Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-4ws75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T21:31:14.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Communication: Basic Properties and Their Relevance to Relationship Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2026

By
Alan L. Sillars  and
Anita L. Vangelisti
Edited by
Anita L. Vangelisti ,
Daniel Perlman  and
Susan Sprecher
Anita L. Vangelisti
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Daniel Perlman
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Susan Sprecher
Affiliation:
Illinois State University
Get access

Summary

The current chapter focuses on basic properties of communication that inform the ways that the study of communication and the study of relationships intersect. These properties include interdependence (the idea that messages simultaneously influence and are influenced by messages that precede and follow them), reflexivity (the notion that communication creates and is constrained by structure), complexity (the concept that communication conveys multiple messages and functions at different levels of analysis), ambiguity (the notion that any given message has various meanings), and indeterminancy (the idea that messages can have multiple and diverse outcomes on relationships). Research on relationship narratives, message features, multiple goals, and message processing, among other topics, is reviewed and challenges for researchers who study communication and relationships are discussed.

Keywords

communicationinteraction patternsinterdependencereflexivity, complexityambiguityindeterminancy

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , pp. 350 - 372
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2026

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Afifi, W. A., & Tikkanen, S. (2021). The theory of motivated information management: Struggles with uncertainty and its outcomes. In Braithwaite, D. O. & Schrodt, P. (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 102–114). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003195511-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aloia, L. S., & Solomon, D. H. (2015). Conflict intensity, family history, and physiological stress reactions to conflict within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 367–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, I., Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 107–160). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60371-8Google Scholar
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001Google Scholar
Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Ballantine. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226924601.001.0001Google Scholar
Baucom, B. R., McFarland, P. T., & Christensen, A. (2010). Gender, topic, and time in observed demand–withdraw interaction in cross- and same-sex couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(3), 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, J. B. (2021). Pragmatics of human communication 50 years later. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 40(2), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.2021.40.2.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, J. B. (2022). Face-to-face dialogue: Theory, research, and applications. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190913366.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovill, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Sage.Google Scholar
Baxter, L. A. (1987). Symbols of relationship identity in relationship cultures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(3), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540758700400302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, L. A. (2004). Distinguished scholar article: Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00068.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Baxter, L. A., Scharp, K. M., & Thomas, L. J. (2021). Relational dialectics theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, C. R. (2020). Planning strategic interaction: Attaining goals through communicative action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003064190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, C. R., Gardner, R. R., Clatterbuck, G. W., & Schulman, L. S. (1976). Perceptions of information sequencing in relationship development. Human Communication Research, 3(1), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00502.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigelow, A. E., & Power, M. (2022). Influences of infants’ and mothers’ contingent vocal responsiveness on young infants’ vocal social bids in the Still Face Task. Infant Behavior and Development, 69, 101776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2022.101776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, L., Haase, C. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2014). Emotion regulation predicts marital satisfaction: More than a wives’ tale. Emotion, 14(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034272CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonard, C. (2024). Underdeterminacy without ostension: A blind spot in the prevailing models of communication. Mind & Language, 39(2), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bortfeld, H., & Gabouer, A. (2022). Infant communication. In Vangelisti, A. L. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (3rd ed., pp. 221–232). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003043423-20Google Scholar
Bruess, C. J. S., & Pearson, J. C. (1997). Interpersonal rituals in marriage and adult friendship. Communication Monographs, 64(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759709376403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291700030555Google Scholar
Buehlman, K., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. (1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5(3–4), 295–318. https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-3200.5.3-4.295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burleson, B. R., Metts, S., & Kirch, M. W. (2000). Communication in close relationships. In Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. S. (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 245–258). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452220437.n18Google Scholar
Butauski, M., & Horstman, H. K. (2020). Parents’ retrospective storytelling of their child’s coming out: Investigating contributions of communicated perspective-taking in relation to well-being. Journal of Family Communication, 20(4), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2020.1794872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caton, N. R., & Horan, S. M. (2023). Deceptive affection is strategically expressed under relational threat – but not towards partners with low mate value. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(8), 2512–2537. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231152909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappella, J. N. (1987). Interpersonal communication: Fundamental questions and issues. In Berger, C. R. & Chaffee, S. H. (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 184–238). Sage.Google Scholar
