Relational Turbulence: What Doesn’t Kill Us Makes Us Stronger
COMM 3140 Reading Notes 9/11/13



Change is the frequent subject of poetry, parables, and popular culture.
o Changes in close relationships can stem from a variety of sources,
including individual growth, relationship development, or external
circumstances.
“It is not the strongest of species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but
the one most responsive to change.” –Charles Darwin
How couples weather the transitions they encounter over the lifespan of
their relationship shapes the quality durability of their association.
o When changes threaten or disrupt sources of satisfaction within a
relationship, they can erode the very foundation of intimacy.
o Changes can invite partners to increase their investment in the
relationship, refine their strategies for maintaining individual and
collective well-being, and deepen the bond between partners.
o Understanding how close relationship partners experience transitions
provides important insight into the trajectory of romantic
associations.
Transitions and Relational Turbulence:
 To understand the importance of transitions within close relationships,
consider what it means to have a personal relationship in the first place.
o Prior to establishing a close relationship, two individuals who are
merely acquainted with each other have lives that are largely
independent.
 Forming a personal relationship requires the integration of
these independent lives.
o Partners share personal details that create a sense of intimacy and
build trust.
o Partners also involve each other in their daily routines, by scheduling
activities together and helping each other to achieve personal goals.
o Partners come to see their identities as overlapping, the partner
affects each person’s emotional experiences, and they form integrated
behavioral routines wherein the successful performance of everyday
activities relies on both partners’ actions.
o Within a close, personal relationship, partners are cognitively,
emotionally, and behaviorally enmeshed.
o As romantic relationships evolve, the partners experience a variety of
turning points and transitions.
 A transition is a response to changes in circumstances.
 Transitions are movements from one stage to another.
o Within romantic associations, transitions can be necessitated by
developments within an individual, within the dyad, or within the
environment external to the partnership.
o Changes in circumstances decrease the effectiveness of the cognitive
and behavioral connections between partners because those meshed
systems are no longer attuned with the individual, relational, or
external context for the relationship.
 Previously functional ways of thinking and patterns of
behavior must be revised to fit the new circumstances.
o Some transitions are quite notable and the need to adapt is pressing.
o Less obvious transitions also call for adaptation, though couples may
be slower to recognize that their established routines are not fitting
their circumstances.
o Transitions inherently involve a degree of instability, as people alter
their thoughts and actions in search of those that better fit with their
new circumstances.
o Transitions spark a “doubly developmental” process: Individuals
within relationships undergo change, while the relationship itself
evolves.
 Transitions can lead to changes in partners’ identities or how
they see themselves, as well as their roles, behaviors, and
expectations within their relationship.
o Despite the instability they introduce, transitions can operate in both
a negative and positive capacity.
 Transitions pose threats to personal and relational well-being
if partners are debilitated in their efforts to adapt to new
circumstances.
 If partners are unable to re-establish esteem for self and other,
this transition can create considerable anxiety and strain the
partnership.
 Even a difficult transition may give partners the opportunity to
affirm their commitment to each other and their ability to
work together to solve life’s problems.
 A successfully negotiated transition enhances the fit between
relationship practices and relationship circumstances,
reinforces partners’ confidence in their relationship, and
constitutes an investment in the relationship that fosters
commitment to the association.
 Whether relational changes and transitions are experiences
positively or negatively, they are always accompanied by some
degree of turmoil.
 Relational turbulence refers to the instability and chaos
that people experience when transitions render
previously functional dyadic systems ineffective.
 Relational turbulence can be experienced as stressful,
hectic, and consuming, and resolving sources of
turbulence can foster feelings of intimacy.
The Relational Turbulence Model:
 The relational turbulence model addresses the causes and consequences of
turbulence during transitions within romantic relationships.
 Studies using divergent methods, operationalizing intimacy in different ways,
and focused on a variety of topics – including frequency of arguments,
conflict avoidance, the experience and expression of emotions, verbal
aggression, indirect requests, and nonverbal touching – all pointed to an
increase in the intensity of cognitive, emotional, and communicative
experiences at moderate levels of intimacy.
o These qualities emerge during any transition within romantic
relationships.
 Relational Uncertainty
o At some point in the evolution of acquaintances into committed
romantic partners, individuals grapple with questions about the
relationship.
o Transitions spark doubts about relationships because new
circumstances lead people to wonder whether they are still invested
in the relationship, whether their partner still values the association,
and whether the relationship still has a future.
 The relational turbulence model identifies these sources of
ambiguity as critical to transitions in romantic associations.
o Relational uncertainty indexes people’s (lack of) confidence in their
perceptions of involvement in a relationship.
