• Three best friends
• Five good friends
• Eight people they like but don’t spend one-on-one time with
• 50 acquaintances
• 91 social media friends¹

When it comes to dating, the average person has seven relationships before getting married.² In this chapter, we focus on romantic relationships in particular though many of the concepts also apply to other relationship types. For instance, relational dialectics are featured here as well as in the chapter, Friendship Relationships. Relational stages, issues of privacy and disclosure, and the implications of gender and sex are certainly important to other kinds of relationships as well, but they may be best illustrated in the context of romantic ones.

Relationship Variables

All relationships are not the same. While they differ in value from treasured commitments to massive wastes of time, there are at least six characteristics that all relationships possess though to varying levels: duration, contact frequency, sharing, support, interaction variability, and goals.³

Some friendships last a lifetime, others last a short period. The length in time of a relationship is referred to as its duration. In a recent season of a reality show, one cast member spoke of his parents’ somewhat tumultuous thirty-year marriage while another agreed to marry a total stranger at first sight despite never having made it to a fourth date with anyone before.

Contact frequency is how often relational partners communicate with each other. Estranged siblings still have some form of relationship but they may only speak at each family gathering. Husband and wife real estate teams talk to each other every few minutes all day long, every day!

The more we spend time with other people and interact with them, the more we are likely sharingof details about ourselves.  Sharing is the process of revealing and disclosing information about oneself to another. The extent of sharing of personal information is enhanced with trust and support of the relational partner.

The fourth variable is the amount of support provided within a relationship. Support is any message or behavior that conveys caring or comfort to another person so as to improve their condition. It could be the expertise or money that your Dad provides to get your car running again. It could also be the willingness of a stranger at a bus stop to listen to the impossibly vexing events of your day. One study found that married couples are more likely to provide supportive communication behaviors to their partners than are dating couples.⁴ An untold amount of research has demonstrated the benefits to our mood, health, and life experiences of having support of others, or even just believing that we do!

Your interaction variability with another person is the variety of interaction types you have and topics you cover. If Aunt Aaliyah only ever talks with Uncle Jayden about their retirement budget and his poor hygiene, they have low interaction variability. If it’s impossible to predict whether cousins Cho and Dae will be playing Atom Zombie Smasher together, serving as each other’s wingmen at the local nightclub, or physically tussling because of an argument about music, those two have pretty high interaction variability.   

Relationship members almost always have goals or expectations and hopes for relational functions and outcomes. If your goal is to get closer to another person through communication, you might share your thoughts and feelings and expect the other person to do the same. If they do not, then you will probably feel like the goals in your relationship were not met because they didn’t share information. Romantic partners typically expect their significant others to be truthful, supportive, and faithful. Relational satisfaction will result if partners meet those expectations. Of course, satisfaction itself is a high-level relational goal and one that has bearing on how far relationships progress through recognized stages.

Typical Progression of Romantic Relationships

Mark Knapp introduced stages of relationship development⁵ and his model was later modified with coauthor Anita Vangelisti .⁶ Their Model of Interaction Stages in Relationships⁷ features ten stages that are categorized as either parts of the process, Coming Together, or parts of the process, Coming Apart. Some refer to this is as the staircase model (see Figure 2) of relational development.

While their stages, as described below, are highly informative and perhaps sometimes prescriptive for enjoying rich and full relationships, it is extremely important to realize the inherent dangers of fully embracing stage models.

Whether they model relationship development, grief, behavioral intervention, or group work, stages that represent human behavior cannot be precise or accurate in their linearity. Some stages may be skipped, some will overlap, and others may be revisited after subsequent stages have occurred. As long as we consider stage models to be descriptive rather than predictive, they can be very useful for understanding the experiences of human relationships from onset to expiration.

Knapp and Vangelisti’s ten stages⁶ can be applied to most types of relationships but are especially well-suited for our focus on romantic ones.

