09/09

Relationship Initiation: Lecture Notes

• Source content centers on how relationships begin through rituals, signals of availability, and responsive dynamics.

• Frameworks covered include:

  • Dating rituals and initiation processes

  • Components of initiation

  • Interdependence Theory (Social Exchange Theory)

  • Responsiveness and the Intimacy Process Model

• Real-world relevance includes implications for explaining dating behavior, friendship formation, and how closeness develops over time.

• Key researchers cited include Aron, Thibaut & Kelley, Collins & Miller, Kurtz & Algoe, Zeevi, Pfaus, Bradbury & Karney, Muise, Murray, Slatcher & Selcuk, Farrell, Reis & Patrick, and Reis & Shaver.

Non-Human Example and In-Class Activities

• A non-human example is mentioned under NETFLIX as an illustrative comparison (suggests rituals can be observed outside human contexts).

• In Class Activity prompts:

  • Describe an example of how rituals play a role in humans’ relationship initiation.

  • How does this ritual facilitate or obstruct dating?

  • Does the example impact a particular population? Is the ritual universal or population-specific (e.g., by gender, age)?

Rituals in Relationship Initiation

• Central question: U up?

• Rituals function as signaling devices early in dating to signal availability and interest, shaping subsequent engagement.

Relationship Initiation Process

• First moves are important for signaling availability and interest.

• Step 1: Attraction

• Step 2: Mutual Mate Selection

• Proceptivity: nonverbal, anticipatory behaviors indicating interest.

• Key elements:

  • Noticing desirable qualities in the other

  • Decreasing attention to alternatives as commitment grows

Behavioral Synchrony and Attunement

• Behavioral Synchrony: tendency for attracted individuals to unconsciously mimic each other’s movements and gestures.

• Attunement: sequential adjustment to partner’s behavior.

• Empirical findings:

  • Shared laughter predicts relationship quality and closeness (Kurtz & Algoe, 2015).

  • Synchrony also observed in physiological contexts: electrodermal activity during a date correlates with mutual romantic interest (Zeevi et al., 2022).

  • Endocrine context: mutual releases in oxytocin (Pfaus et al., 2023).

Need for Initiation

• For some types of relationships, initiation effort can be minimal.

• Initiation is needed for friendships and romantic relationships.

• Regardless of relationship formation, mere existence of a relationship does not guarantee closeness.

Closeness in Relationship Science

• Closeness = greater interdependence: thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are more intertwined between partners.

• Definition framework: extent to which each partner’s behaviors affect the outcomes of the other (Aron et al., 1992).

Interdependence Theory (Social Exchange Theory)

• Core idea: people become close when rewards of interacting outweigh costs.

• Evaluations are influenced by:

  • Comparison Level (CL): what we expect from our relationship

  • Comparison Level for Alternatives (CL-alt): what we expect we could get elsewhere

• Foundational citation: Thibaut & Kelley (1959).

• The basic outcome model:

  • \text{OUTCOME} = \text{Rewards} - \text{Costs}

  • \text{SATISFACTION} = \text{Outcome} - \text{CL}

  • \text{DEPENDENCE} = \text{Outcome} - \text{CL-alt}

Comparison Level (CL) and CL-Alt

• CL: high CL means higher expectations; low CL means lower expectations. These expectations derive from past experiences and influence satisfaction.

• CL-alt: evaluates how many alternative relationships you believe you could have; high CL-alt implies greater perceived options, leading to greater dependence on the current relationship;

  • The question often asked: "Do you think you have any other options?"

  • Higher CL-alt suggests you feel you could do better elsewhere; lower CL-alt suggests you think you’re with the best available option (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).

• Notation recap (Interdependence Theory):

  • OUTCOME = Rewards − Costs

  • SATISFACTION = Outcome − CL

  • DEPENDENCE = Outcome − CL-alt

Interdependence Theory Outcomes and Relationship States

• A schematic often shown (Bradbury & Karney, 2024) maps SATISFACTION and DEPENDENCE to relationship states:

  • High Satisfaction + High Dependence can align with attracted and mutually committed relationships; otherwise may form an "empty shell" or dissolved pair if dependencies are misaligned.

  • The diagram typically includes states like: high satisfaction with low dependence; high satisfaction with high dependence; low satisfaction with low dependence; etc.

An Interdependent View of Closeness: Utilities and Limitations

• Useful for:

  • Thinking about what kinds of relationships exist in our lives

  • Determining which relationships matter to us

  • Understanding how relationships influence our emotions

• Limitations:

  • Does not explain how perceptions of rewards/costs change over time

  • Does not explain HOW closeness is achieved

How Do We Become Close?

• Self-disclosure: sharing information between partners.

• Dimensions of breadth and depth in self-disclosure.

