Running head: RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
Relational Dialectics Theory: An Affirmed Communication Entity
Jack Wright
Texas Christian University
1
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
2
Generally speaking, communication theory looks to understand and explain the dynamics
of interpersonal communication. Relational Dialectics Theory, which was first presented by
communication theorists Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in 1988, refines that theoretical
speculation by focusing on the natural and unavoidable tensions that permeate relationships as a
direct result of opposing needs and desires. Case study six in Dawn Braithwaite and Julia
Wood’s textbook Casing Interpersonal Communication: Case Studies in Personal and Social
Relationships exemplifies a near perfect manifestation of this particular communication theory,
affirming it as not only a legitimate and well-reasoned phenomenon of the communication world,
but also as a very practical and high-utility theory that is applicable to virtually any individual’s
personal life and experience. After observing the potent presence of relational dialectics theory
in case study six, I Need Some Space: Friends Through Good Times and Bad Times, the theory’s
central propositions are all confirmed, with only very minor and practically negligible changes to
be offered.
Part One: The Theory
Relational Dialectics Theory is concerned with the tensions that arise in any and all
interpersonal relationships; friendships, family members, even romantic relationships. As
Sahlstein and Dun put it in their study of breakups resulting from poorly managed dialectical
tensions, “various contradictions are at play in relational life,” and “a contradiction is the
dynamic interplay between unified oppositions” (Sahlstein & Dun, 2008, p. 2). In their most
general sense, dialectical tensions are defined as “conflicts between two important but opposing
needs or desires” (Floyd, 2009, p. 336). Though these tensions may initially seem entirely
problematic and best to avoid whenever possible, the reality is that they are in fact completely
natural and even inevitable in all interpersonal relationships. Dialectical tensions are not
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
3
warring, conflictive affairs concerning two separate parties with two directly opposing goals, but
rather more of a wrestling process in which both parties struggle to meet the same two seemingly
antithetical goals, or “unified oppositions…competing yet intertwined” (Sahlstein & Dun, 2008,
pp. 1-2), and balance them evenly.
Relational dialectics theory proposes three primary tensions that animate relational
communication: autonomy/connection, novelty/predictability, and openness/closedness. The
autonomy/connection tension focuses on the need for personal, private time and space versus
humanity’s natural desire to be part of a group and belong there, simply by feeling comfortable
in that group. The novelty/predictability tension (also known as conventionality/change)
juxtaposes the desire for regular, routine practices in relationships, which serve to inspire
comfort, with the opposing need for more novel, unscheduled and unpredictable experiences in
those same relationships, which yield fun and excitement. Finally, the openness/closedness
tension is concerned with the want for privacy and maintenance of private information, which
opposes the equal desire to share parts of our lives and personal information with friends and
family members.
The careful monitoring and maintenance of these three dialectical tensions is absolutely
vital to the survival of any relationship. As Zhang and Stafford put it in their study of honest but
hurtful messages in the context of relational dialectics and the managing thereof, “close partners
function as safety nets for the others’ self-protection and self-enhancement” (Zhang & Stafford,
2009, p. 4), and if dialectical tensions are addressed inappropriately, the necessary existence of
these “safety nets” can be put at great risk or eliminated entirely, a formula not at all conducive
to happiness and overall satisfaction with interpersonal relationships. Relational Dialectics
Theory offers four tactical strategies to help manage and respond to the three primary tensions:
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
4
selection, separation, neutralization, and reframing. Selection, the most common response to all
three dialectical tensions, essentially concerns the prioritization of the two opposing needs,
which ultimately results in the satisfaction of one while the other is simply ignored. Separation,
on the other hand, tries to fulfill both needs by splitting them up and meeting each in separate
social spheres or situations. The name for this particular strategy can often be misleading in that
it does not necessarily involve the separation of the two involved parties, but rather the two
involved desires. Neutralization is essentially a process of compromise, which can always meet
each need at least partially but cannot address both fully. Finally, reframing involves the
transformation of the two opposing needs so that they no longer contradict each other. While
this clearly sounds like the best overall tactic for responding to dialectical tensions as it
eliminates the tension completely, it is also the most complex and sophisticated response strategy
and consequently the most difficult to implement.
