Running Head: RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
Relational Dialectics in Roommate Relationships
Clarissa Hunter
Huntington University
1
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
2
Abstract
Relational dialectics is often examined within the context of romantic relationships. However, in
their theory, Baxter and Montgomery specify that it can also apply to close friendships and
family relationships. The theory gives three central dialectics: integration vs. separation,
expression vs. nonexpression, and stability vs. change. The purpose of this study was to discover
the value of these dialectics within the context of roommates. The research questions and
hypothesis are as follows: RQ1: Which dialectic is most valued in a roommate relationship?
RQ2: Does the gender of the roommates affect the value of the three dialectics? H1: The
openness-closedness dialectic will be most valued in shorter roommate relationships and the
connection-autonomy and certainty-uncertainty dialectics will be more valued in longer
relationships. This study answers these questions via self-report data from students at a small,
Midwestern university. Using descriptive statistics, it was found that relational dialectics are very
apparent in roommate relationships.
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
3
Relational Dialectics in Roommate Relationships
When roommates first meet, they do their best to immediately assess how their
relationship will pan out as they spend each day cohabitating. This is especially true in college,
where freshmen and their roommates are often given worksheets and guides to help them figure
out how to relate to one another. During orientation weekend at our university, my roommate
and I went through this very ordeal. When we finished moving in all of our things and getting
settled into our new room, we sat on the floor, looking over the “Get to Know Your Roommate”
handouts given to us by our Resident Assistants. On it, there were questions about how we
handled conflict, how much we would like to disclose to each other, and other questions about
our general living patterns. As our freshmen year went on, my roommate and I proved our
answers to those questions discussed on that first day to be both true and completely false. There
was no way that we could anticipate the many situations and emotions that would arise from
living in a small space with someone new while dealing with the stresses and joys of school,
family, friends, and jobs. There were times when we bonded over games and knitting, and times
we chose to spend alone. There were times that we stuck to our routines and times we went and
had impromptu picnics together. There were times we listened to each other’s troubles, joys, and
sadness, and times we kept our cares to ourselves.
The dynamics of this relationship show the contradictory nature of all close relationships
that have often been studied in dating or marriage. However, these dynamics have not yet been
studied in roommate relationships. Since roommate relationships have an impact on college
students’ social and academic success, the way the relationship works should be examined
(Duran & Zakahi, 1988). No relationship flows in one steady stream; there is an ebb and flow
between two opposite desires whenever people in close relationships attempt to relate to one
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
4
another. Navigating those areas well is how relationships grow and strengthen. They also impact
relational satisfaction. What are the main contradictory influences that pull and push relational
parties in separate or joint directions? Do they change over time as relationships lengthen? What
is their impact on roommate relationships like that of mine and my roommate’s?
These questions will be the central focus of this paper. Setting out to examine roommate
relationships in the context of relational dialectics, a communication theory by Baxter and
Montgomery (1996; 1998), this paper will examine the contradictions present in close
relationships, which ones are most prominent, and whether time or gender is a determining factor
in their prevalence between roommates.
Literature Review
Relational dialects came about because of a perceived lack of insight in the
communications field as it pertains to the study of relationships. Baxter and Montgomery felt
that contradictions ever present in relationships were overlooked and not addressed in an
appropriate manner. The field that did study this, however, was dialectics. As Baxter and
Montgomery examined this field, they began to see a new way of looking at relationships (1996,
p. xiii). The field of dialectics goes as far back as the ancient Greek philosophers, but Baxter and
Montgomery built their theory around the “dialogism theory” of Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian
cultural theorist (1895-1975) who studied dialogue between people as a unified yet separate
process (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Contrary to many other scholars, Bahktin described
social life as “an open dialogue characterized by multivocality and the indeterminacy inherent
when those multiple voices interpenetrate” (Baxter, 2004, p. 2). Thus, dialogism holds central to
dialogue the fact that communicators must be at the same time fused with one another while also
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
5
each contributing their own perspective to the situation or conversation. Dialogue cannot be
solely an independent or a dependent process—it must be both. This same dynamic interplay of
unity versus difference is fundamental in Baxter and Montgomery’s relational dialectics (1996).
