Kenya Association of Professional Counsellors

Higher Diploma in Counselling Studies, 2011-2012

Question:
With reference to relevant literature, give an evaluative account of your personal
experience on any psychological issue of self and relationship.
Title:
The Process of a Close Relationship my experience in relation to
literature
Facilitators: Beatrice Otieno
Briggid Muisyo
Student: Albert Muraya
Due Date: 15
th
September 2011
Submission Date: 24
th
March 2014
Words: 3350
Copy: Final Copy
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
Stages of Relationships ..................................................................................................... 1
Relationship Escalation.................................................................................................... 2
i) Initiation...................................................................................................................... 2
ii) Experimenting ........................................................................................................... 2
iii) Intensifying............................................................................................................... 3
iv) Integrating................................................................................................................. 4
v) Bonding ...................................................................................................................... 4
Relationship Termination ................................................................................................ 7
vi) Differentiation........................................................................................................... 7
vii) Circumscribing ........................................................................................................ 8
viii) Stagnating............................................................................................................... 8
ix) Avoidance.................................................................................................................. 9
x) Termination................................................................................................................ 9
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 10
References........................................................................................................................ 11


Introduction
This paper is about my experience in the processes of a close relationship. I will examine
what the literature says about such relationships and then compare my own experience. I
will look at the factors that influenced the initial attraction, the progression into intimacy
and love, and the sources of relational satisfaction. Next I will examine how and why
conflicts arose and what was done about them, before rounding up with an analysis of the
termination of the relationship and implications for the partners.

My definition of a close relationship is an extended relationship in which, according to
Harvey and Pauwels (1999), there is an understanding of closeness and mutual
behaviours that support and indicate such closeness. Central to this definition is
interdependence in thought, feeling and behaviours - an intertwining of their lives (Clark
and Reis, 1988).Using Knapps Model of Relationships (1978, 2008) as a framework, I
will briefly review those theories that analyse the various processes involved in the
conduct of such relationships, namely Interdependence Theory (Thibaut and Kelley,
1959); Investment Model of Commitment (Rusbult and Buunk, 1993); Attachment
Theory (Hazan and Shaver, 1994); Equity Theory (Hatfield and Rapson, 2011); Self-
determination Theory (La Guardia and Patrick, 2008); and the Triangular Theory of
Love (Sternberg, 1986).
Stages of Relationships
Mark Knapp (1984) has described a ten-stage process through which relationships form,
grow and mature and eventually terminate. The stages are divided into two domains
which he calls relationship escalation and relationship termination. Whilst this model
describes interpersonal communication primarily, it may also be used to understand the
interactions underlying the relationship as it proceeds. In addition, whilst it applies to
different types of voluntary relationships such as platonic friendships and business
relationships, it has particular application in close, intimate relationships (Knapp, 1984).
During each stage, the behaviour of each partner may be understood by any of the
theories of close relationships enumerated above. The stages themselves are:
2
A) Escalating i) initiating; ii) experimenting; iii) intensifying; iv) integrating; v)
bonding.
B) Terminating i) differentiating; ii) circumscribing; iii) stagnating; iv) avoiding; v)
terminating.
Relationship Escalation
i) Initiation
This is a sparring process where either partner to a potential relationship is gauging the
other for the possibility that they are suitable, appropriate and available for further
interaction; they also announce to the other, by their non-verbal communication, that they
are open to the possibility of further engagement (Knapp, 2008). In my case, I met my
fiance at a Christian forum where I was immediately struck by her forthrightness in
identifying herself as a single mother; she was the facilitator so in a position of relative
authority. I did not think much of the possibility of a relationship, but noted that she was
attractive and strong for me, attractive characteristics. This stage does not last long, and
in my experience amounted to a few hours of interaction run over several weeks.