Part Two: Case Study Analysis and Theoretical Application
Case study six, I Need Some Space: Friends through Good Times and Bad Times details
the four year college experience of two best friends, Ashley and Jacinta, who attend the same
university and begin their collegiate careers by living together. A very strong connection
between the two friends is clear in the beginning of the case study, as both girls are nervous
about their new and exciting yet unfamiliar lives in college and are thus relieved to be living with
each other not only because they know each other well, but have been best friends for four years.
Everything goes very smoothly for the first four months, as Ashley and Jacinta are literally
inseparable and spend virtually all of their time together. By the fifth month, however, Ashley
feels that her relationship with Jacinta has become too overbearing and consequently starts
spending less and less time with her, choosing instead to surround herself with other friends
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
5
while wrestling with the decision of whether or not to confront Jacy with the issue. The
conversation doesn’t surface until Ashley comes home in a terrible mood one day and lashes out
at Jacinta for being messy, which initially sparks a heated and emotional argument until the girls
finally settle down and rationalize their problems together. As a result, Ashley and Jacinta
decide not to live together their next year of college, which again begins smoothly and helps the
girls reestablish their former strength of connection until Jacinta discovers evidence of Ashley’s
boyfriend cheating with another girl. Jacy struggles with the dilemma of whether to tell Ashley
about the situation or not, until she ultimately decides that as Ashley’s best friend it is her duty to
be honest and hopefully save Ashley from further heartbreak. Ashley is devastated at the news,
but the moment of sincere caring for one another further serves to bring the girls even closer
together. As a result of their reinforced connection over the course of sophomore year, the girls
decide to live together again for the upcoming fall semester, though Ashley plans on studying
abroad in France during the spring. Again the year begins perfectly, until Ashley discovers that
the boy Jacinta is dating and has been so secretive about is in fact her ex-boyfriend. The girls’
entire relationship seems to crumble in just an instant, and they don’t speak to or even look at
each other for some time until Jacy finally tries to make amends, which is met by the reality that
fixing their friendship would take some time and be perpetuated by a very unique sort of
awkwardness. Ashley goes off to France second semester and the two take some time apart with
little communication, until the semester ends and Ashley returns to the States with the conviction
to forgive and forget and hopefully become best friends with Jacy again. For their final year of
college the girls decide to live together again, and they finally experience an entire year with no
significant relational turbulence whatsoever, again reestablishing the strong connection that they
had come to college with.
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
6
In the beginning of the case study, both girls are struggling with the same dialectical
tension that most incoming college freshman encounter as a central part of their collegiate
experience: the novelty/predictability tension. As Ashley puts it, “I’m okay. I think it’s just
going to take some time to adjust to living away from home and my family.” Jacinta responds
with “I know exactly what you mean. Giving up the comforts and security of home will be
tough, but the excitement of being independent and exploring life on our own will be a great
experience.” Here, the girls are both acknowledging the natural discomfort of moving away
from family and living independently for the first time, which deviates severely from their
traditionally well-known and predictable way of life, while simultaneously juxtaposing that
discomfort with the new and fresh excitement of college life and the novelty it entails. The girls
have already done the best they could to address this oh so common predicament with a selective
strategy of rooming together, which will do nothing to add to the novelty of their college lives
since they have been best friends for four years and know each other so well. However, deciding
to live together easily satiates both girls’ need for predictability simply by providing a familiar
face for a living partner and social stronghold as they maneuver through the first year of their
college careers.
Four months later, the girls reencounter this same tension in a very different light, and
also in conjunction with yet another dialectical tension: autonomy/connection. After so much
time of doing all the exact same things with the exact same people and eating the exact same
meals, Ashley begins to feel suffocated by the overly potent presence of her relationship with
Jacinta. Here, Ashley is again experiencing the novelty/predictability tension as she yearns for
something new in her daily routine while simultaneously valuing the relationship she has with
her best friend so highly. Similarly, this appreciation for her roommate and closest friend
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
7
directly contradicts her desire to meet and hang out with new people, which is a textbook
example of the autonomy/connection dialectical tension. In her attempt to deal with these
mounting problems, Ashley encounters the third and final dialectical tension:
openness/closedness. She wants to sit down and talk with Jacinta about the problem, but at the
same time is extremely worried that saying something might hurt both Jacy’s feelings and their
friendship in general. In response to this issue, Ashley again implements a selective strategy as
she continues to put off the inevitable conversation with Jacy, which satisfies her need for
closedness and abates her worries about hurting her friend’s feelings, while concurrently denying
her want to be open about her own feelings. In reaction to the autonomy/connection and
novelty/predictability predicaments posed by this situation, Ashley adopts more of a neutralizing
strategy by sneaking out to hang out with other people without telling Jacy about it. This tactic
represents a typical compromise process, as she is meeting both of her needs to spend time with
Jacy and other people at least somewhat, but neither fully.