Cappella, J. N. (1988). Personal relationships, social relationships, and patterns of interaction. In Duck, S. W. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 325–342). Wiley.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, M. E., de Miranda Justo, J. M. R., Gratier, M., & da Silva, H. M. F. R. (2019). The impact of maternal voice on the fetus: A systematic review. Current Women’s Health Reviews, 15(3), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573404814666181026094419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughlin, J. P. (2010). A multiple goals theory of personal relationships: Conceptual integration and program overview. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(6), 824–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510373262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughlin, J. P., & Goldsmith, D. J. (2022). Difficult family subjects: Disclosing, avoiding, assuming, and hinting. In Vangelisti, A. L. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (3rd ed., pp. 297–311). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003043423-26Google Scholar
Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1999). Desire for change in one’s partner as a predictor of the demand/withdraw pattern of marital communication. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 66–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2009). Why people conceal or reveal secrets: A multiple goals perspective. In Afifi, T. & Afifi, W. (Eds.), Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications (pp. 279–299). Routledge.Google Scholar
Caughlin, J. P., & Wilson, S. R. (2021). Multiple goals theories: From message production to evaluation. In Braithwaite, D. O. & Schrodt, P. (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 52–63). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003195511-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1979). Topoi and rhetorical competence. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637909383470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., & Gill, V. T. (2023). Conversation analysis. In Handford, M. & Gee, J. P. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 67–84). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035244-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colvin, C. R., Vogt, D. S., & Ickes, W. (1997). Why do friends understand each other better than strangers do? In Ickes, W. (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 169–193). Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.32617/1040-65f230b16f51cGoogle Scholar
Crapolicchio, E., Regalia, C., Bernardo, G. A. D., & Cinquegrana, V. (2021). The role of relational dependence, forgiveness, and hope on the intention to return with an abusive partner. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(9), 2474–2493. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211011546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00166.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crenshaw, A. O., Leo, K., Christensen, A., Hogan, J. N., Baucom, K. J., & Baucom, B. R. (2021). Relative importance of conflict topics for within-couple tests: The case of demand/withdraw interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(3), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000782CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crowley, J. L., High, A. C., Kotowski, M. R., & McCarty, D. N. (2023). Conflicting goals when seeking support for mental health concerns: Testing a stigma support activation model. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231213129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, D., & Whiting, G. C. (1972). An approach to communication theory: Toward consensus on rules. Journal of Communication, 22(3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1972.tb00149.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, K. (1976). Interpersonal communication. Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/c2013-0-05690-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, N. (1970). Rules of conduct and the study of deviant behavior: Some notes on the social relationship. In McCall, G., McCall, M., Denzin, N., Suttles, G., & Kurth, S. (Eds.), Social relationships (pp. 62–94). Aldine. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203791493-3Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Schmidt, A. (2021). How shared meanings and uses emerge over an interactional history: Wabi Sabi in a series of theater rehearsals. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duck, S. (1995). Talking relationships into being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(4), 535–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407595124006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duck, S. (2002). Hypertext in the key of G: Three types of “history” as influences on conversational structure and flow. Communication Theory, 12(1), 41–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/12.1.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duck, S., Rutt, D. J., Hurst, M. H., & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18(2), 228–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00545.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duck, S. W., & Pond, K. (1988). Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your retrospective data: Rhetoric and reality in personal relationships. In Hendrick, C. (Ed.), Review of social psychology and personality, Vol. 10: Close relationships (pp. 3–27). Sage.Google Scholar
Duncan, S., & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-face interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315660998Google Scholar
Dunlop, W. L., Bühler, J. L., Maghsoodi, A., Harake, N., Wilkinson, D., & McAdams, D. P. (2021). The stories couples live by. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(2), 690–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520969900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erbert, L. A., & Duck, S. W. (1997). Rethinking satisfaction in personal relationships from a dialectical perspective. In Sternberg, R. J. & Hojjat, M. (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 190–217). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Faure, R., Righetti, F., Seibel, M., & Hofmann, W. (2018). Speech is silver, nonverbal behavior is gold: How implicit partner evaluations affect dyadic interactions in close relationships. Psychological Science, 29(11), 1731–1741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618785899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, G. J. O. (2015). Accuracy and bias of judgements in romantic relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415571664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster Campbell, J. (2022). Rules for mediated romance: A digital exploration of how couples negotiate expectations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(3), zmac007. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac007Google Scholar
