Comparing relationships to unicycles seems strange or unlikely, however the constant strive for balance against opposing forces is a perfect description for relational dialectics theory (Griffin, 2009). Barbara Montgomery, an interpersonal communication scholar, describes riding a unicycle as a task of contradicting forces, constantly pulling against each other in a tug-of-war motion. The best way to control the wheel is by the constant changes in movement, adapting one way or the other, to maintain control over the fall (Griffin).
When Montgomery and Baxter first started researching interpersonal relationships they were surprised by the feedback they discovered from their interviews (Griffin, 2009). They found multiple truths to a lot of the stories that the participants were telling. The stories that people told did not even make sense because the narrators would constantly contradict themselves (Griffin).
Baxter and Montgomery argue that, “social life is a dynamic knot of contradictions, a ceaseless interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies,” (Griffin, 2009, p.154). This paper agrees with Baxter and Montgomery’s explanation of relational dialectics. Moreover, this paper expands that Baxter and Montgomery’s ability to state that relationships are striving for balance is the key component. Balance is vital in relational dialectics because it produces positive outcomes and is the reason that contradictions occur. This paper will look at the main components of relational dialectics theory, current literature that supports this argument, and future application of the research (Griffin).
Summary
Some people may view a conflict or a fight as a warning sign in relationships or a “red flag” that it is not going to last. How...
... middle of paper ...
...lational dialectics theory. The Journal of Family Communication, 4(3&4), 181-192.
Griffin, E. (2009). Relational Dialectics. A first look at communication theory (7th ed., pp. 154-167). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Loveless, M., Powers, W., & Jordan, W. (2008). Dating partner communication apprehension, self disclosure, and the first big fight. Human Communication, 11(1), 231-240.
Prentice, C. (2009). Relational dialectics among in-laws. Journal of Family Communication, 9, 67-89.
Sahlstein, E., & Dun, T. (2008). "I wanted time to myself and he wanted to be together all the time":Constructing breakups as managing autonomy-connection. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 9(1), 37-45.
Zhang, S., & Stafford, L. (2009). Relational ramifications of honest but hurtful evaluative messages in close relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 73(4), 481-501.
Never become complacent and let my interpersonal relationship becomes stagnant, which can lead to resentment and conflict. Weighing the cost verses the rewards may not always be the solution for my relationship; simply, because the cost may ultimately outweigh the rewards. The need for autonomy can have reverse effects and may not lead to the closeness that’s expected. In, turn the very thing that, I try to be open about in my relationship can inadvertently cause me to protect my feelings in the
While all relationships can be difficult, romantic relationships seem to be some of the most complicated types. Sometimes two people can care for one another so much, yet they cannot seem to communicate effectively. When a lack of communication occurs between two people for a long period of time, it most likely will lead to a huge confrontation and possibly a complete dissolve of the relationship. The Break-Up is a movie that shows how important interpersonal communication is in relationships. The movie features Brooke and Gary, a couple which has been together for several years. Although they seem to be arguing about something trivial like lemons, there are much bigger issues that begin to surface. Throughout this paper I will show how
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. New York, NY: Viking Press.
Petersen, J.C. (2007). Why don’t we listen better? Communicating & Connecting in Relationships. Tigard, OR: Petersen Publications
Reis, Harry T., and Susan Sprecher. Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2009. Print.
The way someone manages a difference can make conflict turn into a sphere of harm or a sphere of value. The sphere of harm is when differences are managed in destructive and damaging ways. Littlejohn states (2014) states, “Conflicts are managed so badly that damage is done to people, relationships, and, indeed, entire social worlds” (p. 188). If a party were to react to an indifference by using physical or verbal violence the conflict would move into the sphere of harm. On the other hand, the sphere of value is when differences are significant, but not controversial. Instead, parties value the difference, appreciate it and view it as a positive asset. The goal of conflict is to move from the sphere of harm to the sphere of
Adler, R. B., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Proctor, R. F. (2013). Interplay The Prrocess of Interpersonal Communication. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Blake & Mouton, 1984. "Interpersonal Conflict and Conflict Management." Devito, Joseph A. The Interpersonal Communications Book. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon, 2009. 279-280.
Petersen, J. C. (2007). Why don’t we listen better? Communicating & connecting in relationships (1st ed.). Portland, OR: Petersen.
Interpersonal conflict is very common with many relationships. It occurs when two people can not meet in the middle or agree on a discussion. Cooperation is key to maintaining a healthy debate. More frequently; when dealing with members of your own family, issues arise that include conflict and resolution. During this process our true conflict management style appears “out of thin air”. (Steve A. Beebe, 2008, p. 191).
Woodin, E. M. (2011). A two-dimensional approach to relationship conflict: Meta-analytic findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 325-335. doi:10.1037/a0023791
At the point when individuals meet, their key concern is to lessen Uncertainty about each other and their relationship, for example, verbal yield, nonverbal warmth, self-divulgence, closeness, and shared correspondence systems builds, vulnerability abatements and the other way around. Data looking for and correspondence are
When I began to comprehend the faults within our relationship, I knew it was time to act. Focusing on the Struggle Spectrum by the National Communication Association, I noticed that we were repeatedly climbing the struggle ladder and falling off the edge only to repeat it again. My younger, less educated version of myself would never have seen the problems but now, after years of college and my Interpersonal Communications class, I could see what needed to be done. I b...
Individuals involved in romantic relationships often send messages to one another with the intent to convey honest information about their romantic partner. Literature on this topic has already been published, but researcher Shuangyue Zhang found gaps and unanswered questions in this previously conducted research that he wanted to resolve. In 2009, Zhang began researching the hurtful, but honest messages that are sent and received in romantic relationships with two overlapping goals in mind. He wanted to uncover the “motivations and relational consequences of honest, but hurtful evaluated messages,” while simultaneously investigating “the relational satisfaction, sex of the respondent and message types” (Zhang, 2009). With his purpose in place, Zhang developed a hypothesis for his research that stated, “Recipients will interpret honest, but hurtful messages more negatively than will senders” (Zhang 2009). The subjects of Zhang’s study, 515 undergraduate students (32.4% male and 77.6% female) from Midwestern University, were given one of two different questionnaires, “one sender questionnaire and one receiver questionnaire,” and asked to “reconstruct a conversation” that they took part in that involved an honest, but hurtful evaluative message (Zhang, 2009). Participants were then given a scale and asked to rate the hurtfulness, emotional pain and alleged honesty of the message that they recoded (Zhang, 2009). At the conclusion of the study, Zhang measured and assessed the honesty motives, perceived intent and relational ramifications of the messages (Zhang, 2009). The study effectively conducted by Shuangyue Zhang in 2009 not only yielded findings in support of the hypothesis, but also revealed other findings. These other findings...