Instructor: Steve Duck, Daniel and Amy Starch Distinguished Research Chair
Office: 151 BCSB Phone: 335-0579 steve-duck@uiowa.edu Website: http://myweb.uiowa.edu/blastd
Class Meets: TuTh 10.55-12.10 106-BCSB
Office hours Tu/Th 12.30-2.00; or by appointment. There is a signup sheet outside my office. If you sign up you get priority. Department Office is 105-BCSB; DEO Kristine Fitch, 105B-BCSB Phone 353-2264 kristine-fitch@uiowa.edu
For each semester hour credit in this course, students should expect to spend two hours per week preparing for class sessions (This is a three-credit-hour course, and so standard out-of-class preparation per week is six hours).
· To introduce you to the basic themes, concepts and controversies in research on relationships -- particularly from a communication standpoint, but in the context of the rest of the research that is typically done on such issues;
· To nurture and increase your abilities to do critical analysis of theory and research about relationships;
· To offer you chances for asking intelligent and thought-provoking questions about old issues and new ideas;
· To encourage you to develop skills in engaging in analytical discussions with other class members (including, but not limited to, the instructor) concerning the materials that you read;
· To assist you in developing new ideas for your own independent study in this field;
· To improve your awareness of the roles of researchers in defining, engaging, and researching topics in this field of research.
The purpose of this course is to survey the area of relational communication at an advanced level appropriate for Graduate Students and to stimulate research in specific projects about relationships. You will be introduced to a range of literature from several disciplines and will be focused on research issues in communication within that literature. The course has the extra pedagogic intention of contributing to your experience and training as students preparing for thesis work and empirical investigation -- whatever sorts of methods you prefer to adopt. It should give you a taste not only of the field itself but also of the issues and obstacles that face a person attempting to conduct empirical work -- and how to overcome them.
Communication researchers have many sides to their work and, in the case of relational communication, this involves training in research that constitutes a productive stream of scholarship running in the tide of predominance of social psychological work in this topic. However, the significance of research on personal relationships to interpersonal communication has reached the stage where it is appropriate to have panels at CSCA (2000) on whether there is any real difference between interpersonal communication and relational communication. Relational Communication is not just about "doing research" on relationships in some narrow sense of recording things that seem to the investigator to be important. It involves much other essential background work. Such activities involve reading (not only in relational communication but also in the other areas that make up the whole field of relationship research), creating bibliographies, keeping up with research reports, learning to use the library skillfully, reviewing literature, commenting on and supporting colleagues' work, doing constructive critical reviews of the work of others, designing research, going to conferences, presenting ideas to colleagues, offering advice on drafts, analyzing problems, writing essays and reports, and, sometimes, organizing panels, workshops or conferences. This course will expose you to some of these facets of Relational Communication as well as to the more traditional "doing research" parts. The course aims to introduce you to the area in all its forms, therefore, both in your reading and in your class experiences.
I believe very strongly that the separation of "theory" and "research" is a bad idea, whether conceptually distinguished or pragmatically distinguished, and that both of them are forms of analytic work. You cannot do research without theory; choice of methods involves (whether implicitly or explicitly) theoretical choices; both involve careful thought about phenomena, terminology, and concepts. Even as you reach for a specific form of questionnaire you are reaching for the theoretical assumptions that go with it. Also inevitably embedded are a few assumptions about the nature of inquiry as a whole and the shape of the specific problem as viewed in that context. Decisions about the pragmatics of tackling a research question involve decisions of analysis of concepts that mean something in a particular theoretical framework. This presupposes the dogged and intelligent teasing apart of possible components and it is very hard to do -- yet it is also something that is rarely trained formally. A true scholar must always be concerned to ensure that terms are used precisely and accurately and that their references are carefully delineated, designated, and qualified. Many debates in all fields of communication research are essentially artificial and occur only because opposing camps take different epistemological stances, define terms differently, and use their terms to enclose different phenomena.
In this course we will, in early classes, take problems that have occupied the scholars in this field and we shall analyze them as if we were going to do a study. We shall find that the greatest part of the work of scholarship is this process of analysis before embarking on measurement. We will start with somewhat simple issues from the research field at large, and then go on to more complex questions in relational communication that will entail our getting more familiar with the preceding work of other researchers. You will also be introduced to some basic research techniques in relationship work that could be relevant in planning your own studies. In this way you will be introduced not only to a range of research but also to a way of thinking about it and doing it. The later parts of the course will involve fuller developments of your own thinking about more specialized issues.
Most of the course material is drawn from journal articles or other specific sources and there is no set course text as such. A useful book that will be drawn upon often is the paperback Dragon, W., & Duck, S. W. (Eds.). (2005). Understanding Research in Personal Relationships: A text with readings. London: SAGE., but it is not a set text as such. I have supplied specific readings for each class plus a list of Additional Readings at the end of this syllabus in case you should wish to go more deeply into a topic. The basic readings may be found in the Resource Room (BCSB 107). The additional suggestions really are, seriously, for you to follow up only as the Spirit moves you and as interest directs. My list provides you with some pointers for further study but it is not exhaustive and it is not expected that you will have read it for class, though of course if you have, then you will be better informed (but also exhausted).
It is extremely unlikely that you will find all of these topics equally appealing. You are encouraged to develop your own perspective on relational theory, on communication, and on the special topics that we shall cover during the course. Use this class as an opportunity not only to become familiar with the issues and debates that are out there but also to adopt or try out a particular approach that you might find useful in the future work that you do for your thesis.
