Relationship progression theory

The 5 Intimacy Stages Of A Relationship

relationship progression theory

The chord progression is the sequence of chords that harmonizes the melody. over each chord/scale relationship in order to better recognize their sounds. Basic Theory · Major Scale Harmony · Melodic Minor Harmony. This progression from less committed romantic relationships to a single, committed Arnett's () theory of emerging adulthood offers such a. The researchers turned next to trying to predict which relationships would be marked by the strongest degree of intensity. Psychological theories of love focus on.

Young adults were thought to have stalled if they had limited romantic experience e. This suggests stability is a critical measure of romantic success for young adults. Though there are many different dimensions by which to judge intimate relationships Conger et al.

Chord/Scale Relationships – Outside Shore Music

Further, the dissolution of a close romantic relationship is thought to be one of the most traumatic events individuals experience Simpson,a conclusion bolstered by a large literature on the effects of divorce see Amato, Thus, to capture the stability of romantic relationships in young adulthood, the current study examines the amount of romantic involvement and turnover experienced across this period.

Despite growing evidence that the progression to a single, stable relationship is optimal, this is not a path taken by all. For example, though Meier and Allen provided evidence for a normative romantic sequence in adolescence, their findings suggest romantic relationships are rather diverse.

Six unique sequences emerged over the two waves T1: Thus, only a third of the sample was in a steady relationship at T2 Groups 5 and 6with most of those individuals being females. Males, minorities, and low-income adolescents were more likely to have had no relationship experience.

relationship progression theory

Again, females were more likely to be in a committed relationship, as were individuals whose romantic and sexual experiences started earlier in adolescence. Though being in a committed relationship in young adulthood may have been normative in previous cohorts Cherlin,these studies call into question how pervasive commitment is at this stage of development for the current young adult cohort, particularly for certain groups of young adults, and suggest the disparate patterns Meier and Allen found to characterize adolescence may persist into young adulthood.

In light of accumulating evidence of alternative pathways toward long-term commitment, conceptual frameworks that accommodate diversity in romantic relationship experiences could prove useful. Arnett's theory of emerging adulthood offers such a framework, predicting continuing diversity in romantic experiences and a delaying of commitment well into the 20s.

In this theory, the period from 18 to 25 is a time of exploration and instability, more characterized by a self-focus than a focus on establishing a lasting connection with someone else. Thus, we would expect multiple romantic relationship sequences that would likely parallel Meier and Allen's patterns.

Whether this diversity in romantic relationship experiences comes at the expense of young adults' eventual romantic success appears to depend on how stability is conceptualized.

Though Seiffge-Krenke proposed that greater involvement, be it with one partner or many, early on leads to later positive romantic outcomes, the work on romantic dissolutions suggests high amounts of partner turnover could be problematic Amato, ; Simpson, Davies and Windle found adolescent romantic relationships with high involvement but high turnover had different effects on adjustment than did relationships characterized by high involvement with a steady partner.

Thus, although early romantic involvement and turnover are related, the two pieces of romantic stability appear to have distinct outcomes. The question of central interest in the current study is whether they have distinct antecedents as well, and whether these antecedents represent coherent pathways through which the key features of romantic relationship stability may develop.

The 5 Stages of Intimacy in a Relationship

Given the importance of establishing a committed intimate relationship for achieving adult status Lehnart et al. Collins and Sroufe suggested that caregiver relationships may influence romantic development by shaping children's relational abilities and expectancies. As to what features of the caregiver relationship are important, sensitivity to developmental context requires a consideration of which measures might best represent key relationship experiences at each period Pettit et al.

If the meeting is by chance or design of others then this stage is effectively skipped. Knowing about them The first step is to know that they exist. One person usually knows first and the second person may not know until the first meeting. Knowing about them may happen in various ways, for example a man may see a woman in a bar or a sales person hears of a possible customer from a colleague.

Learning about them More information is often needed to motivate a desire for contact.

Which Relationship Type are You?

This may be done by first-hand research, where the person actively looks for information by the other party. If there is a third person helping out, they may volunteer information, for example where a friend is 'match-making' or a company researches prospects for a salesperson. Wanting to meet With enough information, the motivation for a relationship begins. This can range from a cautious interest to early strong desire, such as when a woman sees a man she does not know at a party and is immediately attracted to him.

