Relational Turbulence Model

Transcription

1 1 Relational Turbulence Model Denise Haunani Solomon Penn State University, USA The relational turbulence model is a perspective on communication in personal relationships that highlights how relationship transitions polarize emotions and cognitive appraisals and disrupt the exchange of messages between partners. The relational turbulence model was inductively derived from evidence that the transition from casual to serious involvement in dating relationships corresponds with more frequent experiences of conflict, more frequent and intense negative emotions, and heightened relationship thinking (see Solomon, Weber, & Steuber, 2010 for an account of the theory s development). From this foundation, the relational turbulence model has evolved into a theory that identifies specific r elationship qualities that exacerbate the experience of negative emotions, promote negative cognitions, and complicate communication between partners. The scope of the relational turbulence model has also broadened beyond the initial focus on d eveloping courtships to encompass wellestablished romantic associations, such as marriage. Reviews of the theoretical claims and empirical tests of the relational t urbulence model can be found in Solomon et al. (2010), Solomon and Theiss (2011), and Knobloch (in press). Theoretical assumptions The original articulation of the relational turbulence model (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004) rested upon two core assumptions. First, the framework articulated how particular relationship qualities ebb and flow over the course of relationship development. Second, the model clarified how those relationship qualities were manifest in emotional, cognitive, and communicative phenomena. The relationship turbulence model highlights two relationship qualities that emerge during times of transition. The impact of transitions on individual perceptions of the relationship is captured by a focus on relational uncertainty, defined as the doubts and questions people have about their relationship. Drawing from theory and research on uncertainty reduction theory, Knobloch and Solomon (1999) explicated relational uncertainty as emerging from three sources. Self uncertainty addresses the questions people may have about their own commitment to or feelings about the relationship. Partner uncertainty includes the doubts that can emerge about a partner s investment in and goals for the relationship. Relationship uncertainty indexes the extent to which people are unsure about the nature or future of the relationship itself. Numerous studies The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, First Edition. Edited by Charles R. Berger and Michael E. Roloff John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: / wbeic0174

2 2 of the facets of relational uncertainty conclude that they are distinct but correlated p henomena; specifically, path modeling suggests that partner uncertainty contributes to self uncertainty, and both partner and self uncertainty promote relationship uncertainty (e.g., Knobloch, Miller, & Carpenter, 2007). According to the relational turbulence model, transitions in relationships also affect dyadic coordination. Following explications of interdependence in close relationships, the relational turbulence model recognizes that people within non intimate associations achieve everyday goals and enact routine behavioral sequences in ways that are not c ontingent on the other person s actions. Conversely, partners in intimate associations have enmeshed action sequences, such that their achievement of goals or performance of activities relies upon a partner s behavior. Because relationship closeness is embodied in interdependence, relationship development requires that people involve partners in previously independent action sequences. Initial efforts at integration are inevitably fraught with errors and missteps; therefore, the transition from independence to interdependence corresponds with more frequent experiences of interference from a partner. As relationships surmount this transition, disruptive patterns of interference are replaced by coordinated actions that facilitate the achievement of goals and the performance of routine activities. To index these facets of interdependence, the relational turbulence model distinguishes experiences of a partner s influence or engagement in everyday goals and activities; interference from a partner in the accomplishment of those goals and routines, and the facilitation from a partner that can occur when a partner s involvement in activities enhances outcomes (Knobloch & Solomon, 2004). The logic of the model suggests that relational uncertainty and interference from a partner will be heightened at levels of intimacy that correspond with the movement from casual, independent relating to serious, mutually committed involvement. Empirical evidence, however, does not wholly align with this pattern. Studies examining the association between indicators of relationship development, which are typically measures of intimacy or closeness, show an asymptotic association between intimacy and relational uncertainty. Specifically, relational uncertainty tends to be high in nonintimate associations, decrease gradually from low to moderate levels of intimacy, and decrease substantially in highly intimate associations. These findings suggest that doubts about the relationship are salient even within very casual associations, and resolving relational uncertainty may be an important part of forming an intimate bond. Evidence addressing the association between facets of interdependence and intimacy within romantic relationships aligns more closely with the predictions advanced by the relational turbulence model. As expected, interference from a partner tends to increase from low to moderate levels of intimacy, and then taper off from moderate to high levels of involvement. Whereas relational uncertainty is negligible within intimate associations, a moderate degree of interference from a partner continues to characterize close romantic relationships. Tests also show that a partner s involvement in everyday goals and activities, which increases linearly with relationship development, corresponds more strongly with experiences of interference when intimacy is low, but corresponds more strongly with experiences of facilitation when intimacy is high (Knobloch & Solomon, 2004). These patterns are consistent with the notion that partners in developing relationships increasingly involve each other in their activities, and this involvement becomes less disruptive and more facilitative as relationships become