Relational dialectics, built on Bahktin’s work, sees relating as a process of ongoing flux,
it emphasizes change in the relationship. There is no equilibrium as long as two people are both
engaged in the relationship—“relating is a complex knot of contradictory interplays” (Baxter,
2004, p. 8). In relational dialectics, this is not seen as detrimental to the relationship. Unlike
many theories, such as uncertainty reduction theory (e.g.—Uncertainty Reduction Theory; see
Griffin (2012), pp. 125-137 for a summary) or social penetration theory (e.g.—Social Penetration
Theory; see Griffin (2012), pp. 113-124 for a summary), relational dialectics does not simply
examine one side of relating by focusing on just openness, certainty, and connection factors that
supposedly make relationships stronger. Instead, these factors only have meaning “by examining
the broader contradictions of which they are a part” (Baxter, 1990, p. 70). Relationships must be
examined by looking at the push and pull of contradictions on each other. Looking at openness,
certainty, and connection also requires looking at their opposites: closedness, uncertainty, and
autonomy. Before looking at the main dialectics Baxter and Montgomery outline, however, the
four concepts that relational dialectics builds upon must be examined. These concepts—
contradiction, change, praxis, and totality—are present in every dialectical contradiction.
Without understanding these, relational dialectics would be very difficult to grasp.
Contradiction and Change
Contradiction is essentially a unity between opposites where two irreconcilable concepts
are at the same time interdependent and simultaneously present. There are many different
“oppositions” that could take place. Oppositions must be “actively compatible yet mutually
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
6
negate one another” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 8). In essence, things that are inherently
contradictory must go together—“the forces complete a whole that is incomplete without one or
the other” (Montgomery, 1993, p. 207). These contradictions are not damaging to relationships,
but are constantly ingrained in and shaping relationships. Contradictions can be either individuallevel—within the mind of someone in the relationship, or relationship level—occurring between
the members of the relationship (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998).
Change refers to the ongoing fluidity of relationships. Relationships are never constantly
the same, but always re-shaping in response to the contradictions within them. Thus, the
contradictions make it essential for relationships to be in a constant state of change. Baxter and
Montgomery state, “It is not useful conceptually to separate change from contradiction because it
is the interplay or tension of opposites that results in ongoing fluidity for any relationship” (1998,
p. 7). Contradiction cannot exist without change.
Praxis and Totality
Praxis is the action-reaction part of relationships. Baxter and Montgomery state that
praxis is the principle that “people are at once actors and objects of their own actions” (1996, p.
13). This category explains how people respond to the contradictions taking place within their
relationships. Praxis includes the strategies that are employed to deal with relational
contradictions in the social world.
Totality is “the assumption that phenomena can be understood only in relation to other
phenomena” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 14). In the field of dialectics, totality focuses on
three things: where contradictions are located, interdependencies among contradictions, and
contextualization of contradictory interplay. The location of contradictions refers to the fact that
dialectical contradictions are not independently experienced phenomena; they occur because of
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
7
interaction with others. Because of this, in many cases, contradictions can be viewed separately
by each party but are not the equivalent of interpersonal conflict (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
Interdependencies among contradictions refer to the fact that contradictions can be either internal
or external. Internal contradictions take place within the relationship—between the parties of the
relationship. External contradictions are between the relationship and the society in which it
occurs. According to Baxter and Montgomery, “couples and society sustain a relationship of
sorts, and in so doing they engage inherent contradictions of such relationships” (1996, p. 16).
