Analysis Of Knapp 's Stages Of Romantic Development

They devised a ‘love quiz’ in a local newspaper, asking readers to describe their feelings and experiences about romantic relationships and their childhood relationships with parents. They found a strong correlation between childhood and adult relationship patterns: for example, insecure-avoidant types doubted the existence of love, feared closeness and found it hard to forgive; insecure-resistant types were intensely emotional, jealous and untrusting; and secure types believed in love, were very trusting and liked being close to others.

Fairy tales tell us that once upon a time a girl met a boy; they fell in love, and lived happily ever after. Reality is not that simple. Long-term relationships force couples to get to know each other, involve themselves in each others’ worlds, fight through the hard times, and eventually develop deeper connections as noted through distinctive stages of Knapp’s relationship model. Although I have dated the same person for over two years, our communication through relationship stages makes it seem as though I am now dating a different person than the one I met years ago. Following dissolution and subsequent repair, I realize the most exhilarating of roller coaster rides develop through sets of ups and downs, much like the

It is often said that all good things come to an end. Relationships come and go, and some mean more than others. In fact, there was even a relationship model developed by a communication researcher by the name of Mark Knapp. In his model, he goes through what seems to be presented as a smooth step transition from each stage in which a relationship eventually evolves into. As I studied this up then down ladder model, I began to realize that I ought to build up some strong calf muscles, because my relationship sure has climbed up and down a few flights of stairs. Mark Knapp believes that relationships go through multiple stages, the uphill stages being initiation, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, bonding, then relational maintenance. On the flip side, Knapp believes the descending stages to be differentiating, circumscribing, avoiding, and eventually, termination.

In a developmental perspective of relational dynamics, communications researcher Mark Knapp, developed a model of relation stages. In Knapp’s model, he included 10 stages, within 2 broad phases, “coming together” at the beginning of the relationship and “coming apart” at the end. The first phases encompasses the first 5 stages, the last phase includes the last 5. However, other researchers have suggested that a third phase, “relational maintenance,” should be included. This stage encompasses the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh stages. These ten stages are as follows.

American author and Professor at the University of Southern California, Leo F. Buscaglia; also known as the Dr. Love says, “A loving relationship is one in which the loved one is free to be himself — to laugh with me, but never at me; to cry with me, but never because of me; to love life, to love himself, to love being loved. Such a relationship is based upon freedom and can never grow in a jealous heart.” Relationships are shared with the people we cherish or care about. Ways to express what and how we feel toward people we care about is achieved through interpersonal communication, verbal or nonverbal. If communication is ineffective in a relationship potential strain results. A way to notice tension in a relationship is by the examination of relational dialects. Relational dialectics are tensions that are embedded in interpersonal communication interactions. Three major primary tensions that will be discussed in this paper are dialectic of expression, dialect of integration, and the dialectic of certainty.

Knapp’s relationship model elaborates on how relationships grow and last and also how they come to an end. The model is ten different stages which come under two interrogating sections. Knapp’s relationship model serves the purpose to understand how a relationship comes together and grows apart. Stages can vary in the time a couple takes to complete it, as well as the relationship can end at any stage. Stages can be skipped and repeated, and is dependent on the couple themselves. The creator of the model, Mark Knapp is a well-known professor at the University of Texas and is renowned for his nonverbal communication research. He developed this model to analysis the phases and development of a relationship between two people.

A relationship is developed as a series of events that are accompanied by positive or negative events in relationship commitment. The Turning Point is one of the models that tries to explain, steps by step, the ways communication contributes to a relationship development and prolongation. This model was created in 1986 by Baxter and Bullis who said that Turning Points referred to any event that is associated with a change in a relationship. “It is a nonlinear model that best captures the fact that relationship development can be bidirectional; couples move both toward and away from commitment over the course of their relationship.” (Human Communication in Society, 4th Edition, Jess K. Alberts, Thomas K. Nakayama, Judith N. Martin)

The fairy tales say that once upon a time a girl met a boy; they fell in love, and lived happily ever after. Reality is not that simple. Long-term relationships force couples to get to know each other, involve themselves in each others’ worlds, fight through the hard times, and eventually develop deeper connections through distinctive stages of Knapp’s relationship model. Although I have dated the same person for over two years, the stages of our communication make it seem as though I am now dating a different person following dissolution and subsequent repair. However, even the most exhilarating of roller coaster rides develop through a combination of ups and downs, much like the stages of a relationship.