• Disclosure Reciprocity: responding to someone’s personal disclosure by immediately revealing something equally personal.

• Initiation vs. later stages: high levels of self-disclosure during initiation, then levels tend to plateau.

• General tendency: we tend to like those who disclose to us and vice versa (Collins & Miller, 1994).

Why Do We Become Close? The Role of Responsiveness

• Closeness thrives when partners are responsive:

  • Responsiveness from others validates, understands, and cares for us.

• Non-contingent vs. contingent responsiveness:

  • Non-contingent responsiveness:

  • Indicates care to the recipient

  • Driven by recipient need rather than provider need

  • Enhances the recipient’s sense of security and inclusion (Clark & Beck, 2011; Clark, Beck, & Aragón, 2019)

  • Contingent responsiveness:

  • May question the provider’s care for both recipient and provider

  • Can create aversive feelings of indebtedness

  • Requires difficult record-keeping (often biased in favor of the provider) (Clark & Beck, 2011; Clark, Beck, & Aragón, 2019)

• Responsiveness outcomes (perceived responsiveness predicts):

  • Personal & sexual well-being (Muise et al., 2023)

  • Willingness to display vulnerability (Murray et al., 2006)

  • Decreases in anxiety and loneliness (Slatcher & Selcuk, 2017)

  • Physical and mental health (Farrell et al., 2023)

What Is Responsiveness? Encoding and Perception

• Responsiveness involves encoding responsiveness: the interpretation of another’s response.

The Intimacy Process Model (Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988) ********

• Core idea: intimacy evolves through a process where A’s motives/needs/fears interact with B’s interpretive filter and responses.

• Simplified model (Page 29–33 visuals):

  • A’s motives, needs, goals, and fears influence A’s disclosure or self-relevant expression.

  • B’s interpretive filter interprets A’s disclosure and elicits B’s motives, needs, goals, and fears.

  • B’s emotional and behavioral response follows.

  • A’s reaction to B’s response determines whether the partner feels understood, validated, and cared for.

• Key references: Reis & Patrick (1996); Reis & Shaver (1988).

• Additional framing (Page 31–33):

  • The interpretive filter shapes whether a disclosure leads to felt care and validation.

  • The process is not guaranteed to promote closeness; some disclosures may fail to invite closeness.

Think, Pair, Share Exercise

• Prompted consideration of how introversion vs. extraversion may influence the Intimacy Process Model:

  • A’s motives, needs, goals, and fears

  • A’s disclosure

  • B’s interpretive filter and B’s motives, needs, goals, and fears

  • B’s emotional and behavioral response

  • A’s reaction to B’s response

  • Questions of felt understanding, validation, and care

Wrap-Up and Implications

• Rituals are common in initiating romantic relationships; some work better than others.

• The pursuit of closeness centers on responsiveness and the degree of self-disclosure.

• Personality and other individual differences can influence initiation and responsiveness processes.

Course Reminders

• QT due Wednesday at 8:00pm.

• Guiding Question: Is dating the same for everyone?

Summary of Core Concepts (Quick Reference)

• Initiation Signals and Proceptivity: signaling availability and interest through nonverbal cues; attention to alternatives diminishes as mutual interest grows.

• Behavioral Synchrony and Attunement: mimicry and sequential adjustment; physiologic synchrony linked to attraction.

• Interdependence Theory basics:

  • OUTCOME = Rewards − Costs

  • SATISFACTION = Outcome − CL

  • DEPENDENCE = Outcome − CL-alt

• Closeness as Interdependence: greater interdependence and mutual influence as a marker of closeness.

• CL and CL-alt: expectations about the relationship and perceived alternatives shape satisfaction and dependence.

• Responsiveness and its types:

  • Non-contingent vs Contingent responsiveness

  • Positive outcomes: well-being, vulnerability, reduced anxiety

• The Intimacy Process Model: A’s disclosure, B’s interpretive filter, B’s response, and A’s reaction determine felt understanding, validation, and care.

Key Citations (for quick reference)

• Aron, Fisher, and colleagues on closeness and interdependence (Aron et al., 1992).

• Thibaut & Kelley (1959) on Interdependence Theory and CL/CL-alt.

• Collins & Miller (1994) on disclosure reciprocity.

• Kurtz & Algoe (2015) on shared laughter and relationship quality.

• Zeevi et al. (2022) on electrodermal activity and dating.

• Pfaus et al. (2023) on oxytocin in romantic contexts.

• Bradbury & Karney (2024) on interdependence framing and relationship outcomes.

• Muise et al. (2023); Murray et al. (2006); Slatcher & Selcuk (2017); Farrell et al. (2023) on responsiveness outcomes.

• Reis & Patrick (1996); Reis & Shaver (1988) on the Intimacy Process Model.