ii) Experimenting
This is Knapps second stage within the relationship escalation domain. Couples will
begin probing to establish the possibility of further interaction for common interests,
worldviews and ambitions in short appropriateness and suitability of the other. This
process is described by the Matching Hypothesis of Attraction (Sprecher and Hatfield,
2009) which states that people will generally settle for a mate who is close to them in
attractiveness by their own estimation. In our case whilst I was in my early forties and
therefore a little beyond the consensus age for a first marriage, she was a single mother
and unemployed at the time. In a sense these drawbacks or negatives cancelled the other
out. On the positive I had a good job with the trappings; she was very attractive
beautiful, intelligent and ambitious. According to Smith and Mackie (2007) at this stage
of mate selection the man is concerned with identifying signs of reproductive capacity
seen in the womans youth and beauty; the woman looks for evidence of status and
earning potential for security. This is because as a woman she is more vulnerable to
3
physical and social security concerns for provision and future prospects, whereas I as the
man, according to the authors, would be more interested in securing my posterity through
her evident reproductive capacity (wide hips) and the status that an intelligent, beautiful
woman would give me.
It would be months later when she consulted with me on a professional matter, and I
learned of her social situation, that I began to seriously consider her as a potential mate.
This interpersonal process gelled with idea that the greater the proximity and interaction
between two people, the greater the likelihood of attraction (Smith and Mackie, 2007).
This starts a process of their spending more time with each other because they help the
other master their world, increasing familiarity and perceived similarity. Since people are
predisposed to people who are like them, this process is reinforcing and they will desire
to spend even more time together and so on (Hatfield et al, 2009). My experience was of
very positive interactions in the beginning and a growing connectedness. This need to
connect is described in Self-determination Theory of close relationships (La Guardia and
Patrick, 2008) which states that relationships fulfil three basic psychological needs,
namely: autonomy or self-endorsement of own behaviour; competence or mastery over
challenges; and relatedness or belongingness. This last predisposes human beings to
forming interpersonal bonds and thus appreciating others.

iii) Intensifying
According to Knapp, the third stage is one in which the dyad becomes more intense and
open, as the partners reveal more about themselves, and the communication begins to go
beyond the superficial to more revealing and intimate levels. At this time we were both
concerned about fairness in our dealings with one another and this matched the Equity
Theory in close relationships (Hatfield and Rapson, 2011) which states that people are
most satisfied when they get an equitable outcome or reward for their input in a
relationship. In our case this took the form of me paying for our outings which she would
balance with her preparing sumptuous meals for us when we would stay in; she discipling
me in matters of faith, whilst her payoff was exposure to a middle class way of life she
valued but had previously not been able to enjoy.

4
iv) Integrating
Knapp describes this fourth stage as one where the partners become much more
intertwined into each others lives. The level of self-disclosure intensifies; this becomes its
own reward. According to Smith and Mackie (2007), all relationships start out as
exchange relationships where both parties are driven by self-interest: what is in it for
me? However in time this transforms to a communal relationship where concern for the
others welfare becomes the principle motivator. The transition is governed by the flow
of reward exchange and smoothness of self-disclosure since intimacy and closeness are
primary rewards of such relationships. In our case we began to spend much more time
together with frequent communication on the phone. This led to satisfaction experienced
both cognitively and emotionally a sense of wellbeing and reduced stress reported by
both of us. Thus through increasing interrelatedness we were at the point of being in a
close relationship (Clark and Reis, 1988).

v) Bonding
The fifth stage in Knapps framework is bonding. This involves a public or overt display
of relational exclusivity and commitment such as an engagement or even marriage. It
signifies the end of the protracted mate selection process and typically relationships
become more settled. I becomes we or us (Hatfield and Rapson, 2011). Per Equity
Theory at this point any temporary inequity tends to be overlooked as the greater
wellbeing of the relationship takes precedence for the partners over individual desires.
This also reflects the long-term view of the relationship partners, and there is a belief that
whatever short-term unequalness there is will balance out in the long run.

Bonding takes place at a cognitive, behavioural and emotional level and is evidenced by
increasing interrelatedness, where the partner becomes part of the self. This comes from
increasing self-disclosure such that the partners begin to share perspectives, mimic one
another, and have intimate knowledge of the others inner life (Smith and Mackie, 2007).
They experience a transformation of motivation described in the Investment Model
of commitment (Rusbult, 1983), where the partners subordinate their own interests in
5
favour of their partners. This is because the partner has become part of the self, thus so
do their needs (Smith and Mackie, 2007).