First, in order to have a good start in a relationship there must first be a bond built. A bond unites a couple before the relationship to get a better understanding of one another. This stage in dating is commonly known as the “talking stage”. The talking stage can be very confusing to some because it mimics dating but it’s not “official”. The talking stage is the building block for dating. For example, a 19-year-old girl and her 20-year-old boyfriend have been dating for four years. One of reasons they’ve been together

Smits, G. J., & Cherhoniak, I. M. (1976). Physical attractiveness and friendliness in interpersonal attraction. Psychological Reports, 39(1), 171-174.

The five factors that predict interpersonal relationships are: proximity, familiarity, similarity, physical appearance, and reciprocity. Proximity refers to the geographical location of persons. People are more likely to initiate, engage, or maintain relationships if someone’s geographical location is near or convenient to the person they are to pursue. Relationships, whether romantic or platonic, are not as likely to be initiated if the proximity does not allow individuals to cross paths or maintain a certain level of communication. As well, familiarity plays an important role in the fostering of relationships. People are said to have an increased attraction and fondness for individuals that they see more often than those they do not. In lay terms, similarity can be summed up by saying that people enjoy the presence of those like (or similar) to them. Individuals are more often drawn to and feel less intimidated by others that share their culture and belief systems; thus, are more likely to form relationships with them. Next, is physical attractiveness; which can be defined in two different ways. First off, people tend to believe that beautiful things equal good things and are more likely to seek out relationships with individuals they find beautiful. However, people are also likely to form relationships with people they believe to be on

Most intimate relationship begins with attraction. Attraction plays a big part in developing a relationship between two people, whether it leads to intimacy or just casual or professional relationship. Some features, such as physical attractiveness, psychological dispositions, familiarity, and other aspects can trigger attraction between people (Baumeister & Finkel, 2010). People evaluate these features in each person they meet and weigh their judgment whether or not this particular person has matching criteria that can lead to a relationship, particularly intimate relationship. To form an intimate relationship, people are most likely considering multiple characteristics that match with their expectation before deciding whether this particular

Attractiveness ratings as a short-term and a long-term romantic partner, as well as an opposite-sex friend and a friend to other opposite-sex people are shown in Fig.1 (women’s rating for attractiveness of male dates) and Fig.2 (men’s rating for attractiveness of female dates). In Fig.1 and Fig.2, it is noteworthy that men considered even low willing female dates as attractive as more than 5 out of 10 in the scales, but women never gave men with low willingness such high ratings in all four categories of attractiveness.

Regardless of the standard definition, gender differences cause the meaning of attractiveness to vary among society. Cultural influences suggest that the “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is false. Aside from the specific guidelines towards what men and women perceive, men take attractiveness more serious than do women. It has been proven that both men and women compare body image and asymmetry when determining someone’s attractiveness, or lack there of. However, there are certain cases where exceptions are made and individuals date even when there is no physical attraction.

It is often said that a science subject must be built on verifiable evidences and concrete explanations. Therefore, the study of human relationships is less likely to be considered “scientific” in this particular category than other conventional topics in psychology, such as emotion analysis and cognitive development. However, modern shifts in marriage and dating patterns suggest that relationships can in fact be studied methodologically, and worth studying as well. What we usually deduce as common sense, or relationship conundrum, can be examined through experimentation and can also be explained by our former psychological understanding. In this field, researchers have long proposed a set of important aspects in order to effectively analyze intimate interactions, and I want to chiefly focus on inner self-knowledge. One simple reason is that, we cannot fully understand our relationships unless we look backward and closely investigate ourselves.