3 more intimate. In total, then, evidence that relational uncertainty and experiences of interdependence evolve with relationship development as specified by the relational turbulence model is mixed. The second core claim underlying the relational turbulence model is the assumption that relational uncertainty and interference from a partner explain the myriad of negative outcomes that characterize the transition from casual to serious involvement. Building on this aspect of the theory, numerous studies have examined the association between reports of relational uncertainty and/or interference from a partner and people s reactions to specific relationship events or communication episodes. This body of work provides consistent evidence that these relationship qualities amplify negative emotions, bias cognitions, and complicate communication (see Knobloch, in press; Solomon & Theiss, 2011). For example, relational uncertainty and interference from a partner have been linked to more pronounced experiences of negative emotions, such as hurt, jealousy, anger, and sadness, both in response to a partner s behavior and in general. In addition, relational uncertainty and interdependence correspond with appraising irritating circumstances within the relationship as more serious, evaluating a partner s hurtful behavior as more intentional, and assessing social networks as more disruptive to the union. These relationship states also compromise communication between partners by promoting more topic avoidance, more assertive complaining about relationship problems, and more difficulty drawing inferences from a partner s messages. Thus, with regard to the predicted association between deleterious relationship experiences and either relational uncertainty or interference from a partner, the evidence in support of the relational turbulence model is robust. Although most of the tests of the relational turbulence model to date have relied upon cross sectional research designs and focused on the experiences of individuals, a handful of longitudinal and dyadic studies provide further insight into the claims of the theory. For example, Solomon and Theiss (2008) collected measures of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from a partner from individuals weekly for 6 weeks; that study replicated the associations between intimacy and relational uncertainty and interference from a partner that were documented in cross sectional research and described previously. In a study exemplifying a dyadic, longitudinal test of the relational turbulence model, Knobloch and Theiss (2010) collected data from relationship partners at 1 week intervals for 6 weeks. That study concluded that one partner s self reported experience of relational turbulence and negative emotions corresponded with an increase in the other partner s relational uncertainty and partner interference 1 week later. Other studies summarized in Solomon and Theiss (2011) indicate that people who communicate openly about relational uncertainty report increased intimacy in their relationship in a subsequent week. These studies show that the variables highlighted in the relational turbulence model are interrelated over time and between partners. 3 Theoretical developments Since its inception, the relationship turbulence model has been expanded and revised along two main lines. First, scholars have recognized that transitions that evoke relational uncertainty and disrupt interdependence can occur at any time across the

4 4 relational life span. This realization sparked a more thorough explication of the notion of transition, as well as research on experiences of changes within well established romantic associations (i.e., marriage). Second, attention shifted from intimacy or relational development as a driver of relational uncertainty and experiences of interdependence, to questions about the mechanisms that link those qualities to emotional, cognitive, and communicative reactions to events that occur in romantic relationships. Transitions after courtship The relational turbulence model now positions any romantic relationship transition as having the potential to promote relational uncertainty and complicate patterns of interdependence (see Solomon & Theiss, 2011; Solomon et al., 2010). A transition is conceptualized as a response to changes in circumstances, which often involves movement from one state of existence to another. Transitions in romantic relationships can be instigated by changes within one individual, ranging from diminished feelings about the partner to new career aspirations; changes within the dyad, such as becoming parents; and changes external to the partnership, including a new supervisor at work or a parent s declining health. These changes in circumstances decrease the alignment between partners cognitive and behavioral systems. Specifically, assumptions about the self, the partner, and the relationship, as well as the behavioral routines that have been established, are no longer attuned with the individual, relational, or external c ontext for the relationship. Relationship transitions, then, are marked by a need to revise previously functional modes of relating to fit new circumstances. In extending the relational turbulence model to transitions beyond courtship, researchers used qualitative methods to evaluate the relevance of relational uncertainty and experiences of interdependence as married people grappled with a variety of life changes. As detailed in Solomon et al. (2010), initial expansions of the relational turbulence model turned to discourse posted on online discussion boards and blogs to examine the experiences of women coping with breast cancer or the experience of infertility. The application to breast cancer survivorship recognized that a diagnosis of breast cancer challenges women to cope with the disease, as well as the impact of breast cancer treatment and its side effects on their marriage and family. The discourse that transpired online revealed that women experience uncertainty about telling others about their cancer, question what life with their spouse will be like after cancer, worry about living with side effects of treatment that are visible to themselves and others, and wonder about the future in general. Problems arising from compromised interdependence also emerged in the discourse, as women described unmet expectations for instrumental and emotional support, the challenges of living within new physical constraints on their activities, and disruptive reactions from a relationship partner in the aftermath of the cancer diagnosis. Thus, uncertainty, both in general and with regard to the marital relationship, and interference from a partner were prevalent in the experiences of women whose lives were touched by breast cancer. Complementing the study of breast cancer survivors, relational uncertainty and challenges to interdependence have been documented in the context of a very different experience within marriages: the diagnosis of infertility. The discovery of impediments