The Interdependence Theory of close relationships (Thibaut and Kelley, 1978) states
that satisfaction in a relationship is derived by comparing the balance of rewards
(pleasure or gratification) and costs (distress or pain) against ones expectations based on
previous experience, those of peers and the outcomes for the partner (as they express it).
In my case the interaction was very rewarding as I felt validated by it and the interest she
took in my life and work. In turn I found her very stimulating, and as we were both
committed Christians, our shared faith provided a common platform from which to
engage. Given our respective social situations my relatively advanced age and her being
an unemployed single mother at the time our comparison level for alternatives was low,
meaning at that stage, there werent many alternative or competing relationship partners
for our attention, further increasing our commitment to one another and to the
relationship. Finally we invested all our social and emotional capital, and in my case a
significant financial stake, into the relationship by befriending one anothers close friends
and reaching out to the others family. Per the theory then, we had a high degree of
commitment (Thibaut and Kelley, 1978; Rusbult and Buunk, 1993).

Another perspective of relationships became evident at this point in that individual
differences in how we approached and conducted the relationship began to exert
themselves. In Attachment Theory which describes a behavioural system for monitoring
threats to relationship security and responsiveness by the partner, relationship quality is
assessed on the basis of the relationship partners availability, responsiveness and
attentiveness (Etcheverry et al, 2013). There are three dimensions of attachment to which
individuals will subscribe, namely secure, anxious and avoidant. These are based on
internal mental working models about relationship expectations formed through early
childhood experiences. The significance of this framework for understanding adult
relationships is that the working models create expectations for relationships. In my case,
my partner was very open whereby she was eager to share what I considered to be the
most intimate information about herself and her past early into the relationship. She also
6
tended to cast aspersions on my claims of love for her, requiring me to prove it with
actions and never being quite satisfied with whatever demonstrations of affection I
showed towards her. She in turn expected me to be as open about myself as I could be,
something I found intimidating; when I did make revelations, I felt exposed and
vulnerable. She was very expressive about her feelings as she had an outgoing personality
and was highly social. I tended to be more introverted and less willing to meet people,
being tired at weekends and wanting to rest; she would be energetic, desiring to go out
and do leisurely activities.

Whilst confusing, these individual differences were a source of amusement at first, only
later becoming a cause for irritation and eventually conflict. Upon research, I now realise
that she had an anxious/ambivalent attachment style which made her hypervigilant in
protecting her attachment relationship (us), very focused on the relationship and overly
intimate. According to Bowlby (1977), this attachment style emanates from an
inconsistent meeting of attachment needs in infancy, leading to learned insecurity about
the partners engagement in the relationship accompanied with fears of abandonment. On
the other hand, I was uncomfortable in getting too close, often feeling smothered by her
constant need for attention. This was consistent with an avoidant attachment style
characterised by a deactivation of the attachment system, devaluing of close
relationships, not relying on them to fulfil attachment needs (Etcheverry et al, 2013).
Bowlby (1977) ascribed this attachment style to a failure by the attachment figure
(usually mother) to meet the attachment needs of the infant. This leads one to care less
for, and to rely less on, close relationships due to mistrust and low expectations from
them. When I felt inclined to maintain a distance, keep my feelings to myself, viewing
her emotional responses as unreliable, this was consistent with the theory (Hazan and
Shaver, 1994).

At this time however, despite these differences, we were enjoying the benefits of being in
relationship, experienced as enjoying time spent together (me) and intimacy and shared
feelings (her). We both reported a sense of wellbeing and were largely optimistic about a
future together. Our intensely passionate feelings were gradually replaced by a greater
7
intimacy and commitment, consistent with Sternbergs Triangular Theory of Love
(1986) which describes a trichotomy of love variables between companionate, romantic
and fatuous love all of which are dissatisfactory and frustrating. Companionate is
commitment and intimacy without passion; romantic is passion and intimacy without
commitment; fatuous is commitment and passion without intimacy. At different points
we experienced all three domains of this disharmony in love, never quite achieving
consummate love which is the presence of all three love variables. This set the stage for
what Knapp calls the Termination Model of his ten stage relationships framework, where
the relationship begins to unravel.
Relationship Termination