Journals: The major journals here are JSPR (Journal of Social and Personal Relationships), JMF (Journal of Marriage and the Family), J Fam. Comm (Journal of Family Communication) and PR (Personal Relationships). Other journals deal with specific sorts of relationships (Journal of Divorce, Family Relations) or else include relationship work when it is directly applied to some broader principle in a discipline with larger interests (for example Communication Monographs, Human Communication Research, Communication Research Reports, or Western Journal of Speech Communication). If you are interested in relational communication then you should routinely scan JSPR and should consider joining IARR (International Association for Research on Relationships) through which you get a reduced rate of membership as graduate students, and JSPR and PR are included in the membership price, also at discounted rates. htttp://www.iarr.org for information.
I try to arrange the course assignments so that you do not get stuck with a huge requirement at the end of semester, along with all the other things that you have to produce for other courses. Thus the structure of assignments here is progressive. You should be able to build on the work that you do early in the course and accumulate it into the final product for assessment, having already had periodic feedback from me, and finally from the rest of the class after your class presentation, on the project as it develops.
Class participation is essential and should be based on your reading of the materials. Come to each class with something to raise for discussion and to engage the other students as well as the instructor. In particular, be ready to deal with the suggestions for “thought assignments" provided for each class to help you approach the reading. There will also be a short (1-2 page) regular note assignment for each class. Come to class with these notes typed up. I will collect them in each class and return them with comments by the next class period. The purpose of these notes is to help you structure and organize your approach to the reading. Briefly summarize the key points in page one and then add your own personal thoughts, analysis and organizational digestion of the readings on page 2. Then stop.
The major assignment that we are working towards is a paper on a specific topic of your choice (see end of this document for some ideas). [Pick something that interests you: Duck’s Fourth Maxim is that an ounce of interest is worth more than two pounds of effort]. En route to that final major assignment paper, you will:
1) do a review of literature and construct an annotated bibliography dealing with the main points of the literature on the topic (early to middle part of semester);
2) do a presentation to the rest of the class. This will be based on your annotated bibliography and will review and evaluate your personally chosen topic, incorporating an idea for possible further exploration (middle to late part of semester);
3) do a “pull-it-all-together” final paper (for the last day of semester) that blends these previous two assignments together and designs -- “as if” for future study – a proposal for empirical work. You might perhaps go on to carry out a version of the proposal in a later semester for Independent Study or you might just prepare for this class as useful experience or you could even eventually make it into something you could work on for conferences (and your vita) or for your dissertation.
Policy on deadlines and due dates: Deadlines are meaningful and I have planned my own timetable for the semester around expectations of receiving things from you when they are due. Plan ahead. Things will go wrong this semester from time to time and the unexpected always occurs. Plan ahead and allow time for delays, burst pipes, broken printers, lost pets, crashed computers, and other possible events that might become unavailing excuses. If you miss deadlines then you will get a failing grade. I do not give Incompletes.
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Administrative Home of the Course
The administrative home of this course is the Graduate College and the College
of Liberal Arts and Sciences, which governs academic matters relating to the
course such as the add/drop deadlines, the second-grade-only option, issues
concerning academic fraud or academic probation, and how credits are applied
for various graduation requirements. Different colleges might have different
policies. If you have questions about these or other CLAS policies, visit your
academic advisor or 120 Schaeffer Hall and speak with the staff. The CLAS
Academic Handbook also contains important CLAS academic policy: www.clas.uiowa.edu/students/academic_handbook/index.shtml
Academic Fraud
Plagiarism and any other activities
that result in a student presenting work that is not his or her own are
academic fraud. Academic fraud is reported to the departmental DEO and then to
the Associate Dean for Academic Programs and Services in the College of Liberal
Arts and Sciences who deals with academic fraud according to these guidelines: www.clas.uiowa.edu/students/academic_handbook/ix.shtml
Making a Suggestion or a Complaint
Students have the right to make
suggestions or complaints and should first visit with the instructor, then with
the course supervisor if appropriate, and next with the departmental DEO. All
complaints must be made within six months of the incident. www.clas.uiowa.edu/students/academic_handbook/ix.shtml#5
Accommodations for Disabilities
A student seeking academic accommodations first must register with Student
Disability Services and then meet with a SDS counselor who determines
eligibility for services. A student approved for accommodations should meet
privately with the course instructor to arrange particular accommodations. See www.uiowa.edu/~sds/
Understanding Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment subverts the mission of the University and threatens the
well-being of students, faculty, and staff. Visit www.sexualharassment.uiowa.edu/
for definitions, assistance, and the full policy.
Reacting Safely to Severe Weather
The University of Iowa Operations
Manual section 16.14
outlines appropriate responses to a tornado (i) or to a similar crisis. If a
tornado or other severe weather is indicated by the UI outdoor warning system, members of
the class should seek shelter in rooms and corridors in the innermost part of a
building at the lowest level, staying clear of windows, corridors with windows,
or large free-standing expanses such as auditoriums and cafeterias. The class
will resume, if possible, after the UI outdoor warning system announces that
the severe weather threat has ended.
CLAS recommends that instructors include relevant resources for students on the syllabus. The following are examples of such resources that might be included:
§ Writing Center 110 English-Philosophy Building, 335-0188, www.uiowa.edu/~writingc
§ Speaking Center 12 English-Philosophy Building, 335-0205, www.uiowa.edu/~rhetoric/centers/speaking
§ Mathematics Tutorial Laboratory 314 MacLean Hall, 335-0810, www.uiowa.edu/mathlabTutor
§ Tutor Referral Service Campus Information Center, Iowa Memorial Union, 335-3055, www.imu.uiowa.edu/cic/tutor_referral_service
This will be the first meeting of the class and we will discourse freely on the general objectives and style of the course, methods of attacking the research issues, requirements for reading, and such. You might at this point browse a copy of Dragon & Duck in order to see how methodology and research questions are connected in this field.