5 to having a biological child impose a relationship transition in which couples are forced to revise their plans for a family, change their conception of family, or come to terms with alternative routes to creating their family. As summarized in Solomon et al. (2010; see also Knobloch, in press), a study of online discourse revealed the pervasiveness of relational uncertainty and interference from a partner as people navigated this substantial transition in their relationship. Relational uncertainty was highlighted in questions people had about their own and their partner s commitment to a relationship that might not produce a biological child. The emphasis on treatments, the way treatments can reframe sexual intimacy, and attributions of responsibility for failure to conceive marginalize the relationship and raise questions about its value and viability. Individuals coping with infertility also describe goal interference as prevalent, ranging from specific needs to coordinate sexual intercourse and schedule appointments to the overarching sense of interference in the goal of having a family. The general conclusions reached in the domains of breast cancer survivorship and infertility have been replicated in studies examining the relationship transitions necessitated by becoming parents, becoming empty nesters, coping with depression, and traversing cycles of deployment and redeployment within military families (see Knobloch, in press). This body of work highlights the heuristic value of the relational turbulence model for illuminating experiences of major transitions that can occur over the life course of romantic relationships. Quantitative tests of the relational turbulence model within the context of marriage have replicated evidence that relational uncertainty and experiences of interference correspond with more negative emotions, cognitions, and communication experiences (Knobloch, in press; Solomon & Theiss, 2011). For example, relational uncertainty and interference from a spouse are associated with appraising sexual intimacy as less satisfying and engaging in less direct communication about sex. Among military couples reunited after a service member s deployment, relational uncertainty and experiences of interference correspond with communication characterized by more avoidance, more aggression, fewer assurances about the relationship, and less constructive conflict communication. Relational uncertainty, in particular, seems to produce a pessimism bias, such that people experiencing doubts about their marriage view their spouse s communication in a more negative light. The consequences of the complications associated with relational uncertainty and disrupted interdependence are highlighted by research on breast cancer survivors (summarized in Solomon et al., 2010). Using survey methods, breast cancer survivors in committed romantic relationships reported on the degree of relational uncertainty in their marriage and the frequency of interference from their spouse. In addition, study participants identified specific cancer related stressors they had encountered in the previous 2 weeks; examples included waiting for test results, coping with body image, getting to treatment appointments, and making a treatment decision. For each of the stressors they had experienced in the previous 2 weeks, women rated their cognitive appraisals (i.e., perceived severity), their emotions (i.e., feelings of anger, s adness, fear), and qualities of their communication with their spouse or partner (i.e., directness and positivity of communication about the stressor). The results indicated that women s doubts about their relationship and their experiences of interference in everyday goals and activities corresponded positively with the intensity of anger, 5