vi) Differentiation
According to Mark Knapp (2008) differences begin to challenge the previously held
notion of bliss and the sense that the relationship can only improve. As expressed above
our difficulties arose due to differences in attachment style and orientation, though
lacking awareness of this we attributed them to other things. One theory that expresses
what we were experiencing is Self-determination Theory (La Guardia and Patrick,
2008). This hypothesis explains relationship choices from the perspective of the
motivations that underlie relational processes like attachment styles, interdependence,
intimacy, and predicts that satisfaction is attained when the basic psychological needs of
autonomy (internal locus of control) or self-rule, competence or mastery over challenges
and relatedness or belongingness are met. In my experience, optimal relational
functioning suffered as my partner was excessively controlling such that I experienced
heteronomy rather than autonomy, invalidating me as a man and adult. My choices
became increasingly disparaged and I responded by being passive aggressive, consistent
with my avoidant attachment style, withdrawing and becoming ever more reluctant to
voice my preferences. On her part, her controlling nature was part of her
anxious/ambivalent style of attachment, being hypervigilant about my relational
engagement, and leading her to keep crossing the boundaries of the relationship which
were primarily in the form of expectations. This is because she was never satisfied and
8
sought constant reassurance by raising expectations. This conflicted with a sense of
relational mastery or competence on my part further leaving me feeling emasculated,
whilst it gave her an over-inflated sense of her own competence or relationships skill. A
typical example was how to spend resources (time and money), where to attend church,
lifestyle choices and so on.

vii) Circumscribing
This is a point in Knapps framework where because of ongoing conflict, the partners,
ever weary of arguments, choose to erect boundaries to their communication. They avoid
the real issues fearing more conflict, and instead dwell on the superficial. Given the
forgoing, the need for relatedness or belonging became increasingly compromised and
unmet; thus what should have been a safe haven from the turmoil of life (the relationship)
increasingly became a place to avoid (La Guardia and Patrick, 2008). Nonetheless as we
had already made public commitments to each other in the form of an engagement to be
married, we persisted with the relationship even though intimacy and trust were being
broken. Reis and Shaver (1988) define intimacy as emotionally relevant self-disclosure
by one partner being reciprocated by the other partners responsiveness to it. In this phase
of circumscribing or avoidance, we both turned to significant others to share the pain and
frustration we were both experiencing. In terms of Interdependence Theory we were
experiencing reduced satisfaction (lack of validation, care and acceptance) and the
comparison levels for alternatives were increasingly attractive, including not being in
relationship. However at this time, the level of investments made were still so high, it
kept us together a while longer. She did make a remark that we should not avoid breaking
off our engagement simply because of the shame of doing so.

viii) Stagnating
According to Knapps framework, this stage happens when the relationship partners
cease communication. The partners will remain together but all semblance of intimacy is
lost, and their interaction is purely to preserve whatever social investments they have
made e.g. children, social networks, shared assets etc. According to Rusbults
Investment Model of Commitment (1983), relationship maintenance behaviours kick in
9
to try to recover the relationship; these comprise adaptive social comparison where
following Attribution Theory (Kelley, 1967), one or both partners perceive the
relationship as being superior to near alternatives; accommodative behaviour during
conflict where the aggrieved partner turns a blind eye literally; derogation of attractive
alternatives in which the partners devalue potential alternative relationships including
being out of relationship entirely; managing jealousy whereby this emotional reaction
becomes preventive as a defence against a potential competitor, or reactive to an existing
threat by an outsider; willingness to sacrifice where one of the partners chooses not to
pursue an alternative relationship or relationship-threatening activity. This last happened
when I chose to cancel a bible school course I wanted to do but which did not have her
agreement so as to appease her.

ix) Avoidance
As it suggests, this is a point when in the dying relationship the partners avoid each other
spending only whatever time is absolutely necessary together. In my case we stopped
attending church together, and given the previously central role this had taken in our
lives, this was a major break. At this point our respective attachment styles became very
pronounced with she trying to escalate the conflict by involving my mother, and me
doing even more to avoid the situation by ignoring it as much as I could and evading
questions about it from members of my family.