Study of relationships typically involves the assumption that there are "better" and "worse" or "competent" and "incompetent" ways of relating. People also have a sense that relationships can be “inappropriate”. Magazine racks are full of advice that tells us how to “improve” relationships or suggest ways in which to “get the love we want”, whereas morning TV shows offer us morally compelling instances of faulty relational behavior for audiences to scream at. Viewed from a critical perspective, any notion that there can be "quality" in relationships or “faulty” or “bad” relational behavior assumes a preferred vantage-point for determining what is “quality”/“good”/“appropriate”? Who decides? Has the judgment of relationship quality always been the same or does it change (over historical periods or over relationship growth)? Do different cultures think of relationship “quality” in different terms? How does the student of relationships get involved in larger social questions about the form of relationships that is possible/desirable/appropriate? Think about these issues and we'll debate them in class.
Reading: Montgomery, B. M. (1988). Quality Communication in Personal Relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 343-362). Chichester: Wiley; Duck, S. W., & VanderVoort, L. A. (2002). Scarlet letters and whited sepulchres: the social marking of relationships as "inappropriate". In R. Goodwin & D. Cramer (Eds.), Inappropriate relationships: The Unconventional, the Disapproved, and the Forbidden. (pp. 3-24). Mahwah, New Jersey.: Erlbaum. (Manuscript available to class); Oswald, R. F. (2000). A member of the wedding? Heterosexism and family ritual. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 349-368. Also take a look at an article critical of research in this field: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_2001_Spring/ai_73368519/pg_1
Supplementary readings [if you want to follow up, then choose at will]: S. W. Duck (Relating to Others, second edition, 1999) chapter 1 especially the discussion of Kidd etc. (pp. 17-18). See also the Additional Readings at the end of the syllabus, esp. Prusank et al 1993, Duran et al 1997 on the changing types of cultural (moral) advice on (successful conduct of) relationships provided by popular men’s and women’s magazines; Contarello & Volpato 1991 (looks at literary depictions of friendship since 1100 AD)
Come to class with: one or two pages of comment on the reading, especially your thoughts about this issue of quality and appropriateness. Can you see any problems with the arguments in the readings? Is “quality” an issue we can ever avoid using here? Does “relationship enhancement” commit people to particular dogmas? What factors guide us in the decisions about whether a relationship is “good” or “bad”? Can we never escape using terms like “relationship success/failure” or there something logically tainted about those who say that we must strive for neutrality here? Why are divorces “failed relationships” .... or aren’t they?
The first sorts of studies that shaped the beginnings of this field of scholarship were the studies of initial attraction. There were many different styles of work into this and only some had a communication "spin" to it (Van Lear & Trujillo, 1986). The predominant work was social psychological and it is useful to begin with it, in order to see how later work has grown away from it in substance and style. As you read about this social psychological work, you could think about it from the standpoint of the previous week's reading. What assumptions about attraction are built into the study of attraction in this way?
From the earliest times it has been thought likely that similarity (of what?) is related to liking. Aristotle thought it, Cicero thought it, and several rhetoricians recommended the claim of similarity to an audience as a persuasive device (“My fellow Americans...”), though no rhetorical theory that I know makes the next leap and suggests that relationships per se are persuasive (but cf. the concept of Ethos and its implications). Cicero, for example, who also wrote about friendship, wrote quite a lot about the inherent power of similarity to persuade. There have been huge amounts of work on this topic in the social sciences, most of it somewhat confused. We are dealing here with a definitional problem, in some respects, and part of the problem is to decide the answer to the question in the above bracket “(of what?)”. Consider two major issues: Why would any sort of similarity be important in relationships? What is the role (or, more likely, what are the roles) of similarity in communication and vice versa? How could relationships be persuasive? Are there rhetorics of relationships that are based on similarity?
Reading: Byrne, D. (1997). An Overview (And Underview) Of Research And Theory Within The Attraction Paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417-431; Monsour, M. (1994). Similarities and dissimilarities in personal relationships: constructing meaning and building intimacy through communication. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Understanding relationship processes 4: Dynamics of interactions (pp. 112-134). Newbury Park: SAGE. Amodio, D. M., & Showers, C. J. (2005). "Similarity breeds liking" revisited: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(6), 817-836.
If you want to follow this up then try the old Communication Monographs Chautauqua on Similarity, 1992; or recent work by Burleson or Sunnafrank and other work listed in the Additional Readings section.
Come to class with: Brief notes about the ways in which a communication scholar could get interested in initial attraction as distinct from the development of relationships. How would we apply communication theory to initial attraction? How does communication work in the setting up of second dates after first dates? What situations could we use for answering these questions or testing these ideas? Also give some thought to the issue of what it is that people learn from initial attraction and what is being communicated in the initial stages of such interactions.
This is an easy one: What is a relationship? Well, maybe not so easy, but we all know what relationships are anyway, don't we? Before you do any reading, write down a few features of relationships that you regard as essential before something counts as a relationship. How do we differentiate a relationship from a series of interactions? Or is that too simple? Or are they like obscenity: you can’t define them but you know one when you see it?
Reading: Hinde, R. A. (1981). `The bases of a science of interpersonal relationships'. In S. W. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal Relationships 1: Studying Personal Relationships (pp. 1-22). London, New York, San Francisco: Academic Press. For follow up see Flora, J., & Segrin, C. (1998). Joint leisure time in friend and romantic relationships: The role of activity type, social skills and positivity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 711-718. Kumashiro, M., Rusbult, C. E., Finkenauer, C., & Stocker, S. L. (2007). To think or to do: The impact of assessment and locomotion orientation on the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 591-612.
