Cognition, Communication, and Romantic Relationships

James M. Honeycutt, James G. Cantrill

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781135658571
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Cognition, Communication, and Romantic Relationships focuses on the role of memory, communication, and social cognition in the development of romantic relationships. The authors review developmental models of communication and examine criticisms of these models. They also explore the stages through which relationships escalate and deteriorate, and consider the processes for such activities as meeting new people, dating, sexual intercourse, and terminating relationships. Differences between men and women are discussed throughout the text, in light of current research supporting systematic gender differences in how people think about romance and relationships. As an extended analysis and research review of how thinking about romance influences and is influenced by communicative processes, this text offers a deeper understanding of the cognitive and communicative factors involved in relationship processes. It is designed for use in courses on interpersonal relationships and intimate relations in social psychology, communication, counseling psychology, clinical psychology, and sociology.

1

The Modern-Day Pursuit of Intimacy and Relational Memory Structures

Courtship can be thought of as a social ritual through which the development of romance manifests itself. At some point, it involves a sorting process for finding appropriate mates, a kind of filtering to determine basic compatibility (Duck, 1977). In this regard, the stimulus-value-role theory of Murstein (1987) suggested that courtship begins as a simple exchange of information involving initial impressions of physical attributes followed by an interpretation of individual values, attitudes, and beliefs about a variety of topics that are of interest to each. Once a similarity is noted, the individuals are categorized and assigned to potential roles such as business acquaintance, tennis partner, colleague who likes the history of Russian composers, or potential lover. Further communication and ritualized behavior provide additional information about the partners’ abilities to function in additional roles in preparation for potential roles as mates or parents.

The concept of interpersonal intimacy in its current form began evolving in 19th century America and Europe, with the development of industrial society. More recently, in the computerized information society, the emphasis has been shifted more to the individual as a reaction to the impersonalization of factory and business life (Gadlin, 1977). This trend has continued and accelerated as the world approaches the 21st century because the majority of people now live in urban environments. In urban society, individuals often gain their primary identity and psychosocial support from personal relationships rather than from their roles in the community.

More recently, individuals have developed relationships in cyberspace through the use of computer web groups for singles and divorcees, chat lines, and correspondence with others through e-mail. Because of the computer revolution, individuals can now work more easily at home via their computers. Working out of the home is a return to the pattern in colonial times when the business was the home, in the form of farms and shops attached to living quarters. The proliferation of computers decreases face-to-face interaction as websites are accessed to find individuals with similar interests. Only time will tell if courtship develops through computer contact, as it has evolved in face-to-face communication. It is certain, however, that such relationships are poor substitutes for having the ability to reach out and touch someone.

Courtship developed to promote successful mating. In earlier agrarian societies, a large family was essential to provide farm labor. Consequently, mates were chosen with great care for their potential as partners and parents, and were assessed and tested for their compatibility through the ritualized stages of courtship. According to evolutionary psychologists, these rituals of courtship are learned, defined, and expressed in the context of society and culture because of biological drives for procreation. For example, Fisher (1994) discussed how biochemical processes contribute to the development of romance. Human brain chemistry creates a heightened sense of excitement that people often describe as falling in love or infatuation. Fisher further suggested that the brain physiology and chemistry associated with bonding evolved as part of the human primordial mating system. Her research in various cultures reveals that in societies allowing divorce the most common length of marriage is 4 years. This length of time conforms to the traditional period between successive human births. Fisher proposed that this 4-year cycle is a pattern that evolved as a reproductive strategy to successfully raise a helpless infant.

In addition to human brain physiology, part of the reason for failed relationships is that the stability of contemporary relationships is contingent on positive emotions as the glue for relationship bonding and the reason for a relationship to continue. Commitment to a relationship depends on the ebb and flow of levels of intimacy. However, such has not always been the case in the United States. During the colonial period in the 18th century, intimacy was, at best, the result of the formal relationship rather than the cause of the romantic bond or marriage (Gadlin, 1977). Individuals were admonished to love their spouse even though physical assaults were common. Only later did affection became both the cause and cement of marriage.