 It encompasses the doubts, ambiguities, and questions people
have about a relationship.
o When people wonder about their own goals for the relationship or
their own feelings about a partner, they are experiencing self
uncertainty.
o To the extent that a partner’s investment in or commitment to a
relationship is unclear, people experience partner uncertainty.
o If people’s questions focus on the status, nature, or future of the
relationship itself, they are experiencing relationship uncertainty.
o Self, partner, and relationship uncertainty are highly correlated, in
part because ambiguities about one’s self and one’s partner both feed
into relationship uncertainty.
o Large sample measurement analyses indicate that these are three
independent constructs and empirical studies have found that they
differ in their associations with other variables.
o Self, partner, and relationship uncertainty are distinct variegations
within the experience of relational uncertainty.
 The theory proposes that relational uncertainty complicates transitions in
romantic relationships by exacerbating reactions to events or experiences.
 According to the relational turbulence model, doubts and questions about a
relationship prompt people to be especially vigilant in their effort to make
sense of an ambiguous situation.






Relational uncertainty may lead people to assess their experiences in a more
negative light.
Relational uncertainty is also associated with more negative cognitive and
emotional states within marriages or similar long-term commitments.
In light of the negative cognitions and emotions that coincide with relational
uncertainty, people experiencing doubts about their relationship have
difficulty communicating with their partner.
o People experiencing relational uncertainty in dating relationship also
produce date requests that are less fluent, friendly, or effective.
This body of research suggests a bleak outlook for people experiencing
relational uncertainty.
o In the populations and circumstances studied to date, relational
uncertainty appears to darken a person’s relational worldview, while
it also exacerbates negative emotions and complicates communication
between partners.
o To the extent that periods of transition raise questions about a
relationship, relational uncertainty may constitute a considerable
barrier to transcending change and re-establishing a functional bond.
o Working with a partner to resolves uncertainty might have positive
ramifications for individuals and their relationship.
o Even though relational uncertainty can produce a host of negative
outcomes for relational partners, it also creates opportunities for
people to test the resilience of their association, to build efficacy with
their partner through communication, and to keep the bond exciting.
Although the logic of the relational turbulence model suggests that the
underlying qualities of the relationship predict people’s cognitions, emotions,
and communication patterns, the causal ordering of these variables has yet to
be fully tested.
o The model positions relational uncertainty as a catalyst for more
extreme emotions, cognitions, and communication, but it is equally
likely that people experiencing jealous, feeling hurt, or struggling to
communicate might experience more doubts about their relationship.
Interdependent Processes:
o Along with resolving questions about each partner’s involvement in a
relationship and the nature of the association itself, people in
romantic relationships must also develop functional patterns of
interdependence that help them to perform activities and meet their
everyday goals.
o As partners incorporate each other into their daily routines, they
come to rely on each other’s actions to achieve desired outcomes, they
become less able to perform these functions individually, and they are
negatively affected if the partner does not play his or her role.
o Partners come to participate in each other’s lives in ways that
facilitate each other’s outcomes.
o Patterns of interdependence are beneficial to the extent they are
responsive to the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual
conditions for the relationship.
 When circumstances change, previously functional patterns of
behavior may become less effective.
o Processes associated with establishing and renegotiating
interdependence are a second mechanism featured by the relational
turbulence model.
o Interdependence encompasses three interrelated processes.
 Interdependent partners or those developing a new
relationship allow each other to influence their everyday
activities.
 Influence in this sense does not refer to power or
dominance, but rather the partner’s ability to
participate in and affect the performance of an activity.
 When a partner’s involvement makes an action more difficult
to perform or prevents a desired outcome, individuals
experience interference from a partner.
 If a partner makes a task easier to perform or promotes goal
achievement, people experience facilitation from a partner.
 Although interference and facilitation seemingly displace each
other, in practice they share a positive bivariate correlation
because both escalate as partners in a relationship increasingly
influence each other’s activities and everyday goals.
 Interference and facilitation are the binary facets of
interdependence in close relationships.
 The relational turbulence model emphasizes how interference
from a partner disrupts the smooth operation of behavioral
sequences and undermines goal achievement.
 The theory predicts that interference corresponds with
more negative evaluations of relationship
circumstances.
 Increased interference from a partner has been linked
to appraisals of irritating behaviors.
 People interpret hurtful messages as more intentional
and more damaging to the relationship when their
partner has been interfering in daily routines.
 Theories that explain the experience of emotions suggest that
interruptions to goal-directed behavior are also emotionally
evocative.
 Empirical work indicates that interference from
partners corresponds with intensified emotional
experiences.
 Experiences of interference can complicate communication
between romantic partners.


Individuals use less inclusive language that is marked
by fewer dyadic pronouns.