Internal and external contradictions relate in certain ways. For example, a couple’s standard for
how they should act in a relationship can influence the way that they handle the dialectical pulls
that take place (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Finally, the contextualization of dialectical
interplay is in reference to the fact that these contradictions in relationships have to be viewed in
the context in which they take place. Contradictions must be studied “at both universal and
particular levels” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 17).
Within relational dialectics, Baxter and Montgomery identify three major contradictions
with both external and internal fronts. These contradictions are: integration-separation, stabilitychange, and expression-nonexpression (Baxter, 2004). (A) Integration-separation includes (A1)
connection versus autonomy on the internal front and (A2) inclusion versus seclusion on the
external front. (B) Stability versus change includes (B1) certainty versus uncertainty on the
internal front and (B2) conventionality versus uniqueness on the external front. Finally, (C)
Expression versus nonexpression includes (C1) openness versus closedness on the internal front
and (C2) revelation versus concealment on the external front (Griffin, 2012). These tensions are
not necessarily acknowledged and expressed within a relationship. Montgomery states, “They
may work backstage in a relationship beyond partners’ mindful awareness or ability to identify
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
8
and describe them, but still contributing to a sense of unsettledness or instability in a
relationship” (Montgomery, 1993, p. 206).
Integration-Separation
Connection-autonomy is what Baxter identifies as the primary struggle on the internal
front of relationships. Obviously, there can be no relationship without connection between the
relational parties, however, with excessive connection, the individuality of each person involved
will be lost (Baxter, 1990). This contradiction can be manifested in everyday things, such as how
much time is spent together or apart, how many things each wants to share with the other, or how
many activities they choose to participate in alone or together. Baxter asserts that the timemanagement dilemma—deciding how much time to spend together or on other obligations—
seems to be “particularly salient in romantic and friendship relationships” (Baxter, 2004, p. 9).
This tension may be viewed by relationship participants in different lights. Baxter and
Montgomery write, “relationship partners are quite likely to be in various degrees of synchrony
at any given moment with respect to their perceptions of the connection-separation dynamic”
(1996, p. 98). Because of this fact, if this contradiction is not recognized and managed
appropriately, it can cause harm to the relationship.
Inclusion-seclusion is the external struggle of a relationship within its surrounding
community. It takes time alone together as a couple, friendship, or family to solidify such
relationships and make them strong. For example, the things shared in intimate conversations are
rarely shared within a large group. Privacy is essential for intimacy. However, it is impossible for
a relationship to exist in a space all-its-own. Every relationship must be able to function both
separately and within society. If relationship parties do not figure out how to navigate their
private and public lives, the relationship will suffer (Griffin, 2012).
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
9
Stability-Change
Certainty-uncertainty refers to the need of both predictability and spontaneity in
relationships—“People require stability for predictability so they know what to expect and how
to behave. However, people require variation as well. Relationships must have degrees of
stability for people to coordinate their behavior and accomplish joint goals” (Baxter &
Montgomery, 1998, p. 127). If there is too much certainty in a relationship, though, it can lead to
a dulling of emotion between relational parties (Baxter & Simon, 1993). In essence, being able to
predict every part of the relationship can eventually lead to boredom. On the other hand, if the
relationship contains too much uncertainty and spontaneity, there would not be the consistency
necessary to construct a solid close relationship. That said, certainty-uncertainty is a dialectic
that that can only be “assessed in terms of some other aspect of the relationship” (Baxter &
Montgomery, 1998, p. 126). Because of that, this contradiction can show up in a variety of facets
within the relationship, such as predicting the other’s personality, beliefs, attitudes, or behavior
towards making plans, the emotional excitement of romance, or the state of the relationship
(Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
Conventionality-uniqueness is the external tension that appears between the relationship
and the society in which it exists. There are certain relational constructs created by societal
influence that may clash with the reality of the relationship. According to Baxter and
Montgomery, “relationship partners have been socialized with cultural norms and idealizations
of relationships that invariably are challenged in the unique, concrete practices of everyday
relating” (1996, p. 124). Essentially, the real relationship will never be just like the picture
people hold cognitively or what the culture around them expects—this can create a pull back and
forth between society’s relational expectations and the characteristics of the real relationship.