6 6 sadness, and fear related to the cancer related stressors they had experienced. Women experiencing relational uncertainty and interference also reported less positive c ommunication with the spouse about their stressful experiences, and interference from a partner corresponded with more direct communication behavior. Clarifying theoretical mechanisms Empirical findings, coupled with applications to relationships after courtship, shifted the focus of research on the relational turbulence model away from patterns that align with the level of intimacy. Instead, recent research highlights relational uncertainty and interference from a partner as relationship characteristics that shape experiences in romantic associations. This change in focus has prompted scholars to consider the mechanisms linking these relationship qualities to experiences of specific events or episodes. This work underlies the transformation of the relational turbulence model from a perspective describing changes that correspond with relationship development into a theory that explains why these relationship states affect emotions, cognitions, and communication in romantic relationships. One mechanism that has received research attention is relational information processing (e.g., McLaren, Solomon, & Priem, 2012). As noted, relational uncertainty corresponds with a tendency to perceive conversations with a partner as more difficult, and partners make more conservative or pessimistic relational inferences from c onversations when they have doubts about the association. In addition, interference from a partner is linked to stronger emotional reactions to negative partner behaviors. McLaren et al. (2012) surmised that relational uncertainty and interference from a partner form a context for particular interactions that biases the relational meanings people attach to a partner s messages. In particular, people unsure about their association or subject to disruptive patterns of interdependence may frame interactions in ways that privilege more hostile and dominant interpretations of a partner s behavior. Consistent with this reasoning, McLaren et al. (2012) found that males who reported more relational turbulence in their romantic relationship perceived hurtful messages from their partner as more dominant and, in turn, less affiliative. Research on the relational turbulence model has also explicated and operationalized relational turbulence as a construct relevant to understanding relationships in transition (Knobloch, 2007). One view positions perceptions of a relationship as turbulent as one of many deleterious consequences of relational uncertainty and interference from a partner (e.g., Knobloch & Theiss, 2010). An alternative perspective suggests that relational turbulence is a relationship quality that can become prominent when either relational uncertainty is high or interdependence failures are frequent (McLaren et al., 2012). According to the latter view, relational turbulence encompasses the sense of chaos and instability people experience when dyadic systems of meaning and behavior are misaligned. Following the metaphor, relational turbulence is characterized as similar to the sensations that can emerge during air travel. Sudden changes in the flight caused internally by engine trouble or a pilot s maneuvering or resulting from external changes in atmospheric conditions create a state of intensified subjectivity wherein passengers are intensely attentive to the progress of the flight, hyper reactive to further

7 dips and flutters, and prone to anxiety. In the same way, being in a romantic association characterized by relational turbulence can lead people to engage in vigilant information processing, to experience heightened emotional awareness, and to exhibit caution or pessimism as they make sense of specific experiences in a tumultuous context. 7 Questions for future research Two decades have elapsed since the earliest studies in the program of research that gave rise to the relational turbulence model (Cloven & Roloff, 1994; Solomon, 1997). Theoretical advancements during that time have produced a theory that has demonstrated heuristic value and is supported, for the most part, by empirical observations. At the same time, limitations in prior research leave many questions relevant to the theory unanswered. A first pressing question concerns the nature of relational turbulence. Is relational t urbulence a relationship quality, akin to relational satisfaction, commitment, u ncertainty, and interdependence? If so, researchers need to explicate this quality, demonstrate its convergent, discriminant, and representational validity, and evaluate its role in experiences that unfold in personal relationships. Or, is relational turbulence a transient c ondition a perception of relationships that arises during times of relational uncertainty or when goal interference is prevalent? If so, this variable is on par with, and not causally antecedent to, the other cognitive appraisal outcomes previously linked to relational uncertainty and interference from a partner. Teasing out these phenomena and causal associations requires prospective longitudinal research, rather than the cross sectional retrospective designs used in many studies testing the relational turbulence model. Second, the emergence of a relational turbulence theory calls for focused attention on the mechanisms that link the relationship qualities featured in the theory to the emotions, cognitions, and communication behaviors associated with particular r elationship events. Other perspectives have offered conceptual frameworks that unite dispositional relationship states with cognitions, emotions, and behaviors that are proximal to interaction episodes (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham, 1992; Dillard, Solomon, & Samp, 1996). Building on those foundations, a relational turbulence theory needs to specify why and how prevailing sentiments about a romantic association foster more or less extreme reactions. As reviewed in Solomon et al. (2011), relational information processing and physiological stress reactions to interpersonal messages provide two, perhaps related, avenues to explore. A third, broad conceptual issue concerns the nature of transitions (Solomon et al., 2010). Relationship partners are buffeted by idiosyncratic events that bring an element of unpredictability to each and every interaction. Changes of mood, moments of a spiration or deflation, adjustments to routines, and bouts of illness or energy are daily events in some relationships. What does it take for these daily fluctuations to coalesce into a bona fide transition in the circumstances for a romantic association? By focusing on substantial life transitions, such as a serious health condition, becoming parents for the first time, or military deployment and redeployment, research on the relational turbulence model has circumvented this core question. If the notion of