 Partners experiencing interference from each other also
have conversations that are less coordinated and
contain fewer affiliative messages and they engage in
more direct confrontations regarding irritating
circumstances in a relationship.
 People are especially reactive to relational circumstances when
a partner is interfering in their ability to accomplish personal
goals and routines.
 Although partner interference can be frustrating from
individuals and it corresponds with less positive
communication experiences, it can instigate beneficial
processes.
 Interference from a partner points to areas in which a
relationship could function more efficiently.
o By identifying problem spots in the relationship,
partners can work to establish more coordinated
action plans.
o Not only does improved coordination facilitate
goal achievement, it builds efficacy as partners
learn to confront problems in the relationship
and work together to identify mutually satisfying
solutions.
o It isn’t the frequency of conflict in a close
relationship, so much as the communication and
affect that accompany conflict discussions that
chart the future course of relationship partners.
o Experiences of facilitation may soften the
consequences of interference from a partner.
 Partner interference may give rise to
turbulence during relational transitions in
the short term, but partners who can
transcend the disruptions and establish
solutions can see long-term relational
benefits.
Relational Turbulence
o Transitions in relationships can create instability, reactivity, and a
sense of chaos.
o It is a product of conditions that raise questions about the relationship
and compromise of conditions that raise questions about the
relationship and compromise smooth patterns of behavioral
interdependence, and it underlies more extreme cognitive, emotional,
and communicative experiences.
o McLaren developed semantic-differential scales to measure relational
turbulence.
 These operationalizations reflect the conceptualization of
relational turbulence as a sense of instability, a preoccupation
with the relationship, and the experience of stress and
vigilance.
o The relational turbulence model assumes that turbulence increases
when people have relational uncertainty or experience interference
from a partner.
o Knobloch found inconsistent associations between relational
uncertainty and her measure of relational turbulence, but perceptions
of interference from a partner were positively associated with all
three measures.
o Both relational uncertainty and experiences of partner interference
were positively associated with Knobloch’s self-report measure of
relational turbulence.
o McLaren documented positive associations between relational
turbulence and self, partner, and relationship uncertainty, and
observed those effects for self and relationship uncertainty.
o McLaren also demonstrated that relational turbulence is positively
associated with interference from a partner and negatively associated
with perceptions that a partner facilitates everyday activities and
goals.
o Stress and turmoil experienced by one person can disrupt a
relationship by affecting a partner’s confidence in the association and
his or her goal directed behavior.
o Structural equation modeling results showed that relational
uncertainty, partner interference, and partner facilitation predicted
relational turbulence.
o Relational turbulence was positively associated with the severity of
hurt, intensity of negative feelings, and perceptions of intentionality
that participants associated with the hypothetical scenarios.
o Participants described the relational messages they perceived in the
interactions, as well as their experience of hurt, other negative
emotions, and attributions of intentionality for the hurtful episode.
 Structural equation modeling analyses showed that relational
uncertainty and interference from a partner predicted
relational turbulence and, for males, relational turbulence was
significantly associated with perceptions of their partners’
dominance and disaffiliation, which in turn predicted their
severity of hurt, intensity of negative feels, and perceptions of
greater hurtful intent.
 Turbulent relationship context can shape message
processing in ways that have consequences for
emotional and cognitive outcomes.

o Experiencing doubts or questions about one’s own involvement in the
relationship, a partner’s involvement, or the relationship itself
contributes to a general sense of instability, chaos, and turmoil.
 Relational turbulence can spark doubts and disruptions for a
partner or exacerbate negative reactions to hurtful
interactions.
Agenda for Future Research:
o Refining Our Understanding of Transitions and Turbulence:
 Relationship-changing events have been conceptualized as
turning points, which are discrete experiences, such as meeting
a partner’s parents, engaging in sexual intercourse, or having
the first big fight.
 Within the relational turbulence model, the emphasis is on the
process of transformation that occurs, perhaps in response to a
turning point event, as partners continuously negotiate their
involvement in the relationship.
 Our efforts to understand the implications of change, and how
relationships weather those changes, require a better
understanding of the phenomenological experience of
transitions within romantic relationships.
o Understanding the Resolution of Turbulent Transitions:
 Efforts to understand the resolution of relational turbulence
can consider both individual and dyadic parameters.
 We wonder if personality variables, including tolerance
for uncertainty, attachment style, or risk-taking, might
shape the extent to which people find relational
transitions disruptive, their motivation for addressing
relational turbulence, and the communicative behaviors
they use to transcend periods of change.
 Dyadic data can also shed light on how the interplay of
each partner’s relational system entrenched in turmoil
or open to the resolution of turbulence.