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
10
Expression-Nonexpression
Openness-closedness is “the tension experienced between the two partners in what to say
and what not to say to one another” (Baxter & Simon, 1993, p. 228). This dialectic focuses on
the intricacies between self-disclosure and keeping information private within a personal
relationship. Self-disclosure can include such things as personal facts, feelings, opinions, and
judgments, as well as informative statements or evaluations of the relationship (Baxter &
Montgomery, 1996). While self-disclosure is important in building a relationship or friendship,
there may be some things that the parties chose not to share. There is a pull between being
vulnerable by expressing themselves and avoiding the risk involved in sharing their private or
important information with another. On a related note, this dialectic can also show up between a
person’s desire to be honest about their evaluations of the other and wanting to preserve the other
person if the message may hurt them (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Conflict can occur when
“one party wants to disclose and the other doesn’t want to listen, or when one party doesn’t want
to disclose and the other wants to receive such disclosure” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p.
141). As with the other contradictions, if openness and closedness are not managed, they could
bring harm to the relationship.
Revelation-concealment involves public disclosure between a personal relationship and
those around them. In romantic relationships this would be very strong when determining
whether or not to tell others about the relationship. This can happen in other ways as well. For
example, when a couple is going to have a baby, they typically wait for what they think is the
opportune time to tell others. If they did not tell those around them, it could result in
considerable amounts of confusion for them and those surrounding them. Often, the couple may
not want to tell everyone that they are having a baby right away, however, “community members
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
11
need to know about relationship realities in order to respond to them” (Baxter & Montgomery,
1996, p. 173). Just as there is risk in self-disclosure, there is risk in sharing relational information
with society; the couple has to navigate what to reveal and what to conceal.
Research on Relational Dialectics
Many studies have been done to define how the contradictions posed by Baxter and
Montgomery appear in relationships and how they are managed. Although no studies have been
done on relational dialectics and roommate relationships specifically, Baxter conducted one
examining relational dialectics in relationship development (1990). In this study, the dialectical
contradictions of connection-autonomy, certainty-uncertainty, and openness-closedness were
examined retrospectively throughout relationship stages. The study sought to discover whether
the length of the relationship affected which dialectical contradictions were present. It also
examined which response strategies were employed to deal with the contradictions. Baxter found
that the three dialectics were not equally prevalent in all stages of relationships. In beginning
stages, the openness-closedness dialectic was most common. As the relationships developed,
openness-closedness tended to fade to the background and connection-autonomy and certaintyuncertainty became the primary dialectical contradictions (Baxter, 1990). Thus, based on this
research, as the length of a relationship expands and people get to know each other better,
openness-closedness becomes less pressing and connection-autonomy and certainty-uncertainty
become stronger tensions.
Baxter and Simon (1993), examined how the three main “contradictions of relating
mediate the relationship between satisfaction and perceived partner maintenance strategies” (p.
225). Testing preservation strategies in relationships and perceived partner satisfaction during the
dialectical tensions of connection-autonomy, certainty-uncertainty, and openness-closedness,
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
12
Baxter and Simon found that when the relationship was dominated by one pole of these
contradictions, maintenance strategies using the other pole were most effective. This was
discovered to be true in autonomy, predictability, and closedness dominated moments. For
example, when one partner feels that the relationship is too autonomous and perceives that their
partner is responding by increasing contact, this builds relationship satisfaction (Baxter & Simon,
1993). This information is important for seeing the effects of relational contradictions on
relationship satisfaction in any relationship.
Research on Roommate Relationships
Roommate relationships have been examined in a variety of contexts. Duran and Zakahi,
(1988) examined the connection between communication competence and roommate
satisfaction. Results indicate that roommate satisfaction has an impact on college performance
and enjoyment and that communicative competence has an impact on roommate relationships.
