Unit Three: Interpersonal Communication in Action Eric L. Morgan and Greg G. Armfield What Is Interpersonal Communication? Communication between a customer and a salesperson, a doctor and a patient, a mother and a daughter, two partners who are in a fight, two partners who are in love, two friends talking on a park bench who join in conversation with a third friend who stops by and sits down, an e-mail from a soldier to his girlfriend. All these scenarios are examples of interpersonal communication. Scholar Brant Burleson (2010) defines  interpersonal communication  as “a complex, situated social process in which people who have established a communicative relationship exchange messages in an effort to generate shared meanings and accomplish social goals” (p. 151). Burleson (2010) further explains that people form a communicative relationship when “the recipient recognizes the source’s intention to convey an internal state, and the source recognizes the recipient’s intention to interpret” (p. 152). Burleson’s definition of interpersonal communication has several implications. First, Burleson’s definition is different than traditional definitions in that it does not limit interpersonal communication to that which occurs in a face-to-face relationship or a dyadic context where only two people are present. For example, interpersonal communication still occurs over e-mail and phone, and even the presence of other people does not halt interpersonal communication. Second, interpersonal communication is not always effective. In other words, communicators do not always have shared understanding about the intentions and interpretations of messages. This is what makes the study of interpersonal communication so fascinating. Interpersonal scholars are often interested in studying relationships, not because the communication is so good and harmonious but rather to gain an understanding of a problematic issue in a relationship. To learn more about these problems, scholars can focus their study on certain communication episodes such as conflicts, support messages, influence attempts, or expressions of affection. Third, to be in a communicative relationship does not require that one is in a close, intimate relationship. Interpersonal communication can include the study of public, short-term relationships where the interactants do not know each other well (e.g., a grocery clerk and a customer). However, interpersonal scholars have devoted extraordinary time to studying how people communicate in close, intimate relationships given that such relationships impact our well-being so deeply. The goal of this chapter is to explore interpersonal communication scholarship in just one type of relationship—the development and maintenance of romantic relationships. Anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists argue that humans have a fundamental need for social connection and are compelled to form romantic pair bonds (Fisher, 1992; Schmitt, 2008). Th.

1. Unit Three: Interpersonal Communication in Action
Eric L. Morgan and Greg G. Armfield
What Is Interpersonal Communication?
Communication between a customer and a salesperson, a doctor
and a patient, a mother and a daughter, two partners who are in
a fight, two partners who are in love, two friends talking on a
park bench who join in conversation with a third friend who
stops by and sits down, an e-mail from a soldier to his
girlfriend. All these scenarios are examples of interpersonal
communication. Scholar Brant Burleson (2010) defines
interpersonal communication
as “a complex, situated social process in which people who
have established a communicative relationship exchange
messages in an effort to generate shared meanings and
accomplish social goals” (p. 151). Burleson (2010) further
explains that people form a communicative relationship when
“the recipient recognizes the source’s intention to convey an
internal state, and the source recognizes the recipient’s
intention to interpret” (p. 152).
Burleson’s definition of interpersonal communication has
several implications. First, Burleson’s definition is different
than traditional definitions in that it does not limit interpersonal
communication to that which occurs in a face-to-face
relationship or a dyadic context where only two people are
present. For example, interpersonal communication still occurs
over e-mail and phone, and even the presence of other people
does not halt interpersonal communication. Second,
interpersonal communication is not always effective. In other
words, communicators do not always have shared understanding
about the intentions and interpretations of messages. This is