When the conversation Ashley has been avoiding finally arises as she comes home from
class one day in a terrible mood, the girls again encounter the openness/closedness tension as
they both wonder why Ashley hadn’t mentioned anything sooner, but acknowledge that the
subject matter definitely is highly personal and a bit touchy. After a short heated discussion, the
girls settle down and ultimately make a promise “that if we ever have a problem, no matter what
it is, we will tell each other right away.” Here again the girls are implementing the most
common strategic response to dialectical tensions, selection, as they are making a pact to always
be open about everything with each other and thus denying themselves privacy.
After a freshman year of some interpersonal conflict and way too much time spent
together, Ashley and Jacinta decide to remain good friends sophomore year but to try rooming
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
8
with other people. Here, they are using the response of separation for the first time, as they hope
to still spend time with one another while also providing some physical and social distance,
which serves to fulfill their needs for autonomy, connection, novelty, and predictability in
separate social spheres. The girls’ use of the separation tactic proves to be well founded as the
semester progresses, as “Jacinta and Ashley’s friendship grew stronger and they enjoyed the time
they spent together.” By virtue of the proper use of responses to dialectical tensions, the girls are
finally starting to re-establish the strong connection they had with one another when they first
came to college as freshmen.
Sophomore year continues to progress with no problems for the friends, until Jacinta
suddenly discovers a picture of Ashley’s boyfriend kissing another girl. Jacinta becomes torn
between being a good friend by telling Ashley about her discovery and sparing her best friend of
the pain it will cause her, which is largely a resurfacing of the openness/closedness dialectical
tension almost identical to that experienced by Ashley the year before. In the end, Jacinta
implements selection by being open about the issue and telling Ashley, which she feels is her
obligation and responsibility as a best friend. Though Ashley is heartbroken, she meets the news
with gratitude for having such a reliable friend in her life and being spared further pain, which
affirms Jacy’s implementation of selection as well reasoned. The girls acknowledge their
genuine mutual appreciation for the amazing relationship they share, further reinforcing their
establishment of connection and resulting in their decision to live together again the following
year.
Ashley and Jacinta’s decision to become roommates again is largely representative of a
neutralization strategy…their issues are on the table and they know they each needs time to
herself, yet at the same time they both know they couldn’t have a better friend to live with. The
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
9
friends are therefore compromising in that they hope to spend time both together and apart in this
living arrangement, which will again meet their needs for autonomy, connection, novelty and
predictability at least partially, but none of them fully. Again their year of living together opens
with no problems, until Jacinta starts dating Ashley’s ex-boyfriend and remains perpetually
secretive about it. Here again Jacy is wrestling with the openness/closedness tension, and for the
exact same reason as both girls had struggled with this tension before…she knows she should be
responsible and tell Ashley the truth, while she is also worried about both Ashley’s feelings and
the well-being of their relationship. Jacinta chooses to implement a selective strategy by
remaining closed with her personal information and continuing to avoid the issue until Ashley
discovers it herself firsthand, which instantly deteriorates their relationship to nothing. Ashley
screams “don’t talk to me ever again!” at Jacinta, and for an entire week her wish is granted as
the two exchange neither a word nor eye contact with one another. The girls are thus again
implementing selection to respond to their openness/closedness dialectical tension, choosing to
remain closed to one another and never to indulge their desire for openness until Jacy finally tries
to apologize.
Once communication becomes re-established, Ashley and Jacinta invoke the strategy of
reframing for the first time by spending a lot of time talking about Jacy’s situation with Ashley’s
ex-boyfriend and trying to justify it. In doing so, they are attempting to re-develop connection
with one another by transforming their opinions about this problematic situation so that they can
both get on the same page rather than having opinions that directly appose each other. The girls
further this effort by also invoking the strategy of separation when Ashley goes to study abroad
in France, agreeing that “they would take this time apart to think about how they could turn their
friendship around.” By again immersing themselves in separate social environments, the girls
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
10
hope to achieve some autonomy while simultaneously fortifying their connection with each
other.