Moreover, this study found “strong evidence for a causal relationship between communicative
competence and roommate satisfaction” (p. 142). Communicative competence in this framework
means communicative satisfaction—the ability to perceive and fulfill the communicative
expectations of another—and communicative adaptability—the ability to predict another’s
response and adjust communication appropriately (Duran & Zakahi, 1988). Thus, roommates
were more likely to room together a second time when they found satisfaction in their
communication and were able to adapt to the communicative needs of the other.
Martin and Anderson, (1995) examined roommate similarity and communication traits.
This study asserts that in roommate relationships “communication strategies and communication
traits are a key factor in determining personal satisfaction with the other” (p. 46). Looking at
willingness to communicate, interpersonal communication competence, and verbal aggression,
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
13
this study examined similarities in roommate communication and the connection between these
similarities and roommate satisfaction. It found that when roommates are both willing to
communicate or are high in their ability to interpersonally communicate, they express
satisfaction. On the other hand, as would be expected, if roommates are high in verbal
aggressiveness, satisfaction does not occur (Martin & Anderson, 1995).
Further studies were done in the context of bettering the practices used to match
roommates together. Erlandson (2009)—similar to the studies previously mentioned—looked at
the similarity of interpersonal needs between roommates and their effect on roommate
satisfaction. Using a survey, this study assessed the roommates’ needs for inclusion, openness,
and control and then measured the relationship of those needs to the satisfaction between
roommates. The results found that only control had a significant relationship to satisfaction;
when both roommates were low in their need for control, there was more satisfaction in the
relationship than if both had a high need for control (Erlandson, 2009).
A second study by Erlandson (2012) examined the relationship between nonverbal
behavior and relationship satisfaction amongst roommates. Looking at immediacy (nonverbals
signaling approachability or liking) and territoriality (the use and division of shared living
space), this study sought to find out if similarity in these traits led to satisfaction in roommate
relationships. Observational methods to determine immediacy and survey research methods to
determine territoriality were used in this study. Coders of the immediacy observation looked at
proxemics distancing, body orientation, altercentrism, body relaxation, and positive affect
(Erlandson, 2012). The data gathered indicated that roommates who were both high in
territoriality had less satisfaction. With regards to immediacy, only positive affect seemed to
have a strong correlating relationship with roommate satisfaction (Erlandson, 2012).
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
14
Though these studies do not look at roommate relationships in the context of relational
dialectics, they do offer insight into the dynamics between roommates. Clearly, communication
is an important factor in the satisfaction and maintenance of roommate relationships. The first
study hints on a few key qualities of relational dialectics in its examination of communicative
adaptability. With the constant push and pull of contradictions in relationships, the ability to
sense the other person’s inclination and communicate accordingly is important and constant.
The purpose of this study is to observe the way the dialectics posed by Baxter and
Montgomery appear in the relationships of college roommates and their impact on roommate
satisfaction in relation to the length of time they have roomed together, the gender of the dyad.
Specifically, this study will examine the internal dialectics of connection-autonomy, opennessclosedness, and certainty-uncertainty. Much research has been done on these dialectics in the
context of romantic and familial relations, but not on roommates. Similarly, much research has
been done on roommates, but not in the context of relational dialectics. According to the
research, all three dialectics occur in romantic or familial relations (Baxter & Montgomery,
1996). Further, the contradictions have shown various amounts of strength at different stages in
the relationships (Baxter, 1990). Thus, the type and length of the roommate relationship may
indicate which contradictions appear and how strongly. The research questions are as follows:
RQ1: Which dialectic is most valued in a roommate relationship?
RQ2: Does the gender of the roommates affect the value of the three dialectics?
The hypothesis is as follows:
H1: The openness-closedness dialectic will be most valued in shorter roommate
relationships and the connection-autonomy and certainty-uncertainty dialectics
will be more valued in longer relationships.