2. what makes the study of interpersonal communication so
fascinating. Interpersonal scholars are often interested in
studying relationships, not because the communication is so
good and harmonious but rather to gain an understanding of a
problematic issue in a relationship. To learn more about these
problems, scholars can focus their study on certain
communication episodes such as conflicts, support messages,
influence attempts, or expressions of affection. Third, to be in a
communicative relationship does not require that one is in a
close, intimate relationship. Interpersonal communication can
include the study of public, short-term relationships where the
interactants do not know each other well (e.g., a grocery clerk
and a customer). However, interpersonal scholars have devoted
extraordinary time to studying how people communicate in
close, intimate relationships given that such relationships
impact our well-being so deeply.
The goal of this chapter is to explore interpersonal
communication scholarship in just one type of relationship—the
development and maintenance of romantic relationships.
Anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists argue that
humans have a fundamental need for social connection and are
compelled to form romantic pair bonds (Fisher, 1992; Schmitt,
2008). The first part of the unit examines partner attributes and
preferences that influence the kinds of people we seek out for
romantic relationships, followed by an analysis of the
communication that occurs in relationship development. Even
though people are drawn toward romantic relationships and have
high hopes for maintaining them, 50% of all first marriages end
in divorce or separation within the first 20 years (Bramlett &
Mosher, 2001; Kreider, 2005), and an even greater percentage
of dating relationships dissolve. Divorce, or the dissolution of
any romantic relationship, can be one of the most serious
stressors a person will face in a lifetime, with the potential to
strain one’s mental and physical health (Segrin & Flora, 2011).
The latter part of the chapter considers how people

3. communicate in an attempt to maintain their romantic
relationships, with a focus on behaviors that promote
relationship well-being.
Section 1: Relationship Initiation and Development
Jeanne Flora
Objectives
· Define interpersonal communication
· Examine individual and contextual factors that influence the
initiation and development of romantic relationships.
· Explore how communication in romantic relationships changes
as relationships develop.
Individual and Contextual Factors
Individual and contextual factors together influence ideas about
romantic relationships and how to communicate in them.
Individual factors include considerations such as a
person’s romantic beliefs, age, and past relationship or family
experiences. For example, teenagers tend to have more idealized
views of romantic relationships (e.g., they are more likely to
believe in love at first sight or that love can overcome all
problems) as compared to adults over 20 (Knox, Schacht, &
Zusman, 1999). As people get older, they also pay less attention
to physical features in their choice of partners, such as whether
the partner is “trendy” or “seductive,” and focus more on
“communal characteristics” like sensitivity, intelligence, and
conventionality (Wood & Brumbaugh, 2009). Further, the
average age of people when they first marry has risen
dramatically in the last several decades. In 1956, the average

4. age at first marriage was 22.5 years for men and 20.1 years for
women in the United States. Comparable averages in 2011 were
28.6 for men and 26.7 for women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).
People are not delaying romantic relationships; they are just
delaying getting married, with many opting instead to cohabit
(i.e., live together) as a prelude to marriage or an alternative to
marriage. Besides age, past relationship experiences influence
readiness for a romantic relationship. When past romantic
relationships have a sense of closure or people can see clear
reasons why the relationship failed, they have an easier time
entering a new relationship (Merolla, Weber, Myers, & Booth-
Butterfield, 2004). Even past or present family relationships are
influential because they often serve as a training school for how
to interact in intimate relationships. For example, adolescents
who have a “reliable alliance” with their parents are more likely
to experience adult romantic relationships characterized by
happiness, friendship, trust, and acceptance (Seiffge-Krenke,
Shulman, & Klessinger, 2001).
Contextual factors refer to sociocultural forces that impact
romantic relationships, for example: media and societal
messages about romantic relationships as well as proximity to
available partners. The media presents both explicit and implicit
messages about how to conduct romantic relationships. For
instance, nearly every issue of Cosmopolitan, and other
magazines of the same genre, provides explicit advice on topics
such as how to communicate better or how to have better sex.
Films and television shows also present messages about
romantic relationships, sometimes portraying romantic
relationships with realism, but often depicting such
relationships as “trivialized, sexualized, oversimplified, and
stereotyped in order to offer audiences tantalizing, humorous,
satirical, or short-term glimpses of dating life” (Segrin & Flora,
2005, p. 104). Although many people interpret dating reality
shows as fictional comedies or fairytales, others, and in
particular children, can be seduced by the implicit messages in