Coming Together

Do you remember when you first met a special someone in your life? How did your relationship start? How did you two become closer? Every relationship has to start somewhere and sometime.

In this section, we will learn about the coming together stages, which include: initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and then bonding. But even before initiating, especially in the context of romantic relationships, as well as friendships, attraction is likely to play an important role. Attraction is a combination of interest in another person and a desire to get to know them better.

Initiating

Once attraction has been established, the five stages of Coming Together may begin. Having determined that you are willing to take the risk and expend the effort of approaching a potential partner, you must let them know of your interest in initiating a conversation.

The initiating stage is the first one, when making contact and signaling interest are the goals. Eduardo says hello and introduces himself to Karina, who makes sure to indicate her receptivity by smiling and touching his arm. In this earliest of relational stages, they are primarily interested in making contact. Conversation may be superficial and not very personal; this squares with Uncertainty Reduction Theory, which is introduced in the next section of this chapter.

Experimenting

After we have initiated communication with the other person, we go to the next stage, experimenting, when “small talk” happens and commonalities are discovered. At this stage, Eduardo and Karina begin considering whether they wish to continue the relationship by learning more about the other person. Multiple interactions tend to be casual and reveal hometowns, favorite colors and subjects and pet peeves. Thoughts about forming an actual relationship preoccupy; Karina considers whether she can tolerate Eduardo’s smoking habit while embracing his charitable nature. For now, members of recent generations might describe the relationship as one of “talking.”

Intensifying

The intensifying stage features establishment of identity as knowledge about partners increases greatly. Conversations become more serious and interactions more meaningful. Eduardo may begin to consider Karina to be his girlfriend, or they may mutually agree that they are now “dating” or “seeing each other.” Both are becoming more serious about their relationship.

Integrating

As a couple achieves deeper levels of expectations and commitment, perhaps including exclusivity, and tells others about the relationship, they are inhabiting the integrating stage. The amount of time spent together grows as do assumptions about participating in many activities together. Individuals now think of themselves as a unit.

Part of the appeal of the reality show, Married At First Sight, comes with observing couples who are so blatantly mixing up these stages of relationships by getting married at their first introduction to each other. Nevertheless, a great example of the integrating stage emerged. In Season 16 of MAFS, Shaquille takes great exception to Kirsten not offering to accompany him on his business trips as a college recruiter. Her failure to meet his expectation of this act of integration becomes a very large sticking point as Shaquille considers whether to pursue a divorce at the season finale.

Bonding

The final stage of Coming Together is bonding, when commitment is increased and announced to wider social networks. In the case of couples on the path to marriage, this might include the proposal and engagement. For many traditional couples, relationships with partners’ families have already started but now the ties are drawing tighter.  Karina and Eduardo actually got eloped and married before making the announcement of that ultimate commitment to everyone they know!

In the circumstance of marriage, it is not like the relationship is done growing. As landmarks and milestones like anniversaries, child birth, and renewal of vows pass, integrating and bonding are addressed and experienced again. In fact, a void in the stages approach appears here as many relationships are maintained for years and years before coming apart, and some never do. The next section of this chapter reviews some of the interpersonal communication scholarship about relational maintenance.

Nevertheless, what separates Knapp and Vangelisti’s first and last five stages is some dividing line between Coming Together and Coming Apart.

Coming Apart

Some couples can stay longterm in committed and wonderful relationships, even if faced with individual or collective turmoil. For others, however, things inevitably come apart. No matter how hard they try to stay together, tension, resentment, and mistrust may foil those efforts. These ill-fated couples go through a Coming Apart process that involves: differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and terminating.

Differentiating

The differentiating stage is when the parties start to disengage with their identity as a couple in favor of their own. Independence begins to outstrip interdependence. Differences become over-emphasized while commonalities are overlooked. Language may start to change from “our car” and “our child” to “my car” and “my child.” Tensions become harder to resolve, partly because they are associated with others from the past.  These are early signals that the relationship is coming apart.