As Ashley arrives in France, she feels “a sense of relief from the pressures of home and
friends,” yet she also knows “she would miss Jacy and her family.” Just like when she was first
going away to college, Ashley is again experiencing both the autonomy/connection and
novelty/predictability tensions, as she revels in her new environment but misses the familiarity of
being back home and the relationships she has distanced herself from with an entire ocean.
Jacinta is experiencing a similar situation back in the states, as her separation from her best
friend is causing her to feel lonely. These two lingering tensions go unaddressed for a time until
the girls finally get back in touch via email, agreeing to stay in touch with regular messages until
Ashley returns back home. In doing this, the girls are again implementing a selective process by
choosing connection over autonomy, predictability over novelty, and openness over closedness.
When Ashley finally returns home, the girls immediately make amends with each other
by utilizing the strategy of reframing for the second time. After thinking things over during their
time apart as the girls said they would, Ashley claims to have “learned to forgive and forget.”
They both agree that they want to be best friends again, which manifests that they truly have
gotten onto the same page together as Ashley understands Jacinta’s perspective regarding her exboyfriend and Jacinta has also moved on to another relationship. With their interpersonal
connection again restored to an all-time high, the girls decide to spend their last year of college
living together, which finally goes by with no major problems. After graduation, the two again
encounter the novelty/predictability and autonomy/connection predicaments as Jacinta plans to
take a job in Arizona and Ashley is moving back to France. “They were both excited to start
their new lives but at the same time, they were sad about leaving each other.” As their final
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
11
strategy to respond to dialectical tensions in the case study, the girls embrace their new lives by
implementing separation, promising “to write and call often” and to “always be friends no matter
what.” In doing so, they are fully meeting their needs for all three dialectical tensions, as they
agree to move forward with their new and separate lives but to never forget the past, keep in
touch, and always treasure the wonderful relationship they have together.
Part Three: Critique of Ashley and Jacinta’s Use of Relational Dialectics Theory
At times during this case study, both Ashley and Jacinta seem extremely well informed
on the dynamics of Relational Dialectics Theory as they recognize the struggle they are
experiencing and seem to choose the perfect response strategy to implement, which always
results in the strengthening of their relationship. At other times, however, the girls seem
completely oblivious to the propositions Relational Dialectics Theory makes, and the results of
these cases always prove conversely detrimental to their relationship and serve to create more
interpersonal problems that require solving. The poorly managed dialectical tensions and
response strategies seem always to be a direct result of one girl’s concern for the other’s feelings
and uncertainty about how to communicate sensitive information without hurting her. The first
of these instances is when Ashley continues to put off the conversation she needs to have with
Jacinta about establishing some autonomy after having spent four entire months together
freshman year. This results in the conversation surfacing at the worst possible time: when
Ashley is in an extremely bad mood one day and consequently cannot contain her emotions. The
tactic of selecting closedness was clearly very poorly implemented here, as both girls
acknowledge that it would have been better for Ashley to just be open, honest, and voice her
opinions. Had they been better informed on the details of Relational Dialectics Theory, this
mistake certainly could have been avoided.
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
12
The second problematic situation occurs when Jacinta applies the same tactic to her
openness/closedness tension regarding dating Ashley’s ex-boyfriend. Though her selection of
closedness was inspired by the care for Ashley’s feelings and the health of their relationship, the
situation could have definitely been diffused much more effectively by an honest and open
conversation rather than waiting until Ashley witnesses Jacinta’s corruption firsthand. These
two primary negative scenarios echoed the exact message Zhang and Stafford try to convey in
their study of relational ramifications of honest but hurtful messages in close relationships.
Zhang and Stafford claim that “honest and accurate feedback from a close partner can benefit an
individual’s personal growth and maturation,” and therefore “honest but hurtful evaluative
messages could serve to protect or enhance the recipient in the long term, which could benefit
the relationship” (Zhang & Stafford, 2009, p. 4). With reference to Zhang and Stafford’s
aforementioned metaphor of close friends serving as “safety nets” for one another, it seems
absolutely vital that members of an interpersonal relationship always be honest with one another
no matter the consequence, as the help will likely outweigh the hurt. This message rings very
true throughout case study six and the emotional roller coaster of Ashley and Jacinta’s
friendship.