5. such shows that emphasize superficial and sex-related qualities
over important social-psychological qualities (Hestroni, 2000).
Media messages, along with other family and societal messages
and models, shape people’s views about romantic relationships.
Relationship scholar Steven Duck argues that “we do not think
about such cultural underpinnings of our own relationships . . .
because they are hidden parts of the cultural ideology to which
we all unwittingly subscribe” (1998, p. 5). What prompts us to
consider our own relational ideology, besides taking a course
like this, is meeting someone who has a different ideology than
our own. For example, relational ideologies may differ
regarding whether marriages should be arranged or initiated by
individual choice, whether men and women have fluid or set
gender roles, how to deal with conflict, whether having children
is an expectation or not, or whether a good relationship rests on
passion and emotional fulfillment and/ or the ability to support
dependents and uphold religious and family tradition. Even
dating partners who think they come from similar backgrounds
often realize that they have critically different ideas about how
to run a relationship, in part because no two people come from
the same family system.
Arguably, the number one contextual factor that affects one’s
ability to find a partner is proximity. In other words, if one is to
develop a romantic relationship with a person, he or she must
have the opportunity to come into contact with that person. In
addition, the opportunity for repeated interactions (e.g., seeing
a person regularly at work or in a class) allows one to size up a
person over time. Through repeated exposure and interaction,
one may even grow to view a person as a potential partner, even
if one only viewed the person as a friend or colleague at first.
My own grandparents grew up on farms in a small community in
Ohio. My grandmother lived a few farms away from my
grandfather growing up, which allowed them the physical
proximity to meet each other and come into repeated contact.
Today, people can access travel and technological advances that

6. allow them to come into contact with many more people and
even to maintain long-distance relationships. Indeed, a quarter
to half of all university students’ dating relationships are
estimated to be long-distance relationships (Cameron & Ross,
2007; Maguire, 2007). In addition, online dating sites make it
possible for people to meet many more potential partners than
in prior times. Around 25% of single people in the United States
report using an online dating service (Miley, 2009). Online
dating appears to be just as common if not more so among
single people approaching middle age and old age. Traditional-
age university students are already in close physical proximity
to a lot of other single adults, but some middle and older adults,
who have other life factors that limit their exposure to potential
mates, might find appeal in an online service that can increase
their proximity to others—even if it is only online proximity.
Thus, it seems as if people have so many more choices of
potential partners now as compared to past times. Yet, as we
will explore in the next section, people often have very specific
preferences that they desire in a partner, and they must be able
to communicate with that partner in such a way as to develop a
successful relationship. In other words, just being around a lot
of people does not necessarily lead to a relationship. Sometimes
the loneliest people are those who are around a lot of people but
are not able to develop an emotional connection with any of
them.
Partner Attributes and Matching
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2011), there were
112,806,642 people between the ages of 18–44 in the United
States in 2010. This may seem like a lot of potential mates, but
some are already taken; some are too old or young; some you
will never meet; and some may not like you even if you like
them! Plus, most people have some standards and preferences
when it comes to partner attributes. This section explores what
people say they prefer in a mate, keeping in mind that people do
not always act on their preferences.

7. Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, and Larson (2001) conducted a
longitudinal analysis of people’s stated preferences for a mate
at different time periods between 1939 and 1996 in different
regions of the United States. The findings from their analysis
are fascinating because they show how
mate preferences
can transform with time. Buss et al. found that over the course
of their analysis people gradually devalued mate qualities such
as chastity or a woman’s ability to cook and keep house. These
qualities used to be very highly valued and still are by some,
but it’s a shrinking number. Also, both men and women
reported increased preferences for a physically attractive
partner and a partner who has good financial prospects. Thus,
looks matter more now than in the past as does a partner’s
ability to make money—a noted change for women who were
faced with a different set of expectations in prior times. It was
not until 1967 that preferences for a mate with whom one shared
(1) love and (2) mutual attraction entered as the top two mate
preferences, and these two preferences have remained at the top
of the list across more recent time periods (Buss et al.). Why is
it that physical attractiveness has become an increasingly
valued mate quality—and is that good? One reason might be
that people simply come into contact, primarily through media,
with so many more images of physically attractive people now
as compared to the past. Perhaps this tricks the brain into
thinking that there are so many more physically beautiful people
available or exposes people to more images of a collective ideal
that they could try to attain. For sure, the diet, fashion,
cosmetic, and cosmetic surgery industries are happy to take
people’s money in exchange for helping them attain this
collective image. However, it is not as if physical appearance
never mattered in the past. One of human beings’ best senses is
their sense of sight. How someone looks is a primary means by
which we recognize and distinguish people, as compared to
dogs, for example, who recognize people by their smell. While