Do you think that face-to-face interaction is crucial to relationships? What are your thoughts about Hinde's approach. How good an idea is it? What is missing if anything? Is the behavioral approach satisfactory? How could we develop it by communication research? What about the role of talk in relating? Does the approach describe everyday lives or is it too abstracted? Does it overemphasize face to face relationships? Do we perhaps do a lot of relating in our heads? Could our relationship with someone who is now dead actually change (improve, deteriorate...?) after their death?
If you commented in the reading for last Thursday that roles are major elements of relating then well done. Sex and gender are ever present influences on the structure and conduct of relationships and discussion of this topic follows from the previous discussions in some important ways. To what extent do the prescriptions of gender roles influence relationships and what sort of features of relationships would you "expect" to find in each case? How would all this affect relationships between the sexes and within the sexes?
Reading: Hendrick, C. (1988). Roles and Gender in Relationships. Handbook of Personal Relationships. [FIRST EDITION] S. W. Duck. Chichester, UK, Wiley: 429-447; Wood, J. T. (1997). Clarifying the issues. Personal Relationships, 4, 221-228. Paz Galupo, M. (2007). Friendship patterns of sexual minority individuals in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 139-151.
For follow up : Canary & Emmers-Sommer (1997); Buss & Dedden (1990) in the Additional Reading list
Prepare for next class with: one or two pages of comments on the Hendrick reading and the Wood paper and the issues you see here. What do you make of Hendrick's argument about the nature of roles and gender? How could this be tackled from a communication perspective? How do you evaluate Wood's ideas about the ways in which roles and gender contribute to interaction in relationships? Can different-sex persons ever really be friends?
In this class, we will consider what you might be going on as relationships change their positive intensity (we’ll keep endings for later). This is just a first stab to introduce you to some of the issues. During this week come to see me if you are having trouble picking a topic for your major assignment.
After looking at patterns of interaction and some influences of roles upon the ways they are performed, we perhaps need to break down the concepts and elements of relationships a bit into components to find out where the different bits join up. We'll start with the individual elements of relationships, the individual minds that come to the relationship, not because that is all there is, but because that is a place to start.
Reading: Andersen, P. A. (1993). Cognitive schemata in personal relationships. Individuals in relationships [Understanding relationship processes 1]. S. W. Duck. Newbury Park, SAGE: 1-29; Bochner, A. P., C. Ellis, et al. (2000). Relationships as stories: Accounts, storied lives, evocative narratives. Communication and personal relationships. K. Dindia and S. W. Duck. Chichester, Wiley: 13-30; Haunani Solomon, D., & McLaren, R. (2008). Relational Framing Theory: Drawing inferences about relationships from interpersonal interactions. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging Theories in Communication (pp. 00-000). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, Inc.
Come to class with: some notes on the notion of a schema. Is the notion adequate? What is it good for? What does it omit? What parts of the whole story, as you see it, does it underestimate? How does it compare with Hinde's approach? Which matters more, one person's schema or two persons' schemata about the relationship? If relationships are organized in the mind, what is it that does the organizing, individuals, dyads, cultures .... or what? Are people organized plan-makers in relationships? To what extent do people plan their communication in relationships to, for instance, reduce uncertainty, or achieve goals such as affinity seeking or affinity testing? Do we use scripts for relationships or relationship situations like dating?
Researchers tend to adopt metaphors for studying and explaining the phenomena that they study. We have already come across some of these in the research you have now read, but we have not dwelt on the implications that they carry about the ways in which the phenomena operate. Metaphors communicate messages about the kind of relationship that we feel we are “in”. Metaphors about the state of a relationship often are the frame for our accounts of their development and decline (I felt trapped, in a cage, chained down, imprisoned, stifled.... I'm stuck on you, hungry for love, burning with passion, sugar, honey, sweetie, angel....we weren't going anywhere, the relationship was in a rut, stuck in the same old groove). Think a little about the ways in which: 1) metaphors guide us in expressing our feelings for a partner (and how we would study this as communication researchers); 2) metaphors "control" or at least guide and shape the ways we think about a research problem.
Reading: Kovecses, Z. (1991). “A linguist's quest for love.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 8: 77-98.; Duck, S. W. (1984). “A rose is a rose (is a tadpole is a freeway is a film) is a rose.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 1: 507-510; Flora, J. & Segrin, C. (2000) Relationship development in dating couples: Implications for relational satisfaction and loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 811-825. For follow up read some material on “Turning Points” for example the Baxter & Bullis paper in the Additional Reading.
Come to class with: some thoughts about why metaphors matter. What do they convey? What is their significance in everyday relating? What is their importance in the research enterprise? How, in the everyday conduct of communication, could they be connected to similarity and the things that we covered earlier? How might metaphors influence researchers' agenda? Why do people often complain that their relationship "is not going anywhere"?
Work on your literature review and preparation for the major assignment
In our culture the recent growth in the number of cross-sex friendship is apparently greeted with suspicion and there are many cultural and network forces that make people see the formation of such cross-sex friendship as essentially suspicious or as “cover-up” for a clandestine sexual relationship. Alternatively (or as well) observers sometimes see such friendships as “failed” romances or as “less than” romances. What is going on here in the representation of such relationships in those ways? What communicative practices are used to either undercut or sustain such views?
Reading: Werking, K. J. (2000). Cross sex friendship research as ideological practice. Communication and personal relationships. K. Dindia and S. W. Duck. Chichester, Wiley: 113-130; . Berger, H. A., L. S. Shaffer, et al. (1998). “Friends and lovers.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 15(5): 623-636.
