A perspective that revolves around how relational partners manage tensions is called

PAGE

1

Rules and Relationships

Running Head: LAUNDRY RULES

Laundry Rules: Examinations of Aunt-Niece Relationship

XXXXX

We have all experienced conflicts with our parents, some more than others. It can be really hard to understand the reasons for some of the things they do. In my case I never understood why ii always had to do laundry on Sundays. It was my laundry, why couldn’t I do it whenever I wanted. As teenagers we tend to get this attitude of “I do what I want.” This is the basis for this case study. Interpersonal relationships are conflicted with tensions. In the relationship between a guardian and a child, the tensions are particularly seen just as in a mother-daughter relationship. The contrasting tensions that exist in these relationships can often be the cause of disagreements between the two relational partners, such as my aunt and me. Successfully managing these tensions helps ensure the relationship satisfaction. This study uses relational dialectics to examine a pattern of conflicting pulls between my aunt and me.

It is through the analysis of this case between my aunt and me; I argue that ineffective negotiation of these dialectical tensions can lead to dissatisfaction in the relationship. By analyzing the communication patterns present in our relationship, I expect to gain a better understanding of managing these tensions. It is important to examine how close family members react to conflicting tensions. Family members hold close ties to tensions of openness, closedness, and stability. For this reason, the interacting tensions should be managed more efficiently. This analysis shows that by gaining knowledge of these dialectic tensions and management strategies, people can affect a more positive outcome. This paper includes a description of relational dialectics theory, a background to the communicative partners studied, a case analysis, and recommendations for the partners involved.

Relational Dialectics

“No relationship can exist by definition unless the parties sacrifice some individual autonomy. However, too much connection paradoxically destroys the relationship because the individual identities become lost” (Griffin, 2000).

Relational Dialectics was developed in 1988 by Baxter and Montgomery. The theory is explained as “Communication parties experience internal, conflicting pulls causing relationships to be in a constant state of flux, known as dialectical tension. The pressures of these tensions occur in a wavelike or cyclical fashion over time. Relational Dialectics introduces the concept that the closer individuals become to one another, the more conflict will arise to pull them apart” (Griffin, 2000). All relationships experience this dialectical tension. The focus is not on the actual relationship desires but actually on the struggles that the relationship experiences. The theory attempts to describe these experiences that occur (Baxter, 2004).

Relational Parties are constantly involved in dialogue, crating meaning and responding to natural tensions. It is because of this ongoing dialogue that relationships are constantly in a state of flux. Because of this flux, the theory is concerned with the partners’ acts of relating and not the status of the relationship. The theory explains that this change is normal and necessary for relationships to exist. Therefore, the theory focuses on the communicative actions that relational parties are involved in. Relational dialectics theory views these changes as uncontrollable. Relationships undergo these changes in order to satisfy both relational parties’ needs’. These needs include openness-closedness, autonomy-connection, and inclusion-seclusion.

Openness-Closedness

In every interpersonal relationship there is a pull between openness and closedness. Desires exist in both parties to be highly self-disclosing, while desires also exist to maintain personal boundaries. Relational parties want to connect with their partner through intimate disclosures. This is often more complicated due to the risk of vulnerability. Due to this risk it also makes the information that is disclosed more meaningful. It is by being open with others that we expect reciprocity (Rawlins, 1983). This means that if one partner self-discloses they expect the other partner to reciprocate by self-disclosing. This form of penetration helps establish and maintain the relationship. “By being open to another person, one is willing to listen to him or her from that person’s perspective, to display receptivity to what that person has to say, to be open to change in one’s own beliefs and attitudes” (Baxter, 2004). This shows us that to truly meet the desires of the openness factor, we must be open to beliefs and attitudes that are not always our own. We should be able to see things from a different perspective or at least be comfortable enough to listen to it.

Each relational partner in each interpersonal relationship will struggle to find the right amount of self-disclosure. Individuals “confront the contrasting urges to protect other[s] by exercising discretion and to be candid with other[s]” (Rawlins, 1983). It is by communication with the other partner that we set boundaries on levels of disclosure. According to Rawlins (1983), “openness often solicits restraint, thereby creating conditions for closedness”. We feel the need to create great intimacy with partners. This intimacy is created by self-disclosure and reciprocity. It is through these aspects that partners also realize whether to reveal information or conceal it. It is very easy to see the constraints of this dialect. If you look at the relationship between Parker and Mary Jane in the movie Spider Man, you can clearly see the boundaries. Parker wants to tell Mary Jane that he is Spiderman, but he has to stay closed off because no one can know. He is obviously fighting the urges of openness and closedness. This is common in most drama films. One of the partners always struggles with telling their secret.