Frentz, T. S., & Farrell, T. B. (1976). Language-action: A paradigm for communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62(4), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637609383348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, D. M. (2012). The narrative construction of intimacy and affect in narrative stories: Implications for relationship quality, stability, and mental health. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512454463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasiorek, J. (2022). Present-future self-continuity and intergenerational communication as predictors of young adults’ evaluations of older adults and attitudes toward aging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(4), 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x211068539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., Edwards, A. L., & Walther, J. B. (2023). Communication accommodation theory: Past accomplishments, current trends, and future prospects. Language Sciences, 99, 101571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., & Gasiorek, J. (2010). Intergenerational communication practices. In Schaie, K. W. & Willis, S. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (7th ed., pp. 231–245). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-380882-0.00015-2Google Scholar
Goldsmith, D. J., & Baxter, L. A. (1996). Constituting relationships in talk: A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 23(1), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00388.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottman, J. M. (1982). Temporal form: Toward a new language for describing relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44(4), 943–962. https://doi.org/10.2307/351456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/353438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, J., Ward, J. A., Buccheri, F., Oliver, D., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2020). Are you on my wavelength? Interpersonal coordination in dyadic conversations. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 44, 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00320-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyman, R. E. (2001). Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.13.1.5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmberg, D. Orbuch, T. L., & Veroff, J. (2004). Thrice-told tales: Married couples tell their stories. Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609359Google Scholar
Hopper, R. (1981). The taken-for-granted. Human Communication Research, 7(3), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1981.tb00569.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, R., Knapp, M. L., & Scott, L. (1981). Couples’ personal idioms: Exploring intimate talk. Journal of Communication, 31(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01201.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hou, Y., Benner, A. D., Kim, S. Y., Chen, S., Spitz, S., Shi, Y., & Beretvas, T. (2020). Discordance in parents’ and adolescents’ reports of parenting: A meta-analysis and qualitative review. American Psychologist, 75(3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000463CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hullman, G. A., Weigel, D. J., & Brown, R. D. (2023). How conversational goals predict sexual self-disclosure decisions. The Journal of Sex Research, 60(7), 1068–1080. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2035310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ickes, W. (2003). Everyday mind reading: Understanding what other people think and feel. Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. (2002). Language and interpersonal communication. In Knapp, M. L. & Daly, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 213–239). Sage.Google Scholar
Janssen, L. H., Verkuil, B., van Houtum, L. A., Wever, M. C., & Elzinga, B. M. (2021). Perceptions of parenting in daily life: Adolescent–parent differences and associations with adolescent affect. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50, 2427–2443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01489-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanter, J. B., Lavner, J. A., Lannin, D. G., Hilgard, J., & Monk, J. K. (2022). Does couple communication predict later relationship quality and dissolution? A meta‐analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(2), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellermann, K. (1992). Communication: Inherently strategic and primarily automatic. Communication Monographs, 59(3), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig Kellas, J. (2022). Communicated narrative sense-making theory: Bridging storytelling, relationships, and well-being. In Braithwaite, D. O. & Schrodt, P. (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 117–129). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003195511-11Google Scholar
Koenig Kellas, J., & Trees, A. R. (2022). Family stories and storytelling: Windows into the family soul. In Vangelisti, A. L. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (3rd ed., pp. 359–373). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003043423-30Google Scholar
Koenig‐Zores, C., Davy‐Monteil, M., Vincent, V., Astruc, D., Meyer, N., & Kuhn, P. (2021). Very preterm infants displayed similar imitation skills to full‐term infants at term equivalent age. Acta Paediatrica, 110(12), 3237–3245. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.16093CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koops, C., & Lohmann, A. (2022). Explaining reversible discourse marker sequences: A case study of and and so. Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBuda, J. E., & Gere, J. (2023). A meta-analytic review of accuracy and bias in romantic partner perceptions. Psychological Bulletin, 149(9–10), 580. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000405CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavelli, M., & Fogel, A. (2013). Interdyad differences in early mother–infant face-to-face communication: Real-time dynamics and developmental pathways. Developmental. Psychology, 49(2), 2257–2271. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032268CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, S. G. (2003). Rejecting illegitimate understandings. In Glenn, P. J., LeBaron, C. D., & Mandelbaum, J. (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 195–205). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606969-17Google Scholar