Follow up with the Werking (1997) book listed in Additional Readings if you get hooked. And talking of hooked, check out Paul, E. L. (2006). Beer goggles, catching feelings and the walk of shame: The myths and realities of the hookup experience. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K.-J. K. (2005). What's love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, the attitudes, and network support on friends-with-benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49-66.
Come to class with: some ideas about the social forces at work here and the ways in which they might operate communicatively. H(ow h)as the connection between friendship and sexuality been changing?
Some people have pointed out that the linear models of relationship growth are unidimensional, when experience is in fact more complex. In developing relationships we actually have to balance out certain competing needs (e.g., for privacy and independence as opposed to the needs for openness, intimacy and connectedness). Such writers talk of dialectics, a term that is much bandied about and much misunderstood. What is this notion of dialectics telling us? How does a communication researcher study the activation of dialectics? Is the concept of communicational dialectics a useful one or is it incapable of study? If it can be studied, how might it be studied? What methods and designs would be appropriate?
Reading: Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2008). Relational dialectics theory: Crafting meaning from competing discourses. . In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication. (pp. 000-000). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baxter, L. A., Dun, T. D., & Sahlstein, E. M. (2001) Rules for relating communicated among social network members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 173-200. Fuller follow up can be found in Baxter & Montgomery (1996). You could also recheck the Hinde 1981 chapter we read before and look at how he uses the term dialectics.
Come to class with: some thoughts about the issue of dialectics. Can you distinguish a dialectic and a dichotomy? Think how dialogue fits in with this concept and how we might describe dialectics that occur in everyday life. Where do they surface? Come with some specific examples to share.
Following on from one of last time’s readings, we move outwards. So far, we have looked at relationships as things in themselves, only occasionally noting that they occur in a social context that shapes their form and nature in important ways. Such social forces are not simply abstractions but are realities that people butt up against in everyday life as we interact with other people in the networks to which we belong. How do such experiences influence our relationships? Can they affect even the choice of others with whom we create relationships? How do others' expectations or reactions affect the form in which relationships are conducted? If you think they do not, then speak to someone who has had an affair, or to a gay couple.
Reading Rowe, A. C., & Carnelley, K. B. (2005). Preliminary support for the use of a hierarchical mapping technique to examine attachment networks. Personal Relationships, 12(4), 499-519. Igarashi, T., Takai, J., & Yoshida, T. (2005). Gender differences in social network development via mobile phone text messages: a longitudinal study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 691-713.
For older classic follow up try Parks, M. (2000). Communication networks and relationship lifecycles. In K. Dindia & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp. 55-76). Chichester: Wiley. Or Klein & Milardo (1993); Allan (1998); Baxter & Widenmann (1993) or Klein & Johnson (1997) in the Additional Reading list, and work on gossip (such as Bergmann, 1993, Discreet indiscretions. Aldine de Gruyter.)
Come to class with: some examples (other than Romeo and Juliet) of the force of outside opinion as a factor in relationships. How might we study the impact of outsiders on the conduct of relationships? Can you think of other ways in which we could explore communication in a network as a signal about a target relationship in which we had a research interest? Try to think up a study of third party communication. Also think about the force of economic circumstances in relationships: If one has enough money to provide a good meal and if one is proud of one's home then one might invite friends to one's house (and expect them to invite one back -- which presumes they have the money and the pride too); if one has no money or a poor home, one may choose to meet friends on neutral ground like a bar, for instance, where "exchanges" are limited in cost. Think about the ways in which economic and material circumstances feed into the expression and conduct of relationships.
If we are dealing with networks as well as partners, then what is at stake? We need to be more attentive to the performances of social identity that affect the ways in which interactions are done. We’ll attend here to the influences upon interaction patterns that stem from awareness of self as a social performer, whether this be in the sense of “identity management” and “self presentation” or in the sense of “self awareness” and “self consciousness”. Think also about the ways in which patterns of interaction night be affected by the knowledge that one’s relationship is stigmatized somehow in the culture or is “counternormative” in some way.
Reading: Metts, S. (2000). Face and facework: Implications for the study of personal relationships. In K. Dindia & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp. 72-94). Chichester: Wiley; Wood, J. T. (2001). The normalization of violence in heterosexual romantic relationships: Women's narratives of love and violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 239-262. Wood, J. T. (2004). Monsters and victims: male felons' accounts of intimate partner violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 555-576.
Come to class with: some thoughts on the social contexts in which (and in what sense is that “in which” to be understood?) people conduct their relationships. How are we influenced by personal style, social convention and awareness of social context?
Given the centrality of scholarship about compliance gaining in communication theory how can we incorporate it into the research discourse about relationships? Is it valuable to see, for example, relationship development and relationship decline as persuasive tasks? Is it “persuasion” or “compliance gaining” to ask someone out on a date or to increment the level of a relationship? Next, try to relate this course to anything you know about Burke, persuasion, rhetoric, dramaturgy. Can we get a bit further by thinking of relationship activity as a persuasive action involving the creation of identification and consubstantiality? Recall the discussions of similarity in earlier classes. How can we tie them in?
Reading: Dixson, M. D., & Duck, S. W. (1993). Understanding relationship processes: Uncovering the human search for meaning. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Individuals in relationships [Understanding relationship processes 1] (pp. 175-206). Newbury Park: SAGE. Duck, S. W., & Pond, K. (1989). Friends, Romans, Countrymen; lend me your retrospective data: Rhetoric and reality in personal relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (Vol. 10, pp. 17-38). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Carl, W. J., & Duck, S. W. (2004). How to do things with relationships. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 1-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Come to class with: some evaluation of this perspective on relationships. Is it helpful? In what ways could we usefully see relationship dynamics in terms of “persuasion”? What sort of “persuasion” do we mean? Present a critical approach to the reading as a starter and think about how this work could be developed. Relate this (mentally) to the earlier work on metaphor.