Autonomy-Connection

Autonomy is the “desire and ability to be self-sufficient, self-contained, self-defined, and accountable only to one-s self” (Goldsmith, 1990). Connection is “the desire and ability to be reliant on others, to be relied on, to be connected with others, and to be defined in relation to others” (Goldsmith, 1990). Autonomy and Connection are the most prominent tensions in all interpersonal relationships. The perceptions of these dialectics can “be constructed by relationship parties in terms of their negotiation surrounding how much time to spend with one another versus time spent apart to meet other obligations” (Baxter, 2004). Each relational partner needs interdependence as well as the support of companionship. During this stage partners can feel that they have lost their individual identity. We each have needs to be viewed as a unique individual.

Partners in interpersonal relationships will attempt to satisfy their own needs of connection and autonomy as well as considering the needs of their partner. Time measurement is also a big factor in measuring the independence or dependence of individuals in the relationship. Another factor is how obligations and rights are determined “a discourse of rights versus obligations, as, for example, the individual’s right to have his/her own needs fulfilled versus the obligation to fulfill the partner’s needs” (Baxter, 2004).

An example of autonomy and connection can be seen in the movie “Say Anything”. The movie is based around a young girl that is valedictorian and has sacrificed her social life for school. There is also a particularly social boy that wants to take her out. Eventually she decides to give him a chance, but he wants to be with her every waking minute. The couple deals with this tension by her letting him know that she has to have time to herself and so does he.

Inclusion-Seclusion

Inclusion and seclusion are unlike the previous dialectics in one particular way. These dialectics exist externally out of the relationship. In the external dialectic of relationships, the struggles exist with how much the parties want to be integrated into a larger group. “The external form of the integration/separation dialectic involves the tension between wanting a relationship to be included in larger systems and wanting to keep the relationship private” (Wood, 2004).

The partners in the relationship are also faced with the decision on to what extent they will enact with others outside of the relationship. They also decide how much of their relationship they will reveal to others. “Relationship parties are immersed in ongoing communication with outsiders to the relationship as they all go about the business of crafting an identity for that relationship” (Baxter, 2004). We create our relationships uniqueness by legitimizing our relationship through social groups. Griffin (2003) explains;

The more [partners] assert their autonomy from society, the more they establish a unique subculture. Yet even for the most devoted partners, tolerance for isolation wears thin after a while. Other people can be a source of stimulation to overcome the ho-hum predictability that settles in on a secluded pair. Third parties can also provide the social support that legitimizes the relationship of friends or lovers.

We seek out social groups in order to understand our relationships as well as prove its importance. When relational partners interact with a social network, they are subject to external judgment that could potentially damage the relationship. This damage can force the parties to seek protection through seclusion. This is why individuals might separate themselves from external partners. In helps ensure a safe and stable environment for the relationship to prosper (Baxter, 2004). On the other hand, relational parties naturally seek social approval. “Relationships are defined as close to the extent that they are nonreplaceable or unique” (Baxter, 2004). When dealing with external dialects such as inclusion and seclusion it is important for both relational parties to communicate their personal and social boundaries.

Management Strategies

The theory of relational dialectics does more than describe the tensions involved in relational parties; it also outlines strategies that are used to negotiate needs. Successful negotiation of dialectical tensions increases relation harmony as relationship satisfaction “[correlates] significantly with the strategies used to manage dialectical contradictions’ (Penington, 2004). There are several common strategies that relational dialectics discusses including; selection, spiraling inversion, segmentation, recalibration.

Selection. Usually selection tends to be the least satisfying negotiation strategies. The process of selection “occurs when one pole of the dialectical contradiction is enacted to the exclusion of the other” (Penington, 2004). Selection chooses which need to meet as well as ignoring the other needs. It is a pick and chooses relational strategy. Selection can be seen very easily in a students study habits. We choose which assignment is most important when we are overloaded. For example, this class is more important than my other classes. That means that when it comes to next semester’s classes, I will pick and choose classes around this time frame. This is because I selected to take this class and ignore the others in this time frame.

