As two people grow attached to each other, they gradually transform from being strangers with no romantic connection into interdependent partners in an intimate relationship. Early on, this transformation can be exhilarating as they express their mutual newfound love, deepen their bond through shared activities, become recognized as a couple by family and friends, and possibly ponder a future together. How does a relationship proceed and develop from this point forward? Although the partners have established a relationship, they now face the task of keeping it going, or maintaining the relationship they’ve started. Relationship maintenance refers to the routine behaviors and strategies partners develop to help make sure their relationship will continue (Ballard-Reisch & Wiegel, 1999; Dindia & Baxter, 1987; Haas & Stafford, 1998). Some of these strategies will be intentional, as when one partner makes a conscious effort to help the other talk through the events of a particularly bad day. But not all the efforts to maintain a relationship are deliberate. You may not think going out at 5 a.m. to buy coffee and fresh doughnuts for your partner is an act of relationship maintenance, though it may well serve this purpose—especially if your partner has a sweet tooth or a long commute. Intentional or not, relationship maintenance involves taking steps that will keep a good relationship strong, avert declines in a relationship, or repair one that is struggling.
Maintaining a strong, healthy relationship typically involves partners’ shared revelations, personal expressions, and disclosures. Sometimes one partner reveals something personal the other person did not know: I am adopted. When I was 15, I got caught shoplifting. My dad has a drinking problem. My first boyfriend cheated on me with my best friend. As a relationship matures, partners talk less about their backgrounds and more about their reactions to daily events: Your mom really irritated me at the picnic on Saturday. I would rather stay home with the baby than go back to work. I passed the bar exam!
Regardless of what form they take, the thoughts and feelings partners share provide a valuable window into how a relationship deepens and how it is maintained. Intimate involvements, as you know from Chapter 1, are more than merely personal relationships. The conversations arising between intimate partners go beyond superficial exchanges of information, with both members revealing important aspects of who they are and how they are experiencing the world around them. For many people, it is the depth and consistency of these communications that make their relationship intimate, and that distinguishes it from, say, a close friendship. But what is it about personal expressions and disclosures that makes them so critical for a healthy relationship? As the three examples in Box 8.1 illustrate, the key is not simply in what one person reveals, but also in how the partner responds.
Box 8.1
Spotlight on . . .
Finding Keepers
Writers Linda Lee Small and Norine Dworkin (2003) documented dozens of experiences that led women to decide whether the person they were dating was, in their opinion, a “keeper” or a “loser.” Here are some examples of what men did to become keepers:
The Final Goodbye.When my sister passed away in 1978 I said goodbye to her at the funeral, sat shiva, went to the unveiling, and then never, ever returned to the cemetery to visit her grave. Over the years I would get very depressed and cry over the Fourth of July weekend, because that was the last weekend I spent with her before she died. When I met Sam, I told him all about my sister and how, although I had “officially” said goodbye at the cemetery, there was still some unfinished business in my heart. One of the first things he suggested after our first Fourth of July together was that we take a trip to the cemetery where Shelly was buried. At the cemetery I had a really good cry, introduced Sam to Shelly, and then finally said a proper goodbye to her. I knew he was a keeper on our first date, but his knowledge of my need to say farewell and close an open wound really sealed it for me. —Laney, Omaha, Nebraska.
For as Long as You Need Me.I had been dating Max for only about two months when my company sent me to Germany for a month. I didn’t really want to go, and I felt very isolated because I didn’t speak the language. By the time I arrived back home, I had really bad stomach pains. When I called the doctor, he said I probably had an ulcer, and he recommended I take some over-the-counter pills. The medicine didn’t help, and when Max came over the next day he saw how much pain I was in. He found my address book and called my doctor, who said I needed to go to the emergency room. Max gathered up my purse and took me to the hospital. He listened to the emergency room doctor’s directions because I wasn’t able to pay attention. (It turned out I did have an ulcer.) Then Max took me home, went to the pharmacy, and filled the prescription. He stayed with me for the next two days. When I called my best friend, she said, “You went to the hospital and no one called me?” You see, my last boyfriend would always call her when I didn’t feel good. He didn’t do well with illness! The way Max took care of me made a huge impression. —Janie, Los Angeles, California.
The Chosen One.When I met my future husband, Len, I was dating other men, including a guy named Mark. In general, I felt that the guys I dated, although they had important jobs, became competitive when I talked about my own work experiences. I often deal with the most senior people in Fortune 500 companies and conduct off-site meetings in resorts around the world. Len, who I met when I worked as a consultant at his company, was quite different. A widower with two children, he had been married to a woman who helped him develop his sensitivity to women. He called me every night after his children went to bed and asked how my day was. In contrast, Mark called on Wednesdays to plan for Saturday night dates. On Saturdays we “reported” how our weeks went. With Len, it was “in the moment,” with all the emotions and details. As I slowly shared my stories with him, I’d find that he was very supportive and encouraging, giving me more ideas as we talked. I always felt as if I was taken to another level with anything I shared. In contrast, with Mark, as I tested the waters—sharing my stories of the week—I found myself hearing cues to stop. My enthusiasm for my accomplishments went flat in his presence. This contrast was the defining moment regarding the type of person I wanted to be around. Len and I have been married for ten years now, and we’re still sharing and adding to each other’s ideas. —Chris, Phoenix, Arizona.
