationship, and working through it without trying to change each other.

These strategies will come up again as we discuss conflict in chapter 8. Not every couple deals with dialectical tensions in the same way. Some will use a certain strategy during specific situations, and others will use the same strategy every time there is tension.

Wrap Up

Relationships are at the core of human experience, shaping how we connect, grow, and find meaning in our lives. In this chapter, we explored key theories and concepts that help us understand the dynamic nature of interpersonal relationships—from what draws us together to what keeps us connected over time. Theories like interpersonal attraction and social exchange help explain the “why” behind our relationship choices, while frameworks like the stage model of relationships and relational dialectics highlight the fluid, ever-evolving journey of connection.

Relationship maintenance is not a one-time effort but an ongoing process that requires intention, communication, and adaptability. By recognizing the tensions that exist in all relationships and using strategies to balance them, we can build deeper, more resilient connections.

Ultimately, strong relationships are not built solely on attraction or compatibility but on the everyday choices we make—how we show support, manage conflict, negotiate change, and communicate care. Understanding these concepts empowers us to be more mindful, empathetic, and effective in cultivating relationships that enrich our lives and the lives of those around us.


References

Adler, R., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Proctor II, R. F. (2013). Interplay: The process of interpersonal communication. Oxford.Ayers, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and perceived usages. Communication Quarterly, 31(1), 62-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378309369487

Baxter, L.A. (2004). A tale of two voices: Relational Dialectics Theory. The Journal of Family Communication, 4 (3 & 4), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2004.9670130

Baxter, L. A. (2006). Relationship dialectics theory: Multivocal dialogues of family communication. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.). Engaging in family communication. (pp. 130-145). Sage.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford Press.

Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J., & Redmond, M. V. (2019). Interpersonal Communication: Relating to Others. Pearson.

Canary, D. J., & Stafford. L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.). Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 3-21). Academic Press.

Canary, D. J., & Zelley, E. D. (2000). Current research programs on relational maintenance behaviors. Communication Yearbook, 23, 305-340.

Dindia, K. (2000). Self-disclosure research: Advances through meta-analysis. In M. A. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M., Gayle, & N. Burrell (Eds.). Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 169-186). Erlbaum.

Duck, S. (1988). Relating to others. Dorsey Press.

Duck, S. (1993). Personal Relationships and Personal Constructs: A Study of Friendship Formation. Wiley.

Duck, S. (1994). Steady as (s)he goes: Relational maintenance as a shared meaning system. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.). Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 45-60). Academic Press.

Gamble, T. K.., & Gamble, M. W. (2014). Interpersonal communication: Building connections together. Sage.

Gervis, Z. (2019, May 9). Why the average American hasn’t made a new friend in five years. SWNS digital. https://tinyurl.com/yxtc2htg

Goddard, I. (2023, October 12). What does friendship look like in America? Pew Research Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/12/what-does-friendship-look-like-in-america/

Goddard, I., & Parker, K. (2025, January 16). Men, women and social connections. Pew Research Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2025/01/16/men-women-and-social-connections/

Graziano, W. G., & Bruce, J. W. (2008). Attraction and the initiation of relationships: A review of the empirical literature. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, and J. Harvey (Eds.),.Handbook of Relationship Initiation,  Psychology Press.

Griffin, E.M. (2009). A first look at communication theory. McGraw Hill, pg. 115.

Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1992). Interpersonal communication and human behavior (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2004). Reported affectionate communication and satisfaction in marital and dating relationships. Psychological Reports, 166(3), 1049-1055. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.95.3f.1154-1160

Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1995). Communication between cultures (2nd ed.). Wadsworth, p. 188.

Stafford, L. (2008). Social exchange theories. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 377-389). Sage.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Wiley.

Figures

Figure 7.1. Rinalidi, E. (2017). Zac Efron at the Baywatch Red Carpet Premier Sydney Australia.  https://www.flickr.com/photos/evarinaldiphotography/34732955995/in/album-72157680824643334/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68196882

Figure 7.2. Krukau, Y. (2021). Women singing together. Pexels license. Retrieved from https://www.pexels.com/photo/women-singing-together-9008830/

Figure 7.3. Jopwell. (2019). Woman in a blue suit jacket. Pexels license. Retrieved from https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-in-blue-suit-jacket-2422293/

Figure 7.4. Knapp and Vangelisti Model of Relationships. Interpersonal Communication Copyright © by Jason S. Wrench; Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter; and Katherine S. Thweatt.

Figure 7.5 Relationship Maintenance Behaviors. Interpersonal Communication Copyright © by Jason S. Wrench; Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter; and Katherine S. Thweatt.

definition

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Chapter 7: Building and Maintaining Relationships Copyright © 2025 by Jason S. Wrench; Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter; Katherine S. Thweatt; and Carolyn Hurley is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.