Spiraling inversion. Spiraling inversion can be explained as “[tacking] back and forth through time, alternating an emphasis on one dialectical voice with an emphasis on another dialectical voice” (Baxter, 2004). This is generally the most common response to present tensions. Individuals cycle through their existing conflicts in order to satisfy silent needs. Spiraling inversion is so commonly seen in relationship practices. Each partner cycles through stages of openness-closedness, autonomy-connection, and inclusion-seclusion. I cycle most commonly through the tensions of openness and closedness in my relationships. I just recently formed a friendship with a girl named Candice, I find it very hard to figure out how open I should be with her. Because of this I use spiraling inversion to jump from being really open to then being really closed.

Segmentation. Segmentation allows relational parties to assign needs to specific areas of conflict. “On topic A, for example, a couple might privilege openness and candor, yet topic B would be defined as a taboo topic in which openness was disallowed” (Baxter, 2004).By separating and identifying the individual needs, relational parties attempt to satisfy each dialectical tension. The most common experience I can think of is when parents are in denial about their child. When a child tries to talk about something such as homosexuality, which is a very sensitive subject, the parents might just completely ignore the topic. This is segmenting the issues, the parents might change the subject to school, which is something they are very open about.

Recalibration. The last negotiation strategy is usually the most satisfying for relational parties. Recalibration allows the partners to recognize conflicting needs and choose to conceptualize their needs. This also allows the partners to seem to negate the opposition (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). By partners being integrative, the individuals are more likely to discuss the situation in comfort. This negation of opposition helps to control outburst or regrettable interactions. One of the most recent examples I have of this is when I went to speak to a professor about my grade in a class. When I went to talk to her she was very open with me. She understood that I was trying really hard to grasp the concept. By her recognizing my need for inclusion, she introduced me to a group where I could go work on the assignments with them.

Relational dialectics is a very helpful theory for examining the relationship between my aunt and me. The theory not only establishes the tensions that prevail in relationships, it also shows how to respond to conflicting tensions. By gaining a better understanding of these tensions and negotiation strategies, I will better understand the conflicts that arise between us.

Background

In this paper I will be analyzing the relationship between my aunt and me. My aunt and I were always really close. Even before I moved in with her we always had this bond towards each other. Both of us are very different from the other members of our family. I have a very dependant family. Everyone depends on finding most of their physical, emotional, and social needs met within the family. My aunt and I are different because we seek out these needs through others as well. We do not talk about everything with other family members. We are also both very independent people and it seems to spark some conflict between us.

I moved in with my aunt when I was fifteen years old. My whole family had grown up in Nashville. My dad got offered a job in Oklahoma and I did not want to leave. Therefore my aunt asked me to move in with her. She is not married and has no other children, so it was just me and her.

As much as we are alike, we are also different. Due to the fact that we are really independent, we are also very structured. This leads to problems because I like things my way where as she likes things her way. A lot of our earlier interactions came from when I moved in with her and did not agree with her structure. The most common argument would be about chores. We always had arguments on Laundry days. I had a problem with having to do all of my laundry on one day and one day only. In this paper I will be discussing three separate interactions. The analysis consists of a discussion about my intimate relationships, a discussion about me moving to Little Rock, and a conflict about spending time with my friends.

Laundry Rules: A Case Analysis

In the analysis below, I have used the theory of relational dialectics to examine three interactions between my aunt and me. The case is analyzed through the three dialectical tensions: openness-closedness, autonomy-connection, and inclusion-seclusion.

Openness-Closedness

Dialectical tension between openness and closedness revolves around self-disclosure. Both partners in the relationship will battle with how much information to self-disclose. Each partner does not want to risk exposing vulnerability, but also had to self-disclose in order to maintain the relationship. This tension provides insight for the conversation below.

I live two hours away from home now and it is a little more complicated to go home. As well as, I have a job and school that it has to fit around. Due to me not being home very often, my aunt had started to ask a lot of questions. I have never been really open about my intimate relationships just because everyone asks too many questions.

On one Saturday afternoon I had a conversation with my aunt. “So how is everything going up there Lauren?” she asks me. “Everything is going good, just staying busy,” I said. “Well, how are your classes, are you keeping up okay?” she says. “I think I am doing good, I am just so ready to be through and not have to go anymore,” I responded. She then laughed and commented “Well you just have to get it done, and then you get to do whatever you want.”