In our daily lives, we often turn to people around us to share and help us manage the vulnerabilities caused by events like these. Given a choice, we tend to pursue and deepen an intimate connection when responses to our disclosures leave us feeling understood, as it was for Laney, who benefited from Sam’s recognition that she needed to grieve her sister’s death; cared for, as it was for Janie, who appreciated Max’s attention to her illness; and validated, as it was for Chris, who recognized the value of Len’s patient listening. (Can you imagine the responses that would create the opposite experience in these three women?)
Partners maintain and develop intimacy by setting aside their own needs and expressing genuine concern and sensitivity for each other, particularly when one person feels exposed or vulnerable. Interpreted as a sample of what the future holds in store, these expressions can prove decisive in the development of an intimate relationship.
Disclosures and Responses: The Intimacy Process Model
Later in this chapter, we’ll describe four specific ways in which partners communicate closeness and maintain their relationship. To begin, we’ll outline the key elements underlying all these strategies, in a more generalized form known as the intimacy process model. Proposed by social psychologists Harry Reis and Philip Shaver, the intimacy process model provides a framework for thinking about intimacy in the sense that the daily exchanges between partners can be understood as either deepening or weakening the feelings of understanding, validation, and caring that characterize their commitment (Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988).
The main components of the intimacy process model include the disclosures and expressions discussed earlier, how the partner perceives and responds to them, and the judgments the self-disclosing partner then makes about himself or herself and the relationship. Intimacy is best understood as a process, according to this model, and through this process, a person may come to believe three things: (1) that the partner understands core aspects of his or her inner self, including important needs, emotions, and beliefs; (2) that the partner validates, respects, or otherwise ascribes value to these core aspects of one’s self; and (3) that the partner cares for and displays concern for his or her welfare. These three end points are shown on the right side of Figure 8.2. As we will discuss shortly, the left side of this figure represents what must happen between two people for this set of beliefs and experiences to arise.
FIGURE 8.2The intimacy process model. According to this view, intimacy arises from interactions in which person A discloses or expresses self-relevant thoughts and feelings to person B; based on B’s response, A feels understood, validated, and cared for. The behaviors displayed by person A and person B, and the interpretive filters guiding their perceptions of each other’s behaviors, are reflections of their motives, needs, goals, and fears. (Source: Adapted from Reis & Patrick, 1996.)
Let’s break this down a bit. In this model, the intimacy process involves one person saying or doing something that reveals important information about himself or herself. Figure 8.2 shows further that these disclosures are themselves prompted by motives, needs, goals, and fears. For example, we might want to come to terms with the loss of a sibling; we might feel insecure and fear that our partner does not really love us; we might need help dealing with an acute illness; we want to be recognized for our unique talents and accomplishments.
Though we attempt to reveal our inner self for countless reasons and in countless ways, not all disclosures are equally likely to promote a sense of closeness. Premature disclosures can be off-putting (Mikulincer & Nachson, 1991); boastful and dishonest disclosures mislead others and fail to reveal who we truly are (Prager, 1995); and factual disclosures reveal less than emotional disclosures about our inner self, therefore yielding fewer opportunities for a relationship to develop (Clark, Fitness, & Brissette, 2001). As psychologists Karen Prager and Linda Roberts observe:
Self-revealing behaviors are those that reveal personal, private aspects of the self to another, or invite another into a zone of privacy. Both verbal behavior and nonverbal behavior (physical touch, sexual contact) can be self-revealing. Being self-revealing implies a willingness to drop defenses and invite the other to witness and to know private, personal aspects of the self. As a condition for an intimate interaction, then, some aspect of the self is willingly revealed or “exposed” to the other. (Prager & Roberts, 2004, p. 45)
Of course, inviting another person into our “zone of privacy” does not guarantee he or she will accept our invitation or respond the way we want to the feelings we’ve expressed and the information we’ve revealed. Our partner—who is motivated by his or her own needs, goals, and fears—may either fail to pick up on our needs, feelings, and vulnerabilities, or dismiss them as trivial or unimportant. In this way, our partner’s interpretive filter affects how he or she chooses to respond to our disclosures.