Though there were these few times when Ashley and Jacinta seemed completely
uninformed about the concept of Relational Dialectics Theory, the two of them also did a
phenomenal job of responding to their dialectical tensions in other situations. When Jacinta
discovered that Ashley’s boyfriend was cheating on her, for example, she manifested Zhang and
Stafford’s emphasis on the importance of honesty perfectly by selecting to open up to Ashley
about the situation. Ashley and Jacinta’s use of separation sophomore year when they decided to
room with different people proved equally impressive, as it resulted in the fortification and re-
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
13
establishment of their strong interpersonal connection. Most admirable of all their responses to
dialectical tensions, though, was their successful implementation of reframing at the end of the
case study, which is always the most difficult tactic to apply to real life scenarios. The natural
difficulty of the use of reframing aside, Ashley and Jacinta also successfully utilized it after
Ashley’s discovery of Jacy’s relationship with her ex-boyfriend…a social situation that is not at
all acceptable by any means or standards and consequently quite difficult to overcome.
Seeing relational dialectics applied to and played out in a real life situation, especially
one so relevant to my own college life and experience, definitely helped me to better understand
both the proposals of the theory and the meaning of the case study in general. When we began
discussing Relational Dialectics Theory in class, I remember initially being extremely confused
and lacking any real understanding of the theory’s subject matter. I had never heard the term
“dialectic” before, despite being an English major, and as I mentioned earlier I found some of the
key terms of the theory to be extremely confusing and misleading. Preparing my research for
this paper and going through the process of writing it has definitely opened my eyes to a full
understanding of the concepts of the theory, and observing it within the context of college life
was particularly helpful in this regard since I myself am currently in college and have recently
faced many dilemmas similar to those encountered by Ashley and Jacinta. Going through the
process of reading and analyzing this case study, I encountered very little trouble recognizing
and singling out the particular dialectical tensions the girls encountered and the response
strategies they implemented, and this was a direct result of having the definitions and a good
understanding of the theory’s key concepts so readily at hand.
Part Four: Critique of the Theory
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
14
Case study six: I Need Some Space mostly serves as an affirmation of the validity and
practicality of Relational Dialectics Theory. The scope of this theory is remarkably broad, as it
attempts to address and define the tensions that permeate any and all interpersonal relationships.
As a result, the narrowing of possible dialectical tensions to only three, along with the responses
to those tensions to only four, proved extremely impressive to me in that the theorists could
address such a wide range of relationally problematic situations in such a concise and simple
way. This obviously also speaks to the parsimony of Relational Dialectics Theory, as it seems
ideally rationalized and simplified. In applying this theory to case study six, I found no new or
unexplained dialectical tensions or response strategies, and upon reflecting on personal
experience this observation remained consistent. To apparently solve so many common
problems in such a simplistic way really is something to be admired indeed. As for testability, I
myself went through the process of testing this theory’s validity by applying it to a real life
situation case study, and as I mentioned, that case study manifested all three dialectical tensions
and all four response strategies more than once, while it simultaneously did not birth the
necessity to add to these concise lists. The validity of Relational Dialectics Theory is thus
confirmed. The practical utility of this theory is also unquestionable, as it is applicable to the
experience of literally any individual and as evidenced by the experiences of Ashley and Jacinta
it can offer extremely helpful and realistic guidance in coming up with solutions to interpersonal
tensions. Finally, with regard to heuristic value, I don’t really see Relational Dialectics Theory
as provoking new thought or insight, but rather explaining the most common problems
encountered in interpersonal relationships and the methods for solving them, which I was blind
to before studying this theory. I still see this as equally meaningful and beneficial to the
generation of new thought, and the inspiration of insight is after all entirely subjective…thought
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
15
can be provoked anywhere by anything, so just because I myself did not experience this with
Relational Dialectics Theory does not mean it is impossible. I therefore do not discount
Relational Dialectics Theory from having heuristic value.