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
15
Method
Subjects/Participants
The participants for this study are 98 students from a small, private, Midwestern
university. There were 100 surveys passed out, but only 98 were returned. There were 61 females
and 36 males. The participants were selected via convenience, purposive and cluster sampling.
Anyone participating in this study was required to have a roommate in order to fill out the
survey.
Procedure
For the purpose of this study, roommates were considered people one shares a room
with—not simply a house or an apartment. After confirming that participants had roommates,
they were given a survey to fill out with questions pertaining to their roommate relationships.
The survey is structured to assess the three dialectics of connection-autonomy, certaintyuncertainty, and openness-closedness in roommate relationships. These dialectics show the
inherent contradictions present in close relationships. To determine which dialectic occurs most
strongly in roommate relationships, this survey asked a series of behavior questions on a 5-point
Likert scale. The points on the scale ranged from low to high: “Strongly disagree,” “Disagree,”
“Neutral,” “Agree,” and “Strongly agree.” For each question, one side of the scale was geared
toward one side of the dialectic and the other side of the scale was geared toward the other
dialectic. The scale will illustrate the participants’ behavior regarding the varying dialectics. For
example, depending on which part of the scale they circle, they could be either more autonomous
than connected or vice versa— this applies to the other two dialectics as well. The survey also
contained some attitude questions that used a 5-point Likert scale to assess participants’
preferences towards the different poles of the dialectical contradictions. The attitude questions
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
16
serve to help reinforce the behavior questions and show which dialectic is most valued. The
survey also had one question about the length of the roommate relationship to measure whether
the dialectical tensions are equally present in various stages of the relationship. Finally, to
determine whether gender has an influential effect on which dialectics are valued, the
participants were asked to mark their gender at the end of the survey.
This survey accurately detects the preference of the dialectics because it not only looks at
behavior but attitude as well. Additionally, the structure of the questions is fixed so that there are
reliability checks in several places throughout. This set-up prevents someone from simply
working through the entire survey and circling one side of the scale for every question—that
would mean that they have not paid attention. Finally, the survey answers the relationship length
and gender questions necessary for RQ2 and H1 by having participants identify both of these
items. Descriptive statistics are used for data analysis. For an example survey, see appendix.
Results
The research questions and hypothesis are as follows: RQ1: Which dialectic is most
valued in a roommate relationship? RQ2: Does the gender of the roommates affect the value of
the three dialectics? And H1: The openness-closedness dialectic will be most valued in shorter
roommate relationships and the connection-autonomy and certainty-uncertainty dialectics will be
more valued in longer relationships. It was discovered that RQ1 and RQ2 ultimately produced
similar results, regardless of gender. H1 was partially supported but not fully corroborated.
In answer to RQ1, the most favored dialectic was discovered to be the dialectic of
openness-closedness with a mean score of 4.18 on a 5-point Likert scale. Certainty-uncertainty
was the second most valued dialectic with a mean score of 3.85. Connection-autonomy was the
least valued with a mean score of 3.57. These results are shown in Chart 1.
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
17
Chart 1
The Most Valued Dialectic of Total Sample
Additionally, based on the preference questions, the poles of connection, openness, and
certainty were more valued than their opposites—especially in the case of connection versus
autonomy. Closedness was the least preferred, followed by autonomy, and then certainty. These
results are shown in Chart 2.
Chart 2
Oder of Preferences toward Each Dialectical Pole
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
18
For RQ2, the data found that gender does not affect the order of preferences for
dialectics. Males and females both preferred openness-closedness above the other two dialectics.
Females had a mean score of 4.34 and males had a mean score of 3.91 on a 5-point Likert scale.
The other two dialectics ranked the same as they did for the entire sample: certainty-uncertainty
second and connection-autonomy third. This data is shown in Chart 3.