Responsiveness can be understood through the words our partner says, how they are said, and when they are said (Davis, 1982; also see Berg, 1987; Burleson, 1994; Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993; Miller & Berg, 1984). For a person’s behavior to be considered responsive, he or she needs to follow a sequence of steps:
1. Listen to the initial disclosure.
2. Understand the superficial meaning conveyed in the words, as well as subtle hidden meanings.
3. Respond in a way that reflects this understanding, perhaps including questions that encourage and draw the other person out.
4. Know whether, when, and how to make the transition to another topic.
Relationship scientists often discuss responsiveness under the broad heading of empathy, the capacity to understand and share another person’s thoughts and feelings (e.g., Winczewski, Bowen, & Collins, 2016). Can you guess which of these four steps proved most difficult for the man in Figure 8.3?
FIGURE 8.3When is support not support? People feel understood, validated, and cared for when their partner is responsive to their disclosures. The intimacy process model outlines this process and identifies where it can go wrong.
As we’ve said, the degree of sensitivity and empathy a partner shows in response to the other partner’s disclosures is guided by the interpretive filter, which is influenced by his or her motives, needs, goals, and fears. The following passage, taken from the book Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden (1998), illustrates how these filters can operate. The passage describes how the main character, Nitta Sayuri, responds to her partner, Iwamura Ken, at the end of his workday. Iwamura Ken is the founder of a large company in Japan, and Nitta Sayuri refers to him as “the Chairman.”
Usually when he first came, the Chairman talked for a time about his workday. He might tell me about troubles with a new product, or about a traffic accident involving a truckload of parts, or some such thing. Of course I was happy to sit and listen, but I understood perfectly well that the Chairman wasn’t telling these things to me because he wanted me to know them. He was clearing them from his mind, just like draining water from a bucket. So I listened closely not to his words, but to the tone of his voice; because in the same way that sound rises as a bucket is emptied, I could hear the Chairman’s voice softening as he spoke. When the moment was right, I changed the subject, and soon we were talking about nothing so serious as business, but about everything else instead, such as what happened to him that morning on the way to work; or something about the film we may have watched a few nights earlier. . . . In any case, this simple process of first draining the Chairman’s mind and then relaxing him with playful conversation had the same effect water has on a towel that has dried stiffly in the sun. When he first arrived and I washed his hands with a hot cloth, his fingers felt rigid, like heavy twigs. After we had talked for a time, they bent as gracefully as if he were sleeping. (p. 422)
The Chairman’s initial disclosure (about stress at work) is filtered through Nitta’s motives, needs, and goals (to comfort and relax him, to show him that she cares about him). In turn, Nitta’s interpretive filter guides her behavioral response (listening closely, not judging or criticizing, gradually shifting the conversation to something besides work). The Chairman’s own interpretive filter determines the impact and meaning of Nitta’s gestures upon him.
According to the intimacy process model, partner responsiveness links self-relevant disclosures to the disclosing person’s feelings of being understood, validated, and cared for. Without responsiveness, this chain breaks, and the intimacy process can break down; with responsiveness, the links in the chain remain connected. However, just as an interpretive filter comes between the initial disclosure and the partner’s response, so, too, does an interpretive filter come between the partner’s response and the discloser’s tendency to experience that response as validating, understanding, and caring. In fact, this may be the most important filter in the intimacy process—because our empathic behaviors will not lead our partner to feel validated, understood, or cared for unless our partner experiences them that way.
Generally speaking, we can expect that kindness and caring, and invalidation and criticism, are experienced in the way they were intended. Unless there’s a strong correspondence between what our partner says and how we respond to it, communication suffers, thereby weakening the relationship. But this correspondence is not always direct or obvious. You’ve probably had the experience of trying valiantly to be responsive to your partner’s needs, only to be rebuffed; even the Chairman might dismiss Nitta’s exquisitely sensitive approach to him by saying, “Can’t you see that I need some time to myself?! Why are you smothering me? Why are you always trying to control me and my feelings?!” And you may have had the opposite experience of mumbling some superficial remark (“When life gives you lemons, honey, make lemonade”), only to be told you are the most insightful and caring partner the world has ever known.
The broader point is that the words we intend to convey are not always synonymous with the words that register with our partner. Interpretive filters are always at work—for better or worse. Sometimes they cause misunderstanding and discontent. Other times they create a smooth connection among important feelings we are trying to communicate to our partner, a compassionate response we might receive in return, and our deepening sense that we are being nurtured within the relationship.