In my view, Relational Dialectics Theory did a phenomenal job of explaining the
interpersonal communication dynamics described in case study six. I found evidence for every
single dialectical tension and response method multiple times, and did not encounter an absolute
necessity to further develop those refined lists. Though my first encounters with the theory
definitely did entail some confusion, the genuine ease of understanding Relational Dialectics
Theory was rapidly revealed to me within case study six and my pursuit of this assignment, and
for that I am sincerely appreciative. The only way the theory fell short of furthering my
understanding of its issues was that I personally did not really experience the inspiration of new
thought or ideas, though the theory’s ability to concisely describe some of the most common and
problematic relational life problems and ways to solve them more than made up for this lack of
new insight.
As I mentioned earlier, I only see a few very minor and practically negligible changes to
Relational Dialectics Theory as necessary, and all are more optional than vital. Some of the key
terms are definitely misleading, and I was able to confirm this issue with some of my classmates,
who had similar difficulties in distinguishing the real meanings of these terms from our
perceived ones. The term separation for one of the dialectical tension response strategies, for
example, proved to be particularly problematic in our understanding of the theory. This word by
nature implies that the concerned individuals are responding to a dialectical tension by
separating, or creating physical and/or social distance from one another. Though in this
particular case study, the strategy of separation always was accompanied by this creation of
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
16
distance, according to the theory itself this is not always the case. The strategy of separation
does not center on the separation of the concerned individuals, but rather the two dialectics they
are experiencing in opposition to each other, attempting to fulfill both in separated environments
of life. I also had an issue with the strategic term neutralization, as this strategy really doesn’t
neutralize either dialectic but rather tries to satisfy each at least somewhat. Compromise seems a
much better term for this relational maintenance strategy. Finally, closedness isn’t technically a
word, which bothered me a little bit, but it is a term that is both very appropriate for the tension
and easy to understand, so my minor concern here may just be the nit-picky English major in me.
I would therefore suggest that some of Relational Dialectics Theory’s key terms be changed and
simplified, namely separation and neutralization, but this is likely more a matter of personal
preference than absolute necessity.
As I’ve reiterated multiple times, there definitely is no glaring need to add to the theory’s
lists of dialectical tensions and response strategies. In my analysis of case study six, however, I
did find numerous cases in which Ashley and Jacinta were both exemplifying multiple tensions
and response strategies simultaneously, which gave me the thought that a few more of each could
be added to the theory in an attempt to incorporate these multiple tensions and maintenance
methods together. Though this would add complexity to Relational Dialectics Theory and thus
prove detrimental to its parsimony, I still see the potential opportunity to further expand and
develop the theory as possibly beneficial. In the instance where Jacy and Ashley are
exemplifying both reframing and separation by immersing themselves in separate environments
to collect their thoughts and try and turn their friendship around, for example, a term like
“separated reframing” could potentially prove useful. Still, though, I do not see this as an
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
17
absolutely necessary revision of Relational Dialectics Theory, as both maintenance methods can
be addressed and described separately.
In conclusion, Baxter and Montgomery’s Relational Dialectics Theory from 1988 offers
an extremely simplistic and concise definition of all of the tensions experienced in interpersonal
relationships, be they with friends, family, or romantic partners, and even provides a complete
toolbox for the process of going about addressing these tensions and solving relational life
problems. Case study six: I Need Some Space serves as a perfect affirmation to the legitimacy
and practicality of this theory, as it manifests all three dialectical tensions and all four
maintenance strategies multiple times without exposing any significant weaknesses in the
theoretical argument of Relational Dialectics. Though there are some very minor improvements
that could be made to the dynamics of this theory, these changes are essentially negligible
options that do not at all take away from its significance or utility. As a result, any individual
would do well to become educated on the propositions of Relational Dialectics Theory and
employ its service in real life scenarios, as evidenced by the testament of case study six from
Braithwaite and Wood’s Casing Interpersonal Communication textbook.
18
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
Works Cited
Braithwaite, D., & Wood, J. (2011). Casing Interpersonal Communication: Case Studies in Personal
and Social Relationships. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Floyd, K. (2009). Interpersonal Communication: The Whole Story. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Sahlstein, E., & Dun, T. (2008). “I wanted time to myself and he wanted to be together all the time”:
Constructing breakups as managing autonomy-connection. Qualitative Research Reports in
Communication, 9(1), 37-45.
Zhang, S., & Stafford, L. (2009). Relational ramifications of honest but hurtful evaluative messages in
close relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 73(4), 481-501.