Circumscribing is the stage when partners strive to limit their interactions with each other. Communication will lessen in quality and quantity. Taboo topics are avoided to prevent arguments. Less time spent together and fewer displays of affection and intimacy are exhibited.

Stagnating

The next stage is stagnating, which means the relationship is not improving or growing. Limited communication becomes restrained, if not downright awkward. The partners may still live with each other physically but an emotional inertia prevents attempts to rebuild the relationship, which has become a chore. The couple is approaching the point of no return, where odds for reconciliation are becoming remote.

Avoiding

When a couple prefers to stay away from each other entirely rather than interact or communicate, they have reached the avoiding stage. As partners have no desire to see or speak to each other, physically moving out of the shared residence becomes increasingly likely.  Sadness is at its height as mourning for the relationship has started.

Terminating

The terminating stage is when the parties end the relationship, gradually or suddenly, and make arrangements for life post-relationship. Awareness of interpersonal communication has popularized a focus on the channels (e.g., text message, email, Facebook posting, face-to-face) utilized for “breaking up” and their varied effects.

Final Caveat On Stage Models

Knapp and Vangelisti’s is not the only approach to mapping relational life cycles. For instance, fellow scholar and theorist Steve Duck proposes four phases of relationship dissolution: the intrapsychic (i.e., dissatisfaction emerges for at least one of the partners), dyadic (i.e., discontent transforms from a private cognition to a shared impression), social (i.e., relational conflict goes public with family and friends) and grave-dressing (i.e., the relationship ends and narratives about reasons are created) phases.¹⁰

It bears repeating that stage models do not, nor do they intend to, perfectly portray the progression of every romantic relationship. Not every one goes through each of the ten stages; some terminate before the experimenting stage is complete. Some relationships coast smoothly after the intensifying or bonding stages without ever Coming Apart. Even after a period of stabilization, maintenance, and satisfaction, movement in either direction through more stages is possible.

Moreover, communication technology, terminology, and dating practices of contemporary couples may create more distance between reality and stage models. The stages do a poor job representing “talking,” “hooking up” or having “friends with benefits.” Relationships may also take place primarily, or even solely, in digital space.

Still, the ten stages of Coming Together and Coming Apart map pretty well to many romantic couples. Critically, they also provide description and recognition of phenomena that many dating partners identify, and with which they need understanding and assistance to best navigate.

Interpersonal Communication Theory and Romantic Relationships

Theories Tied to Relationship Progression

Interpersonal communication theory is a source of vast knowledge and guidance for anyone who relates with others, no matter their experience or success levels of the past. Several interpersonal communication theories may be considered to be most relevant to earlier or later stages of relational development, which is not to say they don’t pertain to other times in relationships, too.

Dealing with uncertainty is a prominent aspect on the front end of most romantic relationships. Working to maintain relationships mosly occurs between their beginnings and endings, while gauging and contrasting their costs and benefits may inform decisions about whether to terminate them.

This section provides short summaries of concepts found, and communication’s roles, in each of Uncertainty Reduction Theory,  Behaviors of Relational Maintenance, and Social Exchange Theory.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Relationship Maintenance Behaviors

You may have heard that relationships are hard work. Relationships need maintenance and care. Just like your body needs food and your car needs gasoline, your relationships need attention. Relationship maintenance lasts from the first to last interaction episodes between partners. It consists of the behaviors and strategies that enable the stabilization point between relationship initiation and potential relationship destruction.¹²

Daniel Canary and Laura Stafford stated that “most people desire long-term, stable, and satisfying relationships”¹³ and that relationship maintenance behaviors are required to achieve them. They believed that relationships do not just “fall apart or happen to stay together.”¹³

Joe Ayres studied how individuals maintain their interpersonal relationships.¹⁴ He discovered that relational intent determined effort; partners that really want to stay together are more likely to employ the three maintenance strategies he identified.