Lemay, E. P., & Clark, M. S. (2015). Motivated cognition in relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 72–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, K., Crenshaw, A. O., Hogan, J. N., Bourne, S. V., Baucom, K. J., & Baucom, B. R. (2021). A replication and extension of the interpersonal process model of demand/withdraw behavior: Incorporating subjective emotional experience. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(4), 534. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000802CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malis, R. S., & Roloff, M. E. (2006). Demand–withdraw patterns in serial arguments: Implications for well-being. Human Communication Research, 32(2), 198–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00009.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEwan, B. (2021). Modality switching to modality weaving: Updating theoretical perspectives for expanding media affordances. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1880958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, R., & Sillars, A. L. (2014). Hurtful episodes in parent–adolescent relationships: How accounts and attributions contribute to the difficulty of talking about hurt. Human Communication Research, 81(3), 359–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.933244Google Scholar
McNulty, J. K., Baker, L. R., & Olson, M. A. (2014). Implicit self-evaluations predict changes in implicit partner evaluations. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1649–1657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614537833CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2021). How both partners’ individual differences, stress, and behavior predict change in relationship satisfaction: Extending the VSA model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(27), e2101402118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101402118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2010). When “negative” behaviors are positive: A contextual analysis of the long-term effects of problem-solving behaviors on changes in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPhee, R. D. (1998). Giddens’ conception of personal relationships and its relevance to communication theory. In Conville, R. L. & Rogers, L. E. (Eds.), Meaning of “relationship” in interpersonal communication (pp. 83–106). Praeger. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798400683992.ch-005Google Scholar
Motley, M. T. (1990). On whether one can(not) not communicate: An examination via traditional communication postulates. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319009374322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1994). Storytelling in close relationships: The construction of confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294206004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, T. P., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2020). When poor communication does and does not matter: The moderating role of stress. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(6), 676–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northrup, J. B., & Iverson, J. M. (2020). The development of mother–infant coordination across the first year of life. Developmental Psychology, 56(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000867CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogolsky, B. G., & Stafford, L. (2023). A systematic review of relationship maintenance: Reflecting back and looking to the future. Personal Relationships, 30(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J .O., Simpson, J. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). Regulating partners in intimate relationships: The costs and benefits of different communication strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 620–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012961CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parks, M. R. (1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication: Off the couch and into the world. In Burgoon, M. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 79–107). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1981.11923840Google Scholar
Pellegrini, R. J., & Empey, J. (1970). Interpersonal spatial orientation in dyads. Journal of Psychology, 76(1), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1970.9916821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planalp, S. (1993). Friends’ and acquaintances’ conversations II: Coded differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(3), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407593103003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planalp, S., & Garvin-Doxas, K. (1994). Using mutual knowledge in conversation: Friends as experts on each other. In Duck, S. (Ed.), Dynamics of relationships (pp. 1–26). Sage.Google Scholar
Rauch-Anderegg, V., Kuhn, R., Milek, A., Halford, W. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2020). Relationship behaviors across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 41(4), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x19878864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor – A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139173865.012Google Scholar
Redlick, M. H., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2018). Affection, deception, and evolution: Deceptive affectionate messages as mate retention behaviors. Evolutionary Psychology, 16(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704917753857CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roaché, D., Caughlin, J., Wang, N., & Pusateri, K. (2020). The presence of a mobile phone does not (necessarily) change the fundamental processes of face-to-face relational conflict. Human Communication & Technology, 1(2), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.17161/hct.v1i2.13308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, L. E. (1998) The meaning of relationship in relational communication. In Conville, R. L. & Rogers, L. E. (Eds.), The meaning of “relation-ship” in interpersonal communication (pp. 69–81). Praeger. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798400683992.ch-004Google Scholar
Rogers, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1988). Relational communication. In Duck, S. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 289–305). Wiley.Google Scholar
Roloff, M. E., & Chiles, B. W. (2011). Interpersonal conflict: Recent trends. In Knapp, M. L. & Daly, J. A. (Eds), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 423–442). Sage.Google Scholar
Rubin, B. D. (1978). Communication and conflict: A system-theoretic perspective. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64(2), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637809383425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1951). The social matrix of psychiatry. Norton. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271625127800158Google Scholar