Chart 3
The Most Valued Dialectic of Males versus Females
Though both sexes preferred the same dialectic, there was statistical significance between
how much they valued the dialectics. The females scored significantly higher than the males on
their openness-closedness preference, ANOVA (F= 8.735; 1, 96, p= 0.004). There was also
statistical significance in the preference of certainty-uncertainty between females and males such
that females preferred this dialectic more than males, ANOVA (F= 10.381; 1, 96, p= 0.002).
Though both sexes value the dialectics, they seem more important to females overall.
H1 was only partially supported. While the data did support that the openness-closedness
dialectic was most valued in shorter relationships, it was also the strongest dialectic in longer
relationships. The order of the other two dialectics was also the same throughout the length of
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
19
the relationship with certainty-uncertainty being the second most valued and connectionautonomy the least valued. These results are shown in Chart 4.
Chart 4
The Most Valued Dialectic According to Relationship Length
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine whether relational dialectics are valued in
roommate relationships in the same way that they are valued in romantic and family
relationships. Moreover, this study looked at whether the duration of the relationship or sex of
the roommates affects which dialectic is most valued. There was no previous research done on
relational dialectics in this particular area. The data from this study shows that the three
dialectics of connection-autonomy, openness-closedness, and certainty-uncertainty are all present
in roommate relationships, supporting the view of Baxter and Montgomery that relational
dialectics occurs in all close relationships. The most valued dialectic, according to this study—
regardless of length of relationship or gender— is openness-closedness, followed by certaintyuncertainty, and then connection-autonomy. The openness, certainty, and connection sides of the
dialectics were all more valued than their opposites, showing a preference for advancement of
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
20
the relationship and potentially adding support for theories such as the Uncertainty Reduction
Theory and the Social Penetration Theory that look at relational development.
Based on previous research on relational dialectics in romantic relationships done by
Baxter, this study hypothesized that as the roommate relationship progressed, the most valued
dialectic would change from openness-closedness at first to certainty-uncertainty and
connection-autonomy once the roommates had become better acquainted later in the relationship.
Since openness-closedness was the most preferred dialectic regardless of the length of the
relationship, this hypothesis was not completely supported. This finding could mean that the
preferred dialectic only changes in relationships of a certain nature— or that the study itself
could not accurately assess the hypothesis posed. Either factor might be at play in the results, but
the true cause cannot be determined by the research at hand.
This study contained several limitations. One such limitation was the amount of
participants. There would be a larger predictive validity to this research if there was a greater and
more varied sample being tested. Most of the participants in this study marked that they
considered their relationships “healthy” on the survey, but a greater dynamic between dialectics
would be shown in some unhealthy roommate relationships. Another limitation to this study is
that the data gathered was self-report and therefore subject to a certain amount of error. Finally,
this study only assessed the participants at the current point in their roommate relationship. Had
the study been longitudinal, examining the participants over a length of time, there might have
been a greater difference shown between longer and shorter roommate relationships and perhaps
the hypothesis would have been fully supported.
If this study were to be replicated, an improved research tactic and methodology would
create more comprehensive results. A future examination of relational dialectics in roommate
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
21
relationships would produce more in-depth results if a longitudinal study was conducted,
examining the roommates’ preferences at different points in the relationship, throughout their
time rooming together. This study lacked richness because it only examined each relationship at
its current point from one side of the relationship, not over a span of time and from both sides. A
future study, to provide greater insight into the impact and value of the dialectics, would need to
assess each roommate and the satisfaction between the roommates as a pair; both roommates
should fill out the survey and the researcher should analyze their results as compared to each
other. Additionally, a future study should include more nuanced questions to gauge both sides of
each dialectic more fully. Lastly, future studies should also examine the maintenance strategies
determined by Baxter and Montgomery and how those work between roommates. Would it be
different than in romantic relationships?