Some people, especially in social psychology, think of "communication" as merely "expressivity", when a person exposes information about himself or herself that is private and intimate. On this view a conversation is intimate if it contains secret or private information, and the intimacy of the interaction is largely determined by one person's decision to speak frankly. Of course much research also looked at the reciprocity evoked by such splurges of emotion and it has always been assumed that interactions tend to be balanced in the sense that a person will reciprocate information of about equal intimacy to that revealed by a partner. There are of course findings that women self disclose more than men etc. etc. But perhaps the more interesting questions are framed in a context where self-disclosure is thought of as communication in the sense in which "Communication Studies" thinks of "communication" rather than the way that psychology thinks of it, as above.
Reading: Dindia, K. (2000). Self-disclosure, Identity, and Relationship Development: A Dialectical Perspective. In K. Dindia & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp. 147-162). Chichester: Wiley; Banks, S. P., Louie, E., & Einerson, M. (2000). Constructing personal identities in holiday letters. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 299-328. Petronio, S., Sargent, J. D., Andea, L., Reganis, P., & Cichocki, D. (2004). Family and friends as health-care advocates: dilemmas of confidentiality and privacy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(1), 33-52. Petronio, S., & Durham, W. T. (2008). Communication Privacy Management Theory: Significance for Interpersonal Communication. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication (pp. 000-000). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Come to class with: Things to disclose about your reactions to the reading.
The last class looked at how people talk to one another in special circumstances. What about the fact that relationship partners might talk about the relationship itself? A recent development has been the study of Relationship Awareness or the ways in which partners think about interaction patterns, comparison and contrasts with one another. Such awareness leads to, or is a part of, the talking about relationships that people carry out. Does this mean that outsiders can tell the nature of a relationship from the terms and concepts assumed within the discourse?
Reading: Acitelli, L. K. (1988). When spouses talk to each other about their relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 185-199. Acitelli, L. K., Duck, S. W., & West, L. (2000). Embracing the social in personal relationships and research. In W. Ickes & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Social psychology and personal relationships (pp. 215-227). Chichester: Wiley. Planalp, S., & Garvin-Doxas, K. (1994). Using mutual knowledge in conversation: Friends as experts in each other. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Dynamics of relationships [Understanding relationship processes 4] (pp. 1-26). Newbury Park: SAGE.
Come to class with: some thoughts on how to develop this line of research. Let's consider a fairly basic question and then put some more meat on it. Can an audience distinguish the conversations of friends from those of strangers? If so how do they do it? If they can, then what does that tell us about the nature of conversation in friendships and about the nature of relationships in general?
Bibliography Assignments are due at the start of class Tues.
These days a lot of (well-off, well-educated) people have access to email and the information superhighway. A phenomenal growth has since occurred in relationships over email where people correspond in intimate ways yet may not meet very often, if ever at all. Such relationships challenge the theorist to explain how such interactions constitute "relationships", especially for those theorists who see “interaction” as the basis of relationships. How are such long-distance relationships encompassed by theories based on face to face interaction and exchanges?
Reading: Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in long-distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 689-710. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte: Relationships conducted over electronic systems. In J. T. Wood & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track [Understanding relationship processes: Vol. 6]. . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealizations, reunions, and stability in long distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 37-54.
I have free copies of Duck, S. W. (2000). Oh give me a phone where the charges don't roam but my peers and relating hopes stray: Cell phones as relationship devices. Paper presented at the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA.
Come to class with: thoughts on the nature of relationships as well as some indications of the merits and disadvantages of email relationships. How are they different from pen-pal relationships or long distance relationships conducted over the telephone?
Researchers tend to think of relationship development and decline as good examples of what occurs in relationships and places where we need to attend particularly to changes in communication patterns and style. Recently it has been suggested that maintenance or management of relationships requires work by partners also and that this work is probably done through communicative means. There have recently been considerable discussion and controversy about the nature of maintenance of relationships, the extent to which it is a conscious activity and the extent to which it is routine.
Reading: Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143-158; Alberts, J. K., Yoshimura, C. G., Rabby, M., & Loschiavo, R. (2005). Mapping the topography of couples' daily conversation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 299-322. Dainton, M. (2000) Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance, and satisfaction: Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 827-842. Dindia, K., Timmerman, L., Langan, E., Sahlstein, E. M., & Quandt, J. (2004). The function of holiday greetings in maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 577-593.
Come to class with: some ideas about the nature of maintenance and the role of communication in it. This is a hot topic and one in which interest is growing. How could we make a useful contribution to its development?
Communication scholars seeking to understand relationships might well decide that everyday talk has some role in the initiation, development, maintenance and decline of relationships (in fact in every facet of relationshipping), since it seems on the face of it to be important in human interaction as a whole. Little work has been done to test this idea, however, but we shall come across some work that has been done.
Reading: Duck, S. W., Rutt, D. J., Hurst, M., & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: All communication is not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228-267; Duck, S. W. (1990). Relationships as unfinished business: Out of the frying pan and into the 1990s. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 5-29. Duck, S. W. (2002). Hypertext in the key of G: Three types of "history" as influences on conversational structure and flow. Communication Theory, (12, 1), 41-62.