Scharp, K. M., Seiter, J. S., & Maughan, M. (2020). “My mom always tells that story to friends and relatives”: Exploring the phenomenon of other-presentation. Journal of Family Communication, 20(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2020.1739689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014). A meta-analytical review of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 28–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.813632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, A. M. (2023). A longitudinal examination of enacted goal attention in end-of-life communication in families. Communication Research, 50(8), 1044–1075. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211058040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, A. M., & Caughlin, J. P. (2014). Enacted goal attention in family conversations about end-of-life health decisions. Communication Monographs, 81(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.925568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139173438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillars, A. L. (2011). Motivated misunderstanding in family conflict discussions. In Smith, J. L., Ickes, W., Hall, J., & Hodges, S. (Eds.), Managing interpersonal sensitivity: Knowing when – and when not – to understand others (pp. 193–213). Nova Science.Google Scholar
Sillars, A. L., Pett, R. C., Canary, D. J., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2022). Conflict and relational quality in families. In Vangelisti, A. L. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (3rd ed., pp. 312–329). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003043423-27Google Scholar
Sillars, A., Roberts, L. J., Leonard, K. E., & Dun, T. (2000). Cognition during marital conflict: The relationships of thought and talk. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(4–5), 479–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500174002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillars, A., Smith, T., & Koerner, A. (2010). Misattributions contributing to empathic (in)accuracy in parent–adolescent conflict discussions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(6), 727–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510373261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Love stories. Personal Relationships, 3(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00104.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, E. (2004). Black sheep and kissing cousins: How our family stories shape us. Transaction. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351320924Google Scholar
Street, R. L., Jr., & Cappella, N. (1985). Sequence and pattern in communicative behavior: A model and commentary. In Street, R. L., Jr., & Cappella, J. N. (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behavior (pp. 243–276). Edward Arnold. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500013403Google Scholar
Surra, C. A., & Ridley, C. (1991). Multiple perspectives on interaction: Participants, peers, and observers. In Montgomery, B. M. & Duck, S. W. (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 35–55). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Templeton, E. M., Chang, L. J., Reynolds, E. A., Cone LeBeaumont, M. D., & Wheatley, T. (2022). Fast response times signal social connection in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(4), e2116915119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116915119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315135007Google Scholar
Thomas, G., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (1997). Empathic accuracy in close relationships. In Ickes, W. (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 194–217). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Family secrets: Forms, functions, and correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(1), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407594111007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangelisti, A. L., Crumley, L., & Baker, J. (1999). Family portraits: Stories as standards for family relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(3), 335–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407599163004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangelisti, A. L., Maguire, K. C., Alexander, A. L., & Clark, G. (2007). Hurtful family environments: Links with individual, relationship, and perceptual variables. Communication Monographs, 74(3), 357–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701543477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Egeren, L. A., Barratt, M. S., & Roach, M. A. (2001). Mother–infant responsiveness: Timing, mutual regulation, and interactional context. Developmental Psychology, 37(5), 684–697. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.37.5.684CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verstaen, A., Haase, C. M., Lwi, S. J., & Levenson, R. W. (2020). Age-related changes in emotional behavior: Evidence from a 13-year longitudinal study of long-term married couples. Emotion, 20(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000551CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voegtline, K. M., Costigan, K. A., Pater, H. A., & DiPietro, J. A. (2013). Near-term fetal response to maternal spoken voice. Infant Behavior and Development, 36(4), 526–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.05.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. Braziller.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. Norton.Google Scholar
Weakland, J. (1976). Communication theory and clinical change. In Guerin, P. (Ed.), Family therapy: Theory and practice (pp. 111–128). Gardner.Google Scholar
Weber, D. M., Fischer, M. S., Baucom, D. H., Baucom, B. R., Engl, J., Thurmaier, F., Wojda, A. K., & Hahlweg, K. (2021). Escalation and regulation of emotional arousal in couples predicts relationship satisfaction concurrently and 25 years later. Family Process, 60(1), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, S. R. (2002). Seeking and resisting compliance: Why people say what they do when trying to influence others. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S. R., & Sabee, C. M. (2003). Explicating communicative competence as a theoretical term. In Greene, J. O. & Burleson, B. R. (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 3–50). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607133-7Google Scholar
Wynn, C. J., & Borrie, S. A. (2022). Classifying conversational entrainment of speech behavior: An expanded framework and review. Journal of Phonetics, 94, 101173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2022.101173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×