So now that school is out of the way, it is on to work. She always asks “well how much money did you make this weekend? Can you deposit your car payment on Monday?” I responded “I had a good weekend I can send the check with Samantha.” This is always the scary part of the conversation for me. I knew the question was coming. “Are you dating anybody up there?” she slowly said. I responded “Yes I am dating someone, his name is Ryan. We have been dating for a while know I just didn’t know if it was going to last or not. You know me,” I chuckled. I was opening up to her even though I had big fears of self-disclosing. She always seems to bombard me with questions so I do not usually offer up a lot of information. Like any other person she was very inquisitive about this guy. She began to ask more questions, “Where is he from? What are his parents like? What does he do? Does he go to church?” I answered all of her questions hoping for approval.

I responded to the question about his parents and stated that I had met them. This took me to a spiraling inversion. I knew that she was going to want to meet him. I then began to track back and forth between how much information to release. “Did you meet his parents in Little Rock or did you go to Dallas to meet them?” she said in a deflating voice. “I went to Dallas for his mom’s birthday party, they are really nice and I think they love me more than he does,” I was trying to ease the tension. “Well if ya’ll can drive all the way to Dallas than why can’t ya’ll drive down here so we can meet him? I don’t understand how you can manage to squeeze time in for his parents but not for yours.” She said in a more disgruntled tone. “It is not that I don’t want ya’ll to meet him, I just wanted to give it some time. I have not ever brought a boy home and I am kind of nervous. I will bring him home for Thanksgiving I promise.”

By sharing this information about him, I was attempting to be open with her. As the conversation progressed I began to become more closed off because it was too much information disclosed too fast. By her bombarding me with all these questions I felt a very high sense of vulnerability. Due to my vulnerability, I shut down and just told her what she wanted to hear.

As it became closer to Thanksgiving, we began to talk more often. She wanted to know more things about him so that she could make him comfortable in our home. There was something that I needed to be open with her about. “I have to tell you something that I don’t want you to worry about. Ryan has diabetes so I need you to get some diet cokes for him.” She immediately responded with concern, “Well how bad is his diabetes? Does he have seizures? If he does, do you know what to do if he has one? Are you sure that you are okay with that?” “Yes, Aunt Kay I am perfectly fine with it. I know where he keeps all of his insulin, I know how much to give him.” I have read up on it and I know how to take care of him.” By being open with his illness I also assured her that I really did care about him. By knowing how to take care of him, I proved to her that he really must mean something to me.

Throughout this process of openness and closedness, we established a more comfortable tone for our relationship. I self-disclosed about something that was important to me. She reciprocated by building up my emotional needs. She said “I am really proud that you have found someone that you care about. Surely he can look out for you in Little Rock.” My aunt disclosed more information about how proud she was of me. This was one of the first times that she could see how much I had grown-up. It really helped our relationship grown. Now I find it not so hard to talk to her about my personal relationships as well as my fears. She has a lot more years of experience than me and I have learned that it helps make my life easier by being more open with her.

Autonomy-Connection

It is prevalent in all interpersonal relationships that each partner needs independence and interdependence. This dialectical tension shows how partners want to connect with others and want to be viewed as an independent. In the relationship between my aunt and me, it has been hard to find that independence because she is so worried about my life.

I just recently moved to Little Rock about a year and a half ago. This was a very hard change for my aunt to adjust to. My whole family grew up in the really small town of Nashville Arkansas. My aunt went to college at Henderson in Arkadelphia. After completing college she moved right back to Nashville. She has never lived in a big city. When I moved off to college it was hard for her to deal with me being away. It made it easier because she knew I was safe with all of my friends. My whole circle of friends went to college together and we came home about every other weekend.

When the time came for me to move to Little Rock, it was just something I wanted to do. I really did not have to move. She did not understand why I wanted to get farther away from her. When I began to tell her, things got a little crazy. The conversation went as follows.