Come to class with: some reflections on the following. We will have talked a little about relationships as processes. What do we mean by it? Process models have recently become fashionable, but what is "a process" and how do we relate "process" to "communication" in this context?
We have covered a lot of sickly sweet stuff about how wonderful relationships are, but they also have another side to them. They are sources of some of the greatest pain and suffering, can be abusive, demeaning, threatening, disappointing, and stressful. Not only that but there is a subtler set of points about them: they are forged in some ways from a managed balance of negative and positive elements. All relationships have hassles to them and we normally tolerate them in order to get the good stuff, but all the same we do have to manage the bad things too. In addition, the skillful conduct of relationships is sometimes carried out through doing things that are "bad". For example, deception is generally bad but can also be tactful or a way of delightfully surprising someone; sometimes it is tactful to forget or polite to ignore something. So competent relating involves "incompetence" sometimes.
Reading: Cupach, W. R., Spitzberg, B. H., & Carson, C. L. (2001). Toward a theory of obsessive relational intrusion and stalking. In K. Dindia & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Communication and Personal Relationships (pp. 131-146). Chichester: Wiley; Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). The dialectics of (in)competence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 137-158.; Duck, S. W. (1994-b). Stratagems, spoils and a serpent's tooth: On the delights and dilemmas of personal relationships. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 3-24). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Wiseman, J. P., & Duck, S. W. (1995). Having and managing enemies: A very challenging relationship. In S. W. Duck & J. T. Wood (Eds.), Confronting Relationship Challenges [Understanding Relationship Processes 5], (pp. 43-72.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Come to class with a balanced approach to life.
We cannot really end without some discussion of endings. Also, give some thought to what happens after the ending.
Reading: Schneider, C. S., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). Cross-sex friends who were once romantic partners: are they platonic friends now? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 451-466. Rollie, S. S., & Duck, S. W. (2006). Stage theories of marital breakdown. In J. H. Harvey & M. A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of Divorce and Dissolution of Romantic Relationships (pp. 176-193). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Come to class with: some ideas on how to develop this work.
The class will not meet as such, but you should develop your research for the final assignment
For these classes, each of you will present your review of your chosen area. Instead of general class discussion on the topics that you have all read and written notes about, one person will come to the class prepared to lead the discussion by presenting a brief survey of a topic and an evaluation of the literature. The rest of you will be expected to have read the lead article and to come with the usual one or two pages of notes about it, but you are not required to have read as much on the topic as usual .... partly because you will undoubtedly be working on your own detailed presentation to the class. The schedule for doing this will be worked out in an early class and you are responsible for doing the work and being prepared to present it at the due time as well as doing it early enough to get the necessary report to other classmates one week ahead of the presentation.
The leader's assignment here is to write a review of the chosen topic and the annotated bibliography that you have already prepared on it in October. Give a short (2-page) positional review of the literature before 2004 and then find all of the articles covering this topic from 2004 to the present and do a full review piece on them ("all" can mean "no more than 15" if you hit a big topic]. Organize the report into a coherent pattern, reviewing what has happened in this area in the past three years. End with a critique of the area and ideas for future research. Include a reference section so that we can all benefit from your review. Be prepared to lead a discussion of the reviewed area and ensure that we all receive your written report the week before we all are due to discuss it.
The final report, due electronically on May 9th, need not be the same as the report presented in class, because you may want to include suggestions made after the presentation in class. You should not have to tear the whole thing up after the presentation but you might want to do some final polishing before submission. You do not have to wait until May 9th to deliver the final report after you have presented it in class.
The final assignment (brief research proposal, based on but different from your topic review as presented in class) is due in by 5.00 on May 9th and should be submitted electronically.
[This list is not exhaustive and you are free to choose something that is not on here, if you prefer]
You may also choose to elaborate on any of the topics that are already on the course schedule list, of course.
Acitelli, L. K., & Badr, H. (2005). My illness or our illness? Attending to the relationship when one partner is ill. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on couples' coping with stress. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Acitelli, L. K., Douvan, E., & Veroff, J. (1993). Perceptions of conflict in the first year of marriage: How important are similarity and understanding? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 5-19.
Allan, G. A. (1998). Friendship, sociology and social structure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 685-702.
Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: the roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 339-360.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 12, 469-493.
Baxter, L. A., Dun, T. D., & Sahlstein, E. M. (2001). Rules for relating communicated among social network members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 173-200.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogs and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press.
Baxter, L. A., & Widenmann, S. (1993). Revealing and not revealing the status of romantic relationships to social networks. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 321-338.
Bergmann, J. R. (1993). Discreet indiscretions: The social organization of gossip. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Bickmore, T. W., & Picard, R. W. (2005). Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transaction on Computer Human Interaction, 12(2), 293-327.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking: A rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bochner, A. P., et al. (2000). Relationships as stories: Accounts, storied lives, evocative narratives. Communication and personal relationships. K. Dindia and S. W. Duck. Chichester, Wiley: 13-30.
Bradshaw, S. (2006). Shyness and difficult relationships: formation is just the beginning. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: The processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction (pp. 15-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Burleson, B. R., Holmstrom, A. J., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2005). "Guys Can't Say That to Guys": Four Experiments Assessing the Normative Motivation Account for Deficiencies in the Emotional Support Provided by Men. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 468-501.
Bylund, C. L., Gueguen, J. A., Sabee, C. M., Imes, R. S., Li, Y., & Sanford, A. A. (2007). Provider-patient dialogue about internet health information: An exploration of strategies to improve the provider-patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns. , 66(3), 346-352.
Byrne, D. (1997). An Overview (And Underview) Of Research And Theory Within The Attraction Paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417-431.