First, avoidance strategies are used to evade communication that might threaten the relationship. Laura may just deal with figuring out how to pay the monthly bills rather than bring up how her girlfriend Iris is spending way too much lately. Balance strategies are used to maintain equality in the relationship so that partners do not feel underbenefited or overbenefited from being in the relationship.¹⁴ Iris makes sure to do some house cleaning on the weekends as Laura is stuck with many household chores during the week. Finally, direct strategies are used to evaluate and remind the partner of relationship objectives. Laura will occasionally try to refresh Iris’ desire to save up enough together to achieve their house buying dream.

Second, openness is the degree to which partners disclose and share information and feelings.  Third, assurances are words that emphasize the partners’ commitment to the duration of the relationship. Fourth, networking is communicating with family and friends. Lastly, sharing tasks is doing work or household tasks together or dividing them fairly. Later, Canary and his colleagues found two more important relationship maintenance behaviors: effectively managing conflict and providing advice.¹⁵

Positivity’s prominent placement among these behaviors is substantiated by a famous premise, founded in the relational research program of John Gottman.  Along with colleague Robert Levenson, Gottman determined that¹⁶ partners in satisfying relationships provide a ratio of five positive behaviors or comments for every single negative one. So, if Tennley wants to make sure her relationship with Jimmie is satisfying, for every harsh criticism or sarcastic aside she throws at him, there should be some humor, a few acts of affection, a compliment, and an unsolicited favor.

Finally, in a series of studies originally intended to compare Canary and Stafford’s manitenance behaviors as enacted in computer-mediated as opposed to face-to-face interactions, Andrew Ledbetter found that participants in everyday relationships reported much more specific behaviors. These included: sharing possessions, sharing entertainment media experiences, spending time together, casual conversation as well as deeper talks, both verbal and physical expressions of affection, sharing responsibility for tasks, managing and recovering from conflict, being humorous, and engaging in shared networks of family and friends.¹⁷ The eleven behaviors may not be the perfect recipe for keeping love alive but they sure seem incredibly advantageous for long-term couples.

Social Exchange Theory

Maggie is growing increasingly exasperated with her boyfriend, Gunnar. When he approached her at a school-sponsored dance two years ago, she could not have been more elated. She considered herself to be “bookish and a little mousy, to be honest” while Gunnar was the star of the drama club’s presentations of Our Town and Mamma Mia. Maggie remembered a slumber party sleepover where her girlfriends spoke in awe about the shine that came off his teeth on stage.

The couple has been together exclusively ever since. However, in the last few weeks alone, Maggie has bailed Gunnar out after a charge of DUI, tended to the wounds he suffered in a bar brawl, disputed rumors that he impregnated a sophomore from the next town over, and fought to get her credit card charges expunged when he took her Visa on a solo vacation.

For all the affection she enjoys from him and attention the popular girls give him as his main squeeze, Maggie is wondering whether the relationship is worth it anymore. Her process of considering a break up with Gunnar is an ideal example of John Thibaut and Harold Kelley’s Social Exchange Theory.^{18, 19}

Social Exchange Theory adopts an economic orientation to relationship evaluation. Thibaut and Kelley believed that we, perhaps not completely consciously, engage in cost-benefit analysis as we consider relationships we are engaged in.  The rewards of being in romantic relationships are many: security, companionship, sex, love, support, and status. Some also garner material benefits from their relationships like living in a better house and neigborhood or buying fancier clothes and better cars.

But relationships may cost us quite a bit as well. We may find ourselves lacking free time, independence, the excitement of single life and responsibilities like supporting and caregiving our partners through times of illness, grief, job loss, etc. Our partners may drain us of energy, time, passion, money, or other resources.

Partners who find that the pleasurable aspects of a romantic relationship compensate for, or outstrip, the associated downsides are likely to wish to continue. Conversely those who feel the expense, worry, arguing and resentment are outweighing the rewards may start to lose interest in continuing the relationship and allow, or inspire, the onset of stages of Coming Apart.