“So I have been thinking about something for a while, I know you might not agree with it at first. At least hear me out.” I said. She responded, “okay well I will hear you out. What is it?” “I think I want to move to Little Rock. I think I can make a lot more money there. I also think it would be really good to get away from the small town atmosphere. I mean what if I want to move to California when I graduate? I at least need to experience something bigger.” I plead my case. “Lauren, Little Rock is such a bad place to move. It is so unsafe and not to mention so much more expensive.” “I know that’s why I have already looked into some things. I found an apartment that is gated and you can’t get in without a key. I also have applied at the Hooters there and have my next interview next week.” I said. “Well Lauren, I would really like for you to include me more in this decision. I want to come up there and see the apartment. You also need to write out all the bills you have to pay and let me see that it is even possible. I am very glad that you showed me that you can get around in Little Rock, and that you are also already looking into jobs.” She said in a very impressed voice. “I know I should have included you more, I just wanted a little independence. I needed to prove to myself and you that I can make decisions on my own.” I said with confidence.

Through this conversation I showed her that I still wanted to be connected to her. I wanted her to know that she needed to help me make the decision. I also let her know that she still had a big impact on what I did with my life. Through recalibration she helped me feel more confident about my independence. Recalibration helped us pinpoint the goal of our oppositions. By me knowing that it was going to be an opposition, I went into the conversation prepared.

As it got closer to time to move she came and helped me look at the apartments. “Well this is a really big apartment Lauren, you could probably find something smaller and cheaper. That way you will have more extra money. You have to think about how being a waitress your income changes a lot and it is not always so steady. Let’s just look at a couple more apartments,” she stated with concern. “Okay, so if we find another apartment and see how it goes, if I make enough money to afford this one, I want it,” I said. So through using her good since of judgment, I got a smaller apartment. I gave up some of my independence for some interdependence.

After six months of living in Little Rock and working, I had a good understanding on how to budget my money to afford more things. I called her and said “I just wanted you to know that I am only working three days a week and I am making enough money to afford that apartment. It is in a much better part of Little Rock and I will be closer to the school.” She replied, “I see that you have been paying all of your stuff on time. You have also been able to shop a little more so you must be doing well. If you think you are ready to move and you can afford it, than I trust you.” I happily said “It means so much to me that you respect my decision. I am so happy that you realize that I am old enough to make my own choices. It means a lot to me.” She then said, “You have showed me that you are thinking with your head and I am really glad you decided to take my advice and ride out the other apartment. I feel more comfortable with you making your own choices now.”

The response I received from my aunt on this matter really surprised me. I did not expect it to be so easy. Due to this event in our lives we have become much more trusting and respectful of each others choices. She trusts me a lot more and it helps me to be more respectful of her opinion. Instead of me wanting to establish autonomy all the time, I connected to her. I have learned to take her thoughts into consideration, because most of the time she is right. By establishing a mean of autonomy and seclusion I have found a more comfortable relationship with her. She has come to understand that sometimes I need to be my own person and make my own decisions.

Inclusion-Seclusion

Relational partners always experience struggles with contradictory needs. Partners want to connect to a larger social network as well as be isolated. This concept can be seen clear in a conversation between my aunt and me.

Every time I go home I have to see so many people. I do not get to go home very much so I have to fit time in for my family as well as my friends. This is what lead to the conflict between my aunt and me. I went home for the weekend and I had not been home for many months. I went and spent some time with my aunt and then decided to go see my friend Katie.

“I have to go see Katie. I have not seen her in a very long time. I told her I would come by,” I said with a hesitant voice. She responded “Why don’t you just ask her to come over here? We can all go out to eat or something.” I responded, “I really don’t want to hurt your feelings but I kind of want to spend some alone time with my friends. I don’t get to see or talk to them very much so I really need to talk to her.” She replied, “Okay, well are you going to stay the night here tonight. If she wants to Katie can too. You know she is welcome here anytime.” I quickly said, “I will call and let you know later.”

Even though I was not trying to hurt her feelings, I did. Selections lead us into the conflict. I selected to only talk about how I needed to see my friends. I neglected the fact that she wanted to see me. I neglected her need to connect our relationship to a larger social network.

As the night went on I talked to my aunt on the phone. She asks, “What are you girls doing?” I responded, “We are just riding around town, seeing a couple people. What are you doing?” She said, “You girls should come by here and you can bring your friends if you want. Just do not bring too many people.” “I think we are just going to stay at Katie’s tonight. We might be out kind of late, so I don’t want to wake you up,” I said. She responded sadly, “Ya’ll girls have a good time and be careful. Call me tomorrow.”