8 8 transition and relationship change is to have a prominent place within the theory, however, the conditions that mark fluctuation in personal relationships as transitions in interpersonal relating need to be explicated. Fourth, the relational turbulence model s emphasis on dyadically focused questions about relational uncertainty and interdependence has neglected the transformation of personal identities that can occur as a function of a life transition. Breast cancer survivorship and life after an infertility diagnosis both involve coming to terms with a new identity a new conception of self as partner, parent, and person (Solomon et al., 2010). As the theory seeks to encompass the impact of transitions on communication and experiences within close relationships, questions about people s need to form, develop, and negotiate new identities call for attention. Finally, the relational turbulence model s exclusive focus on romantic associations leaves open questions about transitions, turbulence, and their consequences within other relationship contexts. Family relationships, for example, are highly interdependent social networks, and members may be collectively challenged to adjust their relationship assumptions and interdependent behaviors when previously functional assumptions and routines become ineffective. Within the workplace, coworkers may encounter questions about each other s roles and responsibilities, as well as where they are situated with respect to relational dimensions of power and affiliation. These conditions may lay a foundation for relational turbulence when changes occur within the organization or the coworker relationship. The extent to which the relational turbulence model provides insight into an array of interpersonal relationships constitutes a promising direction for expanding the theory. SEE ALSO: Communication in Military Families; Hurtful Communication; Models of Relationship Development; Relational Uncertainty; Topic Avoidance; Uncertainty and Relationship Development References Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, doi: / Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1994). A developmental model of decisions to withhold relational irritations in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, doi: /j tb00059.x Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments. Communication Research, 23, doi: / Knobloch, L. K. (2007). Perceptions of turmoil within courtship: Associations with intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, doi: / Knobloch, L. K. (in press). The relational turbulence model: Communicating during times of transition. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Knobloch, L. K., Miller, L. E., & Carpenter, K. E. (2007). Using the relational turbulence model to understand negative emotion within courtship. Personal Relationships, 14, doi: /j x

9 Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, doi: / Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2004). Interference and facilitation from partners in the development of interdependence within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 11, doi: /j x Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2010). An actor partner interdependence model of relational turbulence: Cognitions and emotions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, doi: / McLaren, R. M., Solomon, D. H., & Priem, J. S. (2012). The effect of relationship characteristics and relational communication on reactions to hurtful messages from romantic partners. Journal of Communication, 62, doi: /j x Solomon, D. H. (1997). A developmental model of intimacy and date request explicitness. Communication Monographs, 64, doi: / Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of i ntimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, doi: / Solomon, D. H., & Theiss, J. A. (2008). A longitudinal test of the relational turbulence model of romantic relationship development. Personal Relationships, 15, doi: / j x Solomon, D. H., & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Relational turbulence: What doesn t kill us makes us stronger. In W. R. Cupach and B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships. New York, NY: Routledge. Solomon, D. H., Weber, K. M., & Steuber, K. R. (2010). Turbulence in relational transitions. In S. W. Smith & S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 9 Further reading Jennings Kelsall, V. J., Aloia, L. S., Solomon, D. H., Marshall, A., & Leifker, F. (2012). Stressors experienced by women within Marine Corps families: A qualitative study of discourse within an online forum. Military Psychology, 24, doi: / Theiss, J. A., & Knobloch, L. K. (2013). A relational turbulence model of military service members relational communication during reintegration. Journal of Communication, 63, doi: /jcom Denise Haunani Solomon is liberal arts research professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State University. Her research focuses on communication experiences in personal relationships, such as support and conflict, that promote or erode well being. She and her colleagues have developed the relational turbulence model to describe how transitions in relationships complicate emotions, cognitions, and communication. In particular, her work examines how transitions in romantic relationships promote relationship qualities that polarize reactions to both ordinary and extraordinary experiences. She is author, along with Jennifer Theiss, of the textbook Interpersonal Communication: Putting Theory into Practice.