Theories Relevant Throughout Relationships

Whereas theories about uncertainty reduction, maintenance behaviors, and social exchange apply to any phase of a romantic relationship, they map particularly well to the early, middle, and later stages, respectively. Communication Privacy Management, Relational Dialectics, and Genderlect theories are evergreen for all phases of relationships, just as likely to come into play at any given point. We are always determining which secrets to share with whom, how to get all that we want out of our relationships, and how to best communicate and relate with people of other sexes or genders.

Sandra Petronio is another communication scholar who has renamed her theory to better reflect how it has developed. Communication Boundary Management Theory²⁰ has been rebranded as Communication Privacy Management (CPM) Theory²¹ since the 1990s.  Though disclosure is treated more holistically in our Talking and Listening chapter, CPM deserves its placement here as it explains one of the chief sources of tension in romantic relationships.

Petronio contends that issues of information ownership, sharing secrets, and regulating rules for doing it are vital components of romantic relationships. Privacy boundaries are symbolically placed between personal private information and details that are shared with others. Individuals establish rules for who they share this information with and why. Rules are also inherently understood by, or expressed to, the receivers of private information as to who else is privy to the shared information. Anyone who receives the information is then said to co-own it.

Critically, when privacy rules are broken, a condition Petronio calls boundary turbulence, relational chaos may ensue.

So, Savannah is torn about whether to share an embarassing and distressing part of her history with Andrés, her fiancé of eighteen months. From eleven to seventeen years of age, Savannah struggled mightily with body image, believing that she was too overweight to be attractive or at times, to even show herself in public.

She developed anorexia nervosa and made a practice of no more than two bites of food per sitting. This meant she seldom ate with friends or family which only heightened her feelings of isolation and worthlessness. When her weight loss made no difference in how she felt about her body, she became despondent to the point of considering self-harm. Thankfully, a concerned guidance counselor elicited this information from Savannah and helped her enter therapy and treatment that returned her to a lifestyle similar to her peers.

Savannah is terrified that Andrés will leave her when he learns of her past behavior, which she now considers to be embarrassing. She decides that he deserves to know about it and “what he is getting himself into.” Her boundary for this issue is that no one else besides her most intimate partner should ever hear about it.

Andrés receives the story quite well and assures Savannah that no one should be ashamed of their past if they have made progress in their lives. “After all,” he tells her, “everything that you have ever gone through has contributed to the amazing, sexy, brilliant, vital person you are today!”

Savannah is thrilled with his reaction but explicitly sets the privacy rule that he must never tell anyone in his family, even though they are a close-knit and honest group. She didn’t feel the need to demand that he not tell anyone else because he is obviously sensitive enough to know that this secret is not for public consumption. This reliance on an implicit rule is where they run into trouble.

A few weeks later, Andrés casually mentions that he reassured a salesperson at work that they could overcome their eating disorder just as his fiancé had. Savannah was instantly enraged with him both for revealing her secret to a complete stranger to her and also to someone who she might someday have to face. Andrés is bewildered as he felt he had followed her instructions perfectly as he never told anyone in his family.

As you might imagine, this boundary turbulence was extremely difficult for the young couple to work through. She still loved him but was now doubting his judgment and her trust in him. They finally were able to move on with their plans to marry after resolving that explicit communication was necessary in matters of such importance.

Relational Dialectics

The construct of dialectics has been recognized by many scholars for many years. They are opposing forces that create everyday experiences of feeling pushed and pulled at the same time.

Leslie Baxter is a scholar who has always been interested in the challenges presented by relationships and the use of communication, or dialogue as her academic idol Mikhail Baktin referred to it, to navigate them. Early in Baxter’s career her colleagues were interested in relational beginnings and disclosure, while she gravitated more towards relationship termination and decisions NOT to disclose made in relationships. The seeds of her Relational Dialectics can be found in these conditions of antithesis.