The next day Katie and I went over there. When we walked in my aunt hugged Katie and said, “It is so good to see you. How are you doing these days?” Katie responded with a smile, “Everything has been going good. I am making really good grades in school.” My aunt then continued, “Why don’t you girls go get some pizza and some movies on me. Here’s my card.” I then said, “I think we are going to stay here tonight if that is still okay.” She said, “That’s fine with me.” I then ask her, “Are there any movies you want to see? We can all watch them together if you want.” “That sounds good to me,” she said enthusiastically.

The conversation started with me being pleased and her being upset. Through my needs for seclusion I neglected her needs for inclusion. Whenever I realized that her needs of inclusion had not been met I used recalibration to solve the problem. I included her in my social network with Katie, it helped us break through the constraints of dialectical tension. Through this interaction both of our needs for inclusion and seclusion were met. I was allowed to be secluded and spend time with my friends alone. I was also able to let her spend time with my friends and me. We had a good time watching movies. This inclusion need was met by including our relationship in a larger social network.

Recommendations

The analysis of this case highlights several practical implications. First and foremost, my aunt and I should have discussed our tensions of openness and closedness. I should have let her know, that by her asking so many questions, it made me feel vulnerable and uncomfortable. This is what caused me to not discuss my love life with her. During the conversation about my personal relationships, I was initially closed while my aunt was initially open. We both cycled through the dialectical tensions present. It also would have helped me be more open if she would have released some of her personal information to me. I would have felt much less vulnerable if she would have reciprocated my openness. It is very important for relational partners to reciprocate self-disclosure. Even though it was not reciprocated, the openness I felt with her made me more comfortable with speaking of personal matters with her. Family members involved in relationships similar to mine should begin to view the dialectics of openness and closedness as a less contradictory through limiting the discussion of specific topics. I would be more open about things with my aunt, if she didn’t always ask so many questions.

Second, this case highlights my need for increased independence. I let my aunt know that I really needed to be independent on the decision about my apartment. I let her know that I needed to choose it myself. By me stating my needs of autonomy, she respected them. It made her still give me her input, but she was more open minded. It is also good for the partner to show that they still need to be connected as well. When I asked her opinion about the apartment, it showed her that I valued our connection as well as my autonomy. Not only does each partner need to state their tension, they also need to reassure the other person of their need for connection, much like I did. It is when both partners feel comfortable with their independence and interdependence, that relationships can maintain satisfaction. This can be easily done if both partners respect each others needs.

My third recommendation is that the partners must learn to be considerate of the feelings and needs. In my example of inclusion and seclusion, I was only thinking about my needs and tensions. I neglected my aunt’s needs for inclusion. It is important to not use selection as a management strategy. While I was completely content in my needs, I ignored hers. It is important for both partners to experience both of the tensions. Tacking back and forth can sometimes be helpful because it gives the partner a different set of eyes. If both partners’ needs are met, the cause of conflict can lessen. Partners also need to reduce the sense of opposition. If two partners are going to discuss topics that are seen as taboo, this factor becomes very important. If both partners are open to the thoughts of the others, the discussions should not be conflicts. It is important to make the subject open for discussion. Each partner should respect the others views. The partner’s should also not go in to the discussion trying to change the others mind. They should go into the discussion trying to let the other partner understand them.

Conclusion

In this paper I have showed how relational dialectics worked through situations between my aunt and me. I gave an insight into the theory of relational dialectics, a background of my case study, and then drew three practical recommendations. A good knowledge of relational dialectics and management strategies can help ensure relationship satisfaction. A healthy relationship cycles through all of the dialectical tensions. It is important to understand the other partners’ needs and tensions as well as to understand your own. Through management strategies, both partners can ensure a happier outcome. Sometimes it is hard to understand why your parents do the things they do, but that would be why there your parents. So next time they ask you to do something, think about the fact that they have been around a lot longer than you and maybe you should listen.

References

Anderson, R., & Ross, V. (1998). Questions of communication: A practical introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Baxter, L.A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11, 1-22.

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

Goldsmith, D. (1990). A dialectic perspective on the expression of autonomy and connection in romantic relationships. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 537-556.

 Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D.C. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The communicative forces for human action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 215-218.

Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 163-174.

Littlejohn, S. W. (1999). Theories of human communication (6th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Penington, B.A. (2004). The communicative management of connec