x) Termination
This is Knapps final stage where the partners completely break off the relationship. In
theory this would involve separating whatever belongings they own in common, living
separately where relevant, breaking off from social networks (making public their
disengagement) and so on. Smith and Mackie (2007) state that women tend to experience
more distress than men and that both have a tendency to ascribe blame to the other party
whilst maintaining that the decision to break off was ones own. We broke up due to
frustration and lack of satisfaction borne by a basic incompatibility that we were blinded
by neediness to see. There was a precipitating incident that involved a public display of
discord. The aftermath was swift and relatively lacking in distress. The weeks following
10
were a period of adjustment with two ill-advised attempts at reconciliation on my part.
With hindsight I see that I was trying to preserve the social investments we had made.
Wisely she declined.

Conclusion
Writing this essay has allowed me to understand better why I was attracted to my ex-
fiance and why our relationship took the pattern that it did. I realise now that with more
relational knowledge, we might have understood the rifts that took place and possibly
weathered the storms that we experienced better. It is also instructive to me that I found it
difficult to complete this essay as it is well overdue and that difficulty has probably more
to do with my attachment style than anything else!

Researching and writing it has thus been cathartic, and gives me the encouragement to
look at myself more constructively going forward. The other gain I have made in doing
this assignment is that it has introduced me to social psychology, a branch of psychology
I previously had only the most cursory acquaintance, and I am looking forward to reading
much more about it.

11
References

Bowlby J . (1977) The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds: Aetiology and
Psychopathology in the light of attachment theory. The British Journal of Psychiatry,
Vol:130, Part: 3, Pages: 201-210

Clark M. and Reis H.T. (1988) Interpersonal Processes in Close Relationships. Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol:39, Pages: 609-672

Etcheverry P.E., Le B., Wu T-F and Wei M (2013) Attachment and the investment
model: Predictors of relationship commitment, maintenance, and persistence. Personal
Relationships, Vol:20. Issue: 3, Pages 546-567

Harvey J .H., Pauwels B.G. (1999) Recent Developments in Close Relationships Theory.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol:8, No.3, Pages 93-95

Hatfield E. and Rapson R.L. (2011) Equity Theory in Close Relationships. In Van Lange
P.A.M., Kruglanski A.W., & Higgins E.T. (Eds.) Handbook of Theories of Social
Psychology. London: Glyph International

Hazan C. and Shaver P.R. (1994) Attachment as an Organisational Framework for
Research on Close Relationships. Psychological Enquiry, Vol:5, No:1, Pages: 1-22

Kelley H.H. (1967) Attribution Theory in Social Psychology. In Levine D. (Ed) (1967)
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Vol.15, Pages 192-240. Cited in Aron A. and Aron
E.N. (1986) The Heart of Social Psychology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books

Knapp M.L. (1984). Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon

12
La Guardia J . and Patrick H. (2008). Self Determination Theory as a Fundamental Theory
of Close Relationships. Canadian Psychology. Vol:49, No:3, Pages 201-209

Reis, H.T. and Shaver, P.R. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck
(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (Pages 367389). Chichester: Wiley, Ltd.
Cited in Self Determination Theory as a Fundamental Theory of Close Relationships.
Canadian Psychology. Vol:49, No:3, Pages 201-209

Rusbult C.E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and
deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. Vol: 45, Pages: 101117. Cited in Etcheverry P.E.,
Le B., Wu T-F and Wei M (2013) Attachment and the investment model: Predictors of
relationship commitment, maintenance, and persistence. Personal Relationships, Vol:20.
Issue: 3, Pages 546-567

Rusbult C.E. and Buunk B.P. (1993). Commitment Processes in Relationships: An
Interdependence Analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Vol:10, No:2,
Pages 175-204

Sprecher S. and Hatfield E. (2009) Matching hypothesis. In Reis H. and Sprecher S.
(Eds.) Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. New York: SAGE.

Smith E. and Mackie D. (2007) Social Psychology, New York: Psychology Press.

Sternberg R.J . (1986) A Triangular Theory of Love, Psychological Review, Vol:93, No:2,
Pages:119-135

Thibaut J .W. and Kelley H.H. (1978) Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of
Interdependence, New York: J ohn Wiley and Sons