8. there may be some merit to the adage that “beauty is in the eye
of the beholder,” there is actually considerable consensus across
individuals and, to some extent, across cultures about what
makes for a physically attractive person (Segrin & Flora, 2011).
Body and facial symmetry as well as indicators of good physical
health and youthfulness appear to be universal qualities of
physical attractiveness. These qualities are also noted by
biologists for their connection to reproduction and survival
(Kowner, 2001). Even though men do not bear children, the
survival of children is boosted by men’s ability to contribute to
their care and resources, which often depends on good health
(unless one can trade other resources in exchange for good
looks—like lots of money). Yet even if appearances may attract
people’s attention, Riggio, Widaman, Tucker, and Salinas
(1991) assert that attractiveness is a “multifaceted” concept.
Beyond how someone looks in a still photo, dynamic
expressions and communication abilities can make people
become much more attractive over time in the eye of the
beholder. Thus, if given the chance, an average-looking person
with excellent relational and communication skills may have the
edge after all when compared to a good-looking person who
lacks such skills.
© Pand P Studio/Shutterstock.com
What about another old adage? Do similarities attract? There is
evidence that, more so than chance, people tend to be drawn to
others with whom they are similar on certain social and
psychological characteristics. This tendency is termed
assortative mating
. For example, people tend to match up with others who have
similar levels of education or socioeconomic status. It is not as
if most people explicitly say, “I want to find someone who has a
similar family income and also has a BA degree from a public
university.” Instead, “society is organized so that people of

9. similar class are more likely to come into contact with each
other” (Segrin & Flora, 2011, p. 96). New Mexico State
University (NMSU) students tend to meet other NMSU students.
Harvard students tend to meet other Harvard students. There is
also some evidence for assortative mating for physical
attractiveness (i.e., people of a similar level of attractiveness
matching up), age (i.e., people of a similar age matching up),
race (although the tendency to match on race is decreasing), and
even for some social-psychological traits like gender role
preferences (e.g., pairing with someone with whom you share
traditional or egalitarian views) (Houts, Robins, & Huston,
1996). Interestingly, there is little evidence that people choose
partners based on similar communication styles; however, if
people end up with a partner who has similar values for
expressing affection (Burleson, Kunkel, & Birch, 1994) or
similar approaches to dealing with conflict (Gottman, 1994),
they report more relationship satisfaction. Finally, people are
more inclined to like others who like them. This phenomenon is
known as
reciprocal liking
(Trenholm & Jensen, 2013). It is flattering for people to learn
that someone likes them—so much so that it may prompt them
to consider a romantic relationship with that person even if they
only ever considered the other a friend.
Partner Interactio
n
How do partners communicate in romantic relationships? The
following section describes work by scholars who have
attempted to provide examples of communication that is typical
at various stages in romantic relationship development. The
relationship stages are useful for discussion, but it is imperative
to understand that real-life relationships do not necessarily
progress through linear stages. That is, people engage in
relationships at different rates, skip stages, or even go
backward. In real-life relationships, there can be upturns,