In the 20^th century, affection was eroticized, although seen as fleeting and unstable. Stephen (1994) discussed how people think of marriage as a status that symbolizes mutual affection. Affection is necessary for marriage, whereas its erosion is a sufficient reason for divorce. However, Lewis and Spanier (1982) explored temporary high-quality (i.e., high-affection), low-stability marriages that ended in divorce and cited examples of dual-career couples who, after having to relocate in different cities in order to pursue each partner’s career, eventually terminated their relationships. Is something more than simple affection necessary here?

According to Stephen (1994), some other possible causes of divorce are living in a pluralistic society that is saturated with diverse information, lifestyle choices, political interests, and religious values. As a result of pluralism, people construct their realities from diverse sets of resources. An individual’s sense of uniqueness comes from a wide selection and prioritization of informational sources because the information is so diverse and open to contradictory interpretation. For example, the qualities that attract two individuals sometimes become complaints if the relationship starts to sour (Felmlee, 1995). “At first, I thought he was carefree and laid-back. Now, he is indecisive and irresponsible.” This process in which individuals change their evaluations of each other after a time, as opposed to persevering in their initial impressions, is known as cognitive accommodation. Box 1.1 contains sample cognitive beliefs about the qualities that first attract couples to each other that could be restructured later into negative attributions.

Today, each individual’s sense of uniqueness permeates his or her views of the characteristics of an ideal relationship. Research by Wish, Deutsch, and Kaplan (1976) revealed that individuals distinguish communication behaviors (e. g., cooperative versus competitive) among relatively few dimensions that are used to distinguish almost all types of relationships (e.g., personal enemies, husband–wife). In addition, people make different distinctions in their own relationships than in typical or other people’s relationships. For example, cooperation is more important for evaluating typical relationships than for evaluating their own relationships. In evaluating their own relationships, individuals mention fewer hostile relations (e.g., one’s relationship with a lover is mentioned more often than one’s relationship with a bitter enemy). Hostile relations (e.g., business rivals, political opponents, guard–prisoner, supervisor–employee, and interviewer–applicant) are perceived as characterizing other people’s relationships. In essence, people select highly positive relational attributes to construct seemingly ideal life spaces in which they live, learn, and love.

People’s constructions of reality are based on experiences, which also affect their beliefs about the development and decline of romantic relationships. Individuals vary in their expectations of how relationships should develop due to the variety of informational sources that form the foundation for their expectations. In this regard, Staines and Libby (1986) discussed predictive romantic expectations, which are beliefs about behaviors that are expected to occur in a romantic role regardless of one’s desires. Thus, a person who has been spurned before may be more likely to expect this to happen in future relationships than is someone who has not been rejected.

Box 1.1
Cognitive Reframing: Sample Attractions in Couples That Later Evolved into Relationship Complaints

Initial Attribute of Attraction	Evolved Complaint
1. Direct; intelligent	Unfairly critical; given to outbursts
2. Easy going; laid-back	Self-absorbed and indulgent
3. Independent; strong	Has to have own way; selfish
4. Self-confident	Doesn’t respect my wishes and withholds
5. Prudent, wise, and practical	Calm demeanor drives me nuts
6. Masculine; strong	Abusive; we fight
7. Feminine; warm	Hysterical; we fight
8. Good listener	Doesn’t have own opinion
9. Exciting and likes to talk	Restless and doesn’t let me relax
10. I am the center of his/her world	Despicably insecure
11. Open-minded and accepting	Doesn’t give without being asked; no initiation
12. There’s a mystery about him/her	No true intimacy; not completely there

Staines and Libby (1986) also discussed idealistic romantic expectations. These are beliefs reflecting an individual’s desires of what should ideally happen in the role of a lover or spouse. Perhaps not surprisingly, women report more discrepancies between prescriptive and predictive expectations than men do. A common complaint is that wives prefer their husbands to do more household cleaning even though they don’t expect that it will happen. Consequently, women often report lower levels of marital happiness than their husbands (Gottman, 1994; Price & McKenry, 1988). Nonetheless, even in an age of too-often-failed expectations, women and men meet, fall in love, and some even live happily ever after. Why? Symbolic interdependence provides an answer to this question.