Canary, D. J. and T. Emmers-Sommer (1997). Sex and gender differences in personal relationships. New York, Guilford.
Caughlin, J. P., Afifi, W. A., Carpenter-Theune, K. E., & Miller, L. E. (2005). Reasons for, and consequences of, revealing personal secrets in close relationships: a longitudinal study. Personal Relationships, 12(1), 43-59.
Contarello, A., & Volpato, C. (1991). Images of friendship: literary depictions through the ages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 49-75.
Dickson, F. C., Hughes, P. C., & Walker, K. L. (2005). An exploratory investigation into dating among later-life women. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 67-82.
Dragon, W., & Duck, S. W. (Eds.). (2005). Understanding Research in Personal Relationships: A text with readings. London: SAGE.
Duck, S. W. (1984). “A rose is a rose (is a tadpole is a freeway is a film) is a rose.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 1: 507-510.
Duck, S. W., Foley, M. K., & Kirkpatrick, C. D. (2006). Relating difficulty in a triangular world. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 225-232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Duran, R., & Prusank, D. T. (1997). Relational themes in men’s and women’s popular non-fiction magazine articles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 165-189.
Feeney, J. A. (2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: exploring the role of attachment and perceptions of personal injury. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 253-271.
Flora, J. and C. Segrin (1998). “Joint leisure time in friend and romantic relationships: The role of activity type, social skills and positivity.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 15: 711-718.
Foster, C. A., & Campbell, W. K. (2005). The adversity of secret relationships. Personal Relationships, 12(1), 125-143.
Gaines, S. O. and W. Ickes (2000). Perspectives on inter-racial relationships. The social psychology of personal relationships. W. Ickes and S. W. Duck. Chichester, Wiley: 55-78.
Gore, J. S., Cross, S. E., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Let's be friends: Relational self-construal and the development of intimacy. Personal Relationships, 13(1), 83-102.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(6), 881-899.
Hughes, P. C., & Dickson, F. C. (2005). Communication, marital satisfaction, and religious orientation in interfaith marriages. Journal of Family Communication, 5(1), 25-41.
Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K.-J. K. (2005). What's love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, the attitudes, and network support on friends-with-benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49-66.
Ickes, W. (2000) Methods of studying close relationships. In W. Ickes & S. W. Duck (Eds.) Social Psychology and Personal Relationships. (pp. 157-180). Wiley: Chichester, UK.
Klein, R. C. A. (2004). Sickening relationships: gender-based violence, women's health, and the role of informal third parties. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(1), 149-165.
Klein, R. C. A., & Johnson, M. P. (2000). Strategies of couple conflict. In R. Milardo & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Families as relationships (pp. 79-98). Chichester: Wiley.
Klein, R. C. A., & Milardo, R. (1993). Third-party influences on the development and maintenance of personal relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Social contexts of relationships [Understanding relationship processes: Vol. 3:] (pp. 55-77). Newbury Park , CA: Sage Publications.
Koenig Kellas, J. (2005). Family Ties: Communicating Identity Through Jointly Told Family Stories. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 365-389.
Lannutti, P. J. (2005). For better or worse: exploring the meanings of same-sex marriage within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(1), 5-18.
Lyons, R. F., Langille, L., & Duck , S. W. (2006). Difficult relationships and relationship difficulties: Relationship adaptation and chronic health problems. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 203-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Monsour, M. (1994). Similarities and dissimilarities in personal relationships: constructing meaning and building intimacy through communication. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Understanding relationship processes 4: Dynamics of interactions (pp. 112-134). Newbury Park: SAGE.
Paul, E. L. (2006). Beer goggles, catching feelings and the walk of shame: The myths and realities of the hookup experience. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Prusank, D., Duran, R., & DeLillo, D. A. (1993). Interpersonal relationships in women's magazines: Dating and relating in the 1970s and 1980s. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 307-320.
Qualter, P., & Munn, P. (2005). Friendships and play partners of lonely children. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 379-397.
Repinski, D. J., & Zook, J. M. (2005). Three measures of closeness in adolescents' relationships with parents and friends: variations and developmental significance. Personal Relationships, 12(1), 70-102.
Rollie, S. S. (2006). Nonresidential parent-child relationships: Overcoming the challenges of absence. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 181-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Sahlstein, E. M. (2006). The trouble with distance. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 119-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Segrin, C., Taylor, M. E., & Altman, J. (2005). Social cognitive mediators and relational outcomes associated with parental divorce. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 361-377.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (Eds.). (1998). The dark side of close relationships. New York: Erlbaum.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2002). Interpersonal skills. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication, third edition (pp. 564-611). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Schmeeckle, M., & Shu, X. (2006). No breakup occurs on an island: Social networks and relationship dissolution. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of Divorce and Relationship Dissolution (pp. 457-478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Sunnafrank, M., & Ramirez, A. (2004). At first sight: persistent relational effects of get-acquainted conversations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(3), 361-379.
Teboul, J. C. B., & Cole, T. (2005). Relationship development and workplace integration: and evolutionary perspective. Communication Theory, 15(4), 389-413.
Van Lear, C. A., Jr., , & Trujillo, N. (1986). On becoming acquainted: A longitudinal study of social judgement processes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 375-392.
Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: trust, liking, and performance in computer mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 828-846.
Werking, K. J. (2000). Cross sex friendships as an ideological practice. In K. Dindia & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Communication and Personal Relationships (pp. 113-130). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Wood, J. T. (1995). “Feminist scholarship and the study of relationships.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 12: 103-120.
Wood, J. T. (2004). Monsters and victims: male felons' accounts of intimate partner violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 555-576.