Research Findings on the Process of Intimacy
A wide range of evidence supports the intimacy process model. For example, being in a relationship with a responsive, empathic partner promotes closeness and well-being (Reis & Clark, 2013; Selcuk, Gunaydin, Ong, & Almeida, 2016), while withdrawal and disengagement are particularly harmful to a relationship, especially when one partner is expressing feelings of vulnerability (Christensen & Shenk, 1991; Forest, Kille, Wood, & Holmes, 2014; Roberts, 2000; Schrodt, Witt, & Shimkowski, 2014). The following exchange illustrates this latter idea (Roberts & Greenberg, 2002, p. 138). After a woman expresses her emotional pain from being overweight, her partner pulls back, responding in a way that fails to convey empathy or compassion for her feelings. As you read this exchange, try to infer the interpretations each partner might be making and the conclusions the woman might be drawing about her relationship:
Wife:I’m very insecure. . . . Every time I walk into a room I know they’re talking about me. I know those people are talking about me because I’m fat.
Husband: (no response, 12 seconds, but he looks at her, kindly). So . . .
Wife:I wonder, you know, if people really like me, personally.
Husband:Are you talking about your friends?
Wife:So called.
Husband: (no response, 10 seconds)
Wife: (challenging, flicking a pencil at him) Even you.
When partners withdraw from each other, the connection between a disclosure and feeling understood by the partner is broken. Rather than serving as opportunities for validation and belonging, these moments of poignant disclosure leave the vulnerable partner feeling invalidated and alone. A chance to deepen and strengthen the relationship has been lost. In addition, the person who feels invalidated or hurt may not be terribly inclined to reach out and comfort the person who has caused this pain. When repeated often enough, such exchanges can undermine a relationship—eroding the positive feelings that brought the couple together, until one or both of them concludes that the costs of keeping the relationship going are greater than the benefits received.
More evidence in support of the intimacy process model comes from a diary study in which husbands and wives from 96 married couples reported on their daily conversations for 42 days. Increased self-disclosure predicted better perceived partner responsiveness, which in turn predicted stronger feelings of closeness (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Rovine, 2005; also see Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998; Lippert & Prager, 2001). An observational study—in which breast cancer patients and their intimate partners rated the levels of disclosure, partner responsiveness, and closeness experienced while discussing important relationship issues—showed similar results (Manne et al., 2004).
Finally, the benefits of having a responsive partner extend beyond feelings of closeness to how well patients recover from serious medical problems. For example, when one person is in severe physical pain—in this case, due to arthritis in the knee—the degree of correspondence between his or her daily verbal expressions of pain and the partner’s displays of empathy and affection predicted how quickly the patient was able to get up and move about, regardless of how happy he or she was in general in the relationship (Wilson, Martire, & Sliwinski, 2017).
What about the motives, needs, goals, and fears that play such a big role in the intimacy process model? Do they affect partners’ disclosures and the ways they interpret each other’s actions? Growing evidence suggests they do. For example, Asian Americans are more reluctant than European Americans to disclose their need for support from their partners, out of concern that this will burden the partner or cause embarrassment (Kim, Sherman, & Taylor, 2008). Perhaps as a result, Asian Americans perceive the support they do receive as less helpful (Wang, Shih, Hu, Louie, & Lau, 2010).
Experimental studies further clarify how the intimacy process operates in relationships. Participants in one study who rated themselves as either high or low in self-esteem were all told they had failed a standardized achievement test. Half the people in each group were then instructed to disclose this failure in a videotaped message to their dating partner (Cameron, Holmes, & Vorauer, 2009). Those who had low self-esteem felt less valued by their partner if they made the disclosure, but more valued by their partner if they concealed it. The exact opposite pattern emerged for those with higher self-esteem: they felt more valued by the partner after making the disclosure than after concealing it. Disclosure is not a uniformly beneficial experience, it seems, especially if somebody with low self-esteem has to reveal some personal shortcoming. As we’ve discussed, partners of individuals with low self-esteem have to work quite hard to overcome their mates’ overly pessimistic interpretive filters if they are to convey their understanding and support (Shallcross, Howland, Bemis, Simpson, & Frazier, 2011).
MAIN POINTS
Relationship maintenance involves all the ways partners keep their relationship strong, prevent it from deteriorating, and work to improve it when problems arise.
Disclosures are essential to relationship maintenance. To ensure the stability and quality of their relationship, partners must share their thoughts and have open exchanges about issues that matter to them.
The intimacy process model states that a healthy relationship requires partners to share their inner experiences, to respond with interest and compassion, and to recognize these responses as sympathetic gestures.
According to the intimacy process model, a person feels understood, validated, and cared for to the extent that the partner responds to disclosures with genuine empathy and concern.
Approaching intimacy as an interactive process provides a basis for identifying a range of specific strategies people use to maintain their relationships.
A framework that describes intimacy in terms of disclosures and responses to those disclosures that serve to deepen or weaken feelings of understanding, validation, and caring in a committed relationship.
A key component of the intimacy process model that involves how partners understand each other’s disclosures and responses; sensitive, empathic interpretations increase feelings of closeness and intimacy, whereas critical or dismissive interpretations can threaten these feelings.