Examination of relational dialectics in roommate relationships, and maintenance
strategies associated with them may provide beneficial information for college housing
departments when creating policies and dealing with roommate conflict. Studies like this one
would assist universities in better understanding the dynamics of roommate relationships and
help roommates to recognize the tensions and contradictions occurring in their own relationships.
Once people understand what is happening, they will be more fully equipped to manage potential
struggle and create a healthier relationship overall. In short, research on relational dialectics in
roommate relationships could be a powerful communication aid and resource.
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
22
Appendix
Roommate Relationship Survey
Directions: Circle the best answer that applies. Please do not discuss this survey with your roommate
until you have both finished taking it.
Note: You must currently have a roommate to participate in this research.
1. How long have you lived with your roommate?
Less than 6 months
6 to 12 months
13 months to 2 years
2 plus years
2. Most of the activities (hobbies or interests) that I participate in involve my roommate.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
3. How often do you and your roommate participate in mutual activities?
Once a day
Once a week
Once a month
Once every several months
Not applicable
4. In reference to question 3, I appreciate the amount of time that I and my roommate spend on
these activities.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
5. I am involved in most of the activities (hobbies or interests) that my roommate participates in.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
6. There are certain activities (hobbies or interests) that I and my roommate participate in
together outside of our room.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
7. How often do you participate in these shared activities?
Once a day
Once a week
Once a month
Once every several months
8. I enjoy having time away from my roommate.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Not applicable
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
23
9. My relationship with my roommate would be better if we spent more time with each other.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
10. My roommate shares personal information with me.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
11. In reference to question 10, it benefits our relationship when my roommate shares personal
information with me.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
12. I often share personal information with my roommate.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
13. In reference to question 12, it benefits our relationship when I share personal information with
my roommate.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
14. My relationship with my roommate would be better if we were more open with each other.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
15. I would prefer that my roommate and I not discuss personal issues.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
16. My roommate and I have established routines (sleeping schedules, cleaning, etc.).
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
17. I appreciate having routines in my roommate relationship.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Agree
Strongly agree
18. I rarely know the schedule of my roommate.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
19. I like to know what to expect from my roommate.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
20. In my roommate relationship, I prefer unity.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
21. In my roommate relationship, I prefer to be separate from my roommate.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
22. In my roommate relationship, I prefer we share information with each other.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
23. In my roommate relationship, I prefer to keep to myself.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
24. In my roommate relationship, I prefer predictability.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
25. In my roommate relationship, I prefer spontaneity.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
26. I consider my roommate relationship healthy.
Strongly disagree
27. I am…
Male
Female
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
24
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
25
References
Baxter, L. A. (1990). Dialectical contradictions in relationship development. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 7, 69-88. doi: 10.1177/0265407590071004
Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal relationships, 11, 1-22. doi:
10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00068.x
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B.M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (Eds.) (1998). Dialectical approaches to studying personal
relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baxter, L. A., & Simon, E. P. (1993). Relationship maintenance strategies and dialectical
contradictions in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
10, 225-242. doi: 10.1177/026540759301000204
Duran, R. L., & Zakahi, W. R. (1988). The influence of communicative competence upon
roommate satisfaction. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 135-146. doi:
10.1080/10570318809389631
Erlandson, K. (2009). Similarity of interpersonal needs and roommate satisfaction. Journal of
College and University Student Housing, 36(2), 10-23.
Erlandson, K. (2012). Stay out of my space! Territoriality and nonverbal immediacy as
predictors of roommate satisfaction. Journal of College and University Student Housing,
38(2), 46-61.
Griffin, E. (2012). Relational dialectics. A first look at communication theory (8th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS IN ROOMMATE RELATIONSHIPS
26
Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1995). Roommate similarity: Are roommates who are
similar in their communication traits more satisfied? Communication Research Reports,
12(1), 46-52. doi: 10.1080/08824099509362038
Montgomery, B. M. (1993). Relationship maintenance versus relationship change: A dialectical
dilemma. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 205-223. doi:
10.177/026540759301000203