10. downturns, stagnation, or even chaos in relationship
commitment and communication. Events that spark an upturn in
commitment in one relationship could trigger a downturn or
chaos in another. Think, for example, about how people might
respond differently to relational events like the following: a big
fight, sharing with a partner that you are pregnant, sharing with
a partner that you will be deployed or got accepted to graduate
school. With these complicating factors in mind, following are
relational stages and representative scripts, as originally
described by Knapp (1978, 1984), along with additional
descriptions of the behaviors common to each stage, as
described by Welch and Rubin (2002).
Initiating Stage
Typically first, this stage is about catching another’s attention,
presenting oneself as intriguing, and initiating communication.
In this stage, communication is highly scripted. People use
scripted lines for greeting and acknowledging people, such as
“Hey” or “Good to meet you” or “Hi, I’m Alicia.” Flirting is a
hallmark of this stage. Moore (1998, 2002) identified typical
nonverbal behaviors—such as a glance, smile, touch, hair flip or
toss, or a laugh—used to flirt and attract attention. The
nonverbal behaviors often precede the verbal lines. Sometimes
all it takes is looking at another person or hearing the first line
out of his or her mouth to know that there is no potential for a
relationship. But if the initiation sparks intrigue, then the
avenue for interaction has been opened.
Experimenting Stage
A stage that commonly follows initiation is experimenting. This
stage is about getting to know the other, often through self-
disclosure. For many people, this occurs in gradual ways, as
described by a common theory of relationship development:
Altman and Taylor’s (1973) Social Penetration Theory. The
theory uses the analogy of peeling an onion to describe how
people self-disclose and get to know each other gradually, first

11. by peeling off the outer layers and, not until later, penetrating
the inner core. The experimenting stage is about getting to know
the “outer layer.” It can be prompted by scripted small talk
characterized by questions and statements about one’s interests,
hobbies, and background. It sounds like: “Where are you from?”
“Do you like to ski?” “I play volleyball.” “What is your major?”
The questions are superficial at first. This small talk is
important because it gives partners a chance to explore each
other without risking the disclosure of significant information,
especially when it is unclear how a partner will respond. Knapp
explains that most relationships do not progress beyond this
stage (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2005). Something in the process
gives one or both persons pause, and the relationship settles at
the status of friendship or dissipates to something less. Finding
out that a person is not a potential romantic partner is highly
informative. Before moving to the next stage, it is important to
point out that in some cases people skip the experimenting stage
at first. For example, they may become physically intimate and
then later feel they want to get to know each other. However,
the experimenting stage is critical for most couples and is
characterized by a type of communication in which committed
partners still engage as they realize that part of maintaining
intimacy is staying updated on a partner’s likes, dislikes,
feelings, and events of the day.
Intensifying Stage
Couples who respond positively to the experimenting begin to
intensify their interactions. They do so by self-disclosing more
personal information and values, expressing emotional and
physical affection for one another, spending more time together,
and expressing their own commitment and liking for one
another. Romantic relationships are voluntary, and confirmation
that the partner is similarly committed is important. The talk in
this stage may sound like: “I’m really scared of. . . .”, “I’ve got
some stress in my family now because of. . . .”, “My faith is
really important to me because. . . .”, “I really like you”, “I

12. think I love you, too.” The nonverbal behaviors include
increased physical intimacy, more mutual gaze and postural
matching, more forward lean, as well as more shared space and
things. Some relationships halt at the intensifying stage for a
variety of reasons. Perhaps all the increased closeness makes
one realize that this is not the right partner for them or the time
for a serious relationship. The increased closeness can lead to
conflict.
Integrating Stage
Continued integration leads partners to think of themselves as a
couple. They begin to refer to themselves as “we,” plan their
schedules around each other, get invited to places together
given others’ view them as a couple, and in some cases begin to
fuse their interests, social networks, and even wear things (e.g.,
a gift) or display objects (e.g., pictures) that remind themselves
and others of their relationships. Nonverbally, they express tie-
signs (i.e., public behaviors, like holding hands, that display the
relationship to others). Their physical intimacy also increases.
But again, all the togetherness can lead to problems. Thus, this
is also a time when partners often experience their first big
fight. Solomon and Knobloch (2004) assert that the move from
casual dating to serious involvement can be marked by
relational turbulence. The turbulence results from relational
uncertainties and relational interference (Solomon & Knobloch).
Partners may question, “Is my partner as committed as I am to
the relationship?” “Is my partner being faithful to me?” “Is this
really the right person for me for the future?” Serious
relationships also interfere with one’s independence, and
partners may disagree about how to coordinate their schedules
and plans, how to integrate friend and family networks, and
whether their life goals are compatible in the future. Some
couples draw closer as they deal with uncertainties and find a
comfortable level of interdependence. Some never figure a way
to commit their lives to one another even though they felt
passionate about the partner for a period of time. In these