In 1996, with Barbara Montgomery, Baxter oublished the book, Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics.²² It reported research about dialectical tensions in families, romantic relationships, and friendships. Their overarching research premise is that all personal ties and relationships are always in a state of constant flux and contradiction. Specifically, relational dialectics form a “dynamic knot of contradictions in personal relationships; an unceasing interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies.”²³

Relational dialectics form contradictions that are co-existing and must be met with a “both/and” approach as opposed to an“either/or” mindset. For each of the three famous oppositional dialectics, the more relational partners have of one, the less they have of the other. Where both or either (!) parties prefer to be on the spectrum between the two poles can be another matter entirely. Each of these realities assures that the navigation of dialectics in relatioships, especially romantic ones, is a never-ending, ever-changing process of communication and adjustment.

Though others (e.g., Ideal-Real, Similar-Different, Accepting-Critical) have been identified, the three most often covered in academic journal articles and textbook chapters are Integration-Separation, Stability-Change, and Openness-Closedness. Sometimes, synonyms are used for any of the dialectical poles but these terms represent the essence of the Big Three.

Integration-Separation

Dating Scripts and Love Styles

We talk of dating as a single construct a lot of the time without really thinking through how dating has changed over time. In the twentieth century alone, we saw dating go from a highly formalized structure involving calling cards and sitting rooms, to drive-in movies shared in a car, to online dating with people we’ve never met in real life.²⁹ The 21^st Century has already changed how people date through social networking sites and geolocation dating apps on smartphones. Social trends have moved away from terms like “going steady” and towards “talking” or “hooking up.” Dating is not a single thing, and dating has definitely changed with the times.

Paul Mongeau, Janet Jacobsen, and Carolyn Donnerstein presented five “supracategories” for what constitutes a “date”.³⁰ First, dating involves specific communication expectations. For example, people expect that their dating partner will be polite, relaxed, and social. Second, dating involves specific goals, like exploring a romantic relationship or just having fun. Third, specific date elements include getting ready, meeting somewhere, and engaging in shared activity. Fourth, dates are dyadic and couple-based, even when they are embedded in larger  “group dates,” Last, dates involve feeling states which may include attraction and affection.³⁰

Online matching service Match.com publishes an annual study examining single dating life and has recently found the following about their respondents:

• 48.9% have created at least one profile on a dating website or app.
• 41.1% have dated someone they met online.
• 25.1% have a “checklist” when it comes to finding a long-term romantic partner.
• 83.5% believe that love is hard to find in today’s world.
• 38.1% have been in a “friends with benefits” relationship.
• 28.3% had a friendship that turned into a significant romantic relationship.³¹

As dating appears to still be a significant feature of romantic relationship pursuit, it follows that many people have specific ideas for how dating works.

Dating Scripts

Robert Abelson originally proposed the idea of script theory back in the late 1970s.³² He defined a script as a “coherent sequence of events expected by the individual, involving him as either a participant or an observer.”³² According to script theory, people tend to pattern their responses and behaviors during different social interactions, which requires being able to imagine past, present, and future behaviors and developing a  script of expectations.³³

In 1993, Suzanna Rose and Irene Frieze derived two different scripts for dating based on the reports of their  heterosexual male and female college student sample. The male script consisted of 15 different behavioral actions, all initiated by the male:³⁴

1. Picked up date
2. Met parents/roommates
3. Left
4. Picked up friends
5. Confirm plans
6. Talked, joked, laughed
7. Went to movies, show, party
8. Ate
9. Drank alcohol
10. Initiated sexual contact
11. Made out
12. Took date home
13. Asked for another date
14. Kissed goodnight
15. Went home

The female script, contained behaviors exhibited by both parties on a date: ³⁴

1. Groomed and dressed
2. Was nervous
3. Picked up date (male)
4. Introduced to parents, etc.
5. Courtly behavior (open doors–male)
6. Left
7. Confirmed plans
8. Got to know & evaluate date
9. Talked, joked, laughed
10. Enjoyed date
11. Went to movies, show, party
12. Ate
13. Drank alcohol
14. Talked to friends
15. Had something go wrong
16. Took date home (male)
17. Asked for another date (male)
18. Told date will call her (male)
19. Kissed date goodnight (male)

Take a second and go through these two lists.  How do you think they differ? How well might they apply among today’s heterosexual couples? One year after Rose and Frieze’s study, Dean Klinkenberg developed scripts for gay male and lesbian dates.³⁵ Would you guess that they differed from Rose and Frieze’s and from each other?