SYMBOLIC INTERDEPENDENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS

Long-term relationships provide continuity and confirmation for idiosyncratic beliefs and protection from doubt, loneliness, and ambiguity. Stephen (1994) discussed the idea of individuals sharing conceptions of relationships in terms of symbolic interdependence. This is a type of mental sharing in which individuals share similar beliefs about the world; relational partners react to events in similar ways and derive similar conclusions from information. In symbolic interdependence in couples, Stephen (1994) wrote,

They come to appreciate their unique bond of shared knowledge, perhaps sensing that no alternative relationship can provide as much potential for confirmation and understanding. The process of relationship communication has gradually transformed both partners. It is not that ego has found an alter who can penetrate the self, but that both ego and alter have refashioned themselves (and indeed the rest of their world) through the dialogue of their relationship until they are possessed of a type of self consistent with the relationship world view. The couple creates an interpretive framework and at the same time reinterprets themselves within it. Needless to say, persistently deviant interpretations will be regarded as problematic and effort is likely to be expended in smoothing discrepancies. (p. 197)

These discrepancies can be seen as relational conflicts about behaviors, attitudes, and appropriate performance of romantic roles. If the smoothing does not resolve the discrepancies, the relationship may dissolve. More importantly, the smoothing strategies go into memory and act as a repository of information that may be opened for subsequent relationships. Thus, happy long-term relationships are enhanced when individuals have a shared social reality and relationship worldview. The partners share similar expectations about what constitutes relationship development and those qualities that characterize a satisfying relationship. The sharing of expectations reflects evolving stories that individuals construct as they communicate with each other.

So, it would seem as if the secret to relational bliss is pounded out on the familiar anvil of communication. Yet the mere sharing of expectations and predictions is not enough; the intimate conversations between romantic partners do not get lodged in memory in some pure form. Rather the discourse must become embedded in some form of preexisting mental structure that allows people to separate out irrelevant data, mill the appropriate associations between actions and intents, and forge a stable, shared relational worldview. Thus, relational schemata serve as memory structures that organize relevant information and, ultimately, test the tensile of any romance.

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO RELATIONAL MEMORY STRUCTURES

Duck (1986) suggested that relationships should be regarded as changing mental and behavioral creations of individuals. The time spent alone analyzing future encounters reflects an individual’s use of relational schemata to understand and differentiate among different types of relationships such as distinguishing a casual dating relationship from an exclusive romance. Baldwin (1992) reviewed studies indicating that people develop cognitive structures representing regular patterns of interaction. A relational schema includes an image in which people imagine seeing themselves with someone else.

Individuals have knowledge structures based on memory and experiences that create expectations about what is likely to occur during the course of their lives in different types of relationships. Relationship memory structures are hierarchically ordered on the basis of recall of particular scenes (e.g., meeting an individual for the first time at a specific place) and scripts for behavior embedded within various scenes. Even though relationships are in constant motion, relationship memory structures provide a perceptual anchor with which individuals can determine where they are in a relationship.

Memories about relationships may be functional or dysfunctional. For example, Swann (1987) reviewed research indicating that individuals chose relational partners who verified their self-concepts even if their self-concept at the time was negative. Individuals who had high self-esteem...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Series Editor’s Foreword
• Preface
• Chapter 1 The Modern-Day Pursuit of Intimacy and Relational Memory Structures
• Chapter 2 Schemata, Scenes, and Scripts for Romantic Relationships
• Chapter 3 Memorable Messages, Prototypes, and Relational Memory
• Chapter 4 Emotion and Cognition About Relationships
• Chapter 5 Generating and Maintaining Relationships Through Imagined Interactions
• Chapter 6 Development of Relationships: Stage Theories Versus Relational Memory Theory
• Chapter 7 Memory Structures for Developing Relationships
• Chapter 8 Memory Structures for Decaying Relationships
• Chapter 9 Semantics of Breakups: Claims of Omission and Commission
• Chapter 10 Future Research on Relational Memory Structures
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index