13. negotiations, some partners learn how to argue constructively—
a crucial ability for the future of the relationship. Others
discover conflictive issues that will get in the way of a future
relationship or, more importantly, discover that they or their
partner lack the problem-solving and perspective-taking skills
to deal with conflict effectively. Why should partners pay so
much attention to how they deal with conflict in a dating
relationship? Because it often predicts how they will deal with
conflict if they proceed to marriage or a committed partnership
(Segrin & Flora, 2011). What is unfortunate is that so many
people proceed into marriage or have a child together in spite of
serious relationship problems, relationship violence, and
negative ways of dealing with conflict. The reality is that most
of these problems do not get better with marriage or with having
a baby together.
Bonding
The bonding stage is marked by the decision to publically
formalize one’s union, perhaps through engagement, marriage,
or a commitment ceremony. Most of these public ceremonies are
culturally based and serve to garner social and legal support for
the relationship as well as stand as a relational, moral, and legal
contract between the partners. Bonded relationships are more
difficult to exit but also more supported by social and legal
networks. People progress into formal relationship commitments
in different ways. Some date for a short time; some for years.
Some enter with strong, realistic knowledge of their partner’s
strengths and weaknesses; some enter with fairytale dreams.
Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, and George (2001) model the
different ways people progress into marriage.
The disillusionment model explains that some people progress
into marriage with unrealistically high expectations for a
perfect relationship. After working to manage these impressions
of a trouble-free relationship, partners soon become
disillusioned with the work it takes to keep the relationship
going. They then become dissatisfied with the marriage when

14. the positive illusions are replaced with reality. An alternative to
the disillusionment model is the enduring dynamics model. This
model posits that other partners progress into marriage well
aware of each other’s strengths and weaknesses. They carry the
patterns of interaction, both good and bad ones, established
during courtship into marriage. A third model, the emergent
distress model, describes that some people enter into marriage
fairly satisfied with the relationship, but negative interactions
and destructive conflict behaviors begin to emerge and erode
satisfaction.
This section defined interpersonal communication and explored
processes of interpersonal communication in the context of
developing romantic relationships. We began by addressing
questions like “What do people say they are looking for in a
mate?” “How do contextual factors influence processes of mate
selection?” and “What makes for partner compatibility?” A
primary focus of this section examined “How do people
communicate in dating relationships?” Although no romantic
relationship is the same, we reviewed common stages of
romantic relationship development and communication that is
characteristic of each stage. In the section to come, we move
beyond romantic relationship initiation to explore how people
communicate to maintain the relationships they have developed.
Unit 3 Section 1 Discussion Questions
How might the following factors influence a person’s readiness
to be in a romantic relationship or success in a relationship?
How have individual preferences for mate qualities (e.g.,
physical attractiveness) changed or remained stable over time?
· romantic beliefs
· age