We’ve all been conditioned since we were very young to date and how to do it. We’ve listened to adults tell stories, watched dating as it is fictionalized on television and in movies, experienced it ourselves, and shared notes with friends. Thankfully, because there are cultural images of dating presented to us, our dating partners are likely to have similar dating scripts to ours, as long as they are from the same, or a similar, culture.

Love Styles

An individual’s love style is a persistent attitude about how love is perceived and valued, practiced and experienced, that is usually stable but may change over time.³⁸ For instance, college students may perceive love differently from their parents or guardians because they are in a different stages of life.

John Lee’s love typology presents six love styles named with Greek and Latin terms for love,  that you may identify with more or less so: eros, storge, ludus, agape, pragma, and mania (see Figure 12).³⁹

Eros

Eros is the love style that emphasizes love and romance, physical beauty and attraction, emotional intensity, and strong commitment. Eros love often involves the early initiation of sexual intimacy and lends itself to consecutive monogamous relationships.  Tyreek and Alex, who both subscribe to eros, were attracted to each other while participating in different social groups across a loud and sweaty club. They felt immediate sparks when they joined on the dance floor and have had a physically satisfying, though sometimes tumultuous, relationship ever since.

Storge

Storge love resembles, or develops slowly out of, friendship where stability and psychological closeness are valued along with commitment.  Passion and intense emotions are not valued as much as they are in the eros love style but the slow burn of storge may lead to a more enduring love. Stanley was a man in his 60s who had never been married but employed Phyllis, who cooked and cleaned for him for over 20 years. Their families were surprised, though pleasantly so, to receive their announcements of marriage.

Ludic

Ludic lovers view love as a game, and play according to their rules in hopes of coming out ahead. The acceptance of multiple partners is likelier within the ludic love style, but so are deception and manipulation. Individuals with this love style have lower tolerance for commitment  and strong emotional attachment.  Durga likes to have several boyfriends at different stages so that she can avoid being alone when one of them does not work out for her. She tells some of them about this arrangement and hides it from others.

Agape

In contrast, agape love involves altruism, giving, and other-centered love. This love style approaches relationships in a non-demanding style with gentle caring and tolerance for others. Agapic lovers put their partners in front of themselves and often express their feelings through kind actions.

Pragma

Pragma love is practical, logical and rational. In some contemporary cultures and many more of the past, marriages were arranged by families for functional purposes. The first tsar of Russia, Ivan the Terrible, married Anastasia Romanova in 1547 to bring together the Rurikid and Romanov family dynasties and deliver power to him. History shows that their pragmatic love transformed into one of eros, as they wound up entranced by each other. Nonetheless, this pragmatic approach to love, even when arranged, may see romantic partners paired for financial stability, family building, or simple companionship.

Mania

Mania is the love style characterized by dependence, uncertainty, jealousy, and emotional upheaval. This type of lover is generally insecure and needs constant reassurance. Manic lovers may be accused of emotionally suffocating their partners and struggle with the integration-separation dialectic presented earlier in this chapter.

These love styles should not be considered to be mutually independent. An individual may approach love from an erotic stance but find and enjoy love that provides financial stability. You may find that several of the love styles seem to reflect your personality and preferences, as well. As with stage models of relational progress, the love styles are less about being predictive or prescriptive and more about being descriptive of behaviors we can identify from the realm of romance.

Notes