15. · past relationship or family experiences
· media and societal messages about romantic relationships
· proximity to available partners
Consider how communication and interaction may change
depending on a couple’s relational stage: initiating,
experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and bonding.
References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The
development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2001). First marriage
dissolution, divorce, and remarriage: United States. Advance
Data from Vital and Health Statistics No. 323. Hyattsville, MD:
National Center for Health Statistics.
Burleson, B. R. (2010). The nature of interpersonal
communication. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R.
Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication sciences (2nd
ed., pp. 145–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16. Burleson, B. R., Kunkel, A., & Birch, J. D. (1994). Thoughts
about talk in romantic relationships: Similarity makes for
attraction (and happiness, too). Communication Quarterly,
42, 259–273.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen,
J. (2001). A half-century of mate preferences: The cultural
evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
63, 491–503.
Cameron, J. J., & Ross, M. (2007). In times of uncertainty:
Predicting the survival of long-distance relationships. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6), 581–606.
Duck, S. (1998). Human relationships (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Fisher, H. E. (1992). Anatomy of love: A natural history of
mating, marriage, and why we stray. New York: Fawcett
Columbine.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce: The relationship
between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.
Hetsroni, A. (2000). Choosing a mate in television dating
games: The influence of setting, culture, and gender. Sex Roles,
42, 83–106.
Houts, R. M., Robins, E., & Huston, T. L. (1996). Compatibility
and the development of premarital relationships. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58, 7–20.
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., &
George, L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years
as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 237–252.
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to
goodbye. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human
relationships. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2005). Interpersonal
communication and human relationships (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.

17. Knox, D., Schacht, C., & Zusman, M. E. (1999). Love
relationships among college students. College Student Journal,
42, 1015–1022.
Kowner, R. (2001). Psychological perspective on human
developmental stability and fluctuating asymmetry: Sources,
applications and implication. British Journal of Psychology,
92, 447–469.
Kreider, R. M. (2005). Number, timing, and duration of
marriages and divorces: 2001. Current Population Reports (pp.
70–97). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Maguire, K. C. (2007). “Will it ever end?”: A (re)examination
of uncertainty in college student long-distance dating
relationships. Communication Quarterly, 55(4), 415–432.
Merolla, A. J., Weber, K. D., Myers, S. A., & Booth-
Butterfield, M. (2004). The impact of past dating relationship
solidarity on commitment, satisfaction, and investment in
current relationships. Communication Quarterly, 52(3), 251–
264.
Miley, M. (2009). Dating sites still attracting users.
Advertising. Age, 80(8), 8.
Moore, M. M. (1998). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women:
Rejection signaling—an empirical investigation. Semiotica,
3, 205–215.
Moore, M. M. (2002). Courtship communication and
perception. Perceptual and motor skills, 94, 97–105.
Riggio, R. E., Widaman, K. F., Tucker, J. S., & Salinas, C.
(1991). Beauty is more than skin deep: Components of
attractiveness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 423–
439.
Schmitt, D. P. (2008). An evolutionary perspective on mate
choice and relationship initiation. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, &
J. Harvey (Eds.) Handbook of Relationship Initiation (pp. 55–
74). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2005). Family communication. Mahwah:
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.
Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2011). Family communication (2nd ed.).

18. New York: Routledge.
Seiffge-Krenke, I., Shulman, S., & Klessinger, N. (2001).
Adolescent precursors of romantic relationships in young
adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
18, 327–345.
Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2004). A model of
relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational
uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of
irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
21, 795–796.
Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (2013). Interpersonal
communication (6th ed.). New York: Oxford.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011, May). Age and sex composition:
2010 (C2010BR-03). Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-
03.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013, February). 2009–2011 American
Community Survey. Retrieved from
http://factfinder2.census/gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/produ
ctview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_3YR_B12007&prodType=table. (Li
nk not working)
Welch, S. A., & Rubin, R. B. (2002). Development of
relationship stage measures. Communication Quarterly, 50, 24–
40.
Wood, D., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2009). Using revealed mate
preferences to evaluate market force and differential preference
explanation for mate selection. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 96(6), 1226–1244.
With the explosion of data in the healthcare system, traditional
policies and procedures are often inadequate to assess the

19. potential risks in data generation, data sharing and data
storage. External forces such as federal and state laws and
regulations may mandate certain actions to protect information
and report breeches in information. This week’s discussion
focuses on the assessment of the current state in preparation for
developing an Information governance strategic plan.
Option 2: A common strategy is to identify a risk profile of the
organization information. To begin this assessment, the
organization needs to analyze the enterprise information and
how it is managed. What is enterprise information management?
What are the information sources? What are the common
protocols? What is the data integration process and metadata
management? What are the data resources?