Music theory – Chord relationships

Seeking contact With the motivation to meet, the next and sometimes difficult step is figuring out how to get to meet them. This may be through friends who will enquire if the other person is interested and help them through this phase. In sales, cold calling is a difficult and often unrewarding activity and other methods of prospecting may also be used to connect with possible customers.

relationship progression theory

Getting to know you In this phase, contact is made with the other person and early negotiations lead either to departure or continuation of the relationship. First contact First contact with the other person is an important and difficult stage as early impressions are important although this is easy to get wrong.

When we meet others we seek to classify them, typically using global or personal stereotypes which are often inadequate for the decisions made at this time. Typically, greeting between strangers is highly formalized, with handshakes, exchange of names and simple pleasantries such as discussing the weather, local sports or other safe topics.

Basic exchange Possibly within the first contact and possibly in subsequent meetings there is an exchange of information which allows each person to refine their impression of the other person and decide whether they want to continue with the relationship.

Exchange at this level typically includes a seeking of common factors such as origins, hobbies, families, friends, work and so on. There is also information exchange which helps with the next stage of deciding where to take the relationship. A typical question to help this is 'What do you do? Deciding desired relationship From the information gained so far, the possibilities for the nature of an ongoing relationship should be clear, whether it is one of friendship, convenience, exchange or romance.

Acquaintance If the relationship is not going to get any closer, then its development stops here. This is quite common and most people have many acquaintances with relatively few good friends.

relationship progression theory

Regarding duration, older adolescents report longer relationships than younger adolescents Carver et al. In addition, girls report longer relationships than boys Carver et al ; Shulman and Scharf Contrary to conventional beliefs about the ephemeral nature of adolescent romance, Carver and colleagues find the median relationship duration to be 14 months, with wide variation by age.

They find the average duration among to year-olds is 5 months, among to year-olds it is 8 months, and among those to years-old it is 20 months 2. While it is likely that adolescent romantic relationship experiences also differ by these factors, the evidence is thin. Relationship qualities In general, most research findings are consistent with the idea that relationship qualities vary with age such that early adolescents have more affiliative, companionate relationships while older adolescents have more committed, loving, and supportive relationships Shulman and Kipnis ; Shulman and Scharf Older adolescents rate support from their romantic partners as more important than support from their best friends and parents compared to younger adolescents who rate parents or peers higher Seiffge-Krenke or do not differentiate support from parents, peers, and partners Connolly and Johnson Regarding relationship behaviors, Carver and colleagues find that with age, partners engage in behaviors that suggest higher levels of relationship commitment and intensity e.

In addition to age, relationship duration impacts on quality such that longer relationships are characterized by more attachment-like characteristics Miller and Hoicowitz ; this may be the case at any age. However as relationships age, so too do the partners in them. Therefore, relationship duration and age are inextricably tied to one another.

Regarding gender differences in relationship qualities, empirical investigations invariably find that females are more relationship-focused than males Galliher, Welsh, Rostosky, and Kawaguchi Girls value relationships more for interpersonal qualities while boys value them for physical attraction Feiring However, recent research offers a portrait of gender differences in relationships that is somewhat different than suggested by past research.

Using evidence from the Toledo Adolescent Relationship Study, Giordano and colleagues show that boys have less confidence than, and similar levels of emotional engagement to girls in relationships.

Furthermore, boys report that their partners have greater power and influence in relationships. Perhaps adolescent gender norms are changing see Risman and Schwartz Relationship Patterns over Time Empirical investigations are beginning to test the idea of a progression model of romantic relationship development.

relationship progression theory

A recent prospective study by Connolly and colleagues uses a sample of Canadian 5th through 8th graders to test whether early adolescents move through romantic involvement phases as predicted by theory — sequentially and progressively as opposed to out of order or regressively.

They also test whether adolescents are more likely to stay in one stage rather than move to another over the course of a year. They find that adolescents progress rather than regress through stages of romantic relationships, that they do so mostly sequentially rather than by skipping a stage, and that there is a fair amount of stage stability over the course of one year.

When comparing adolescents of European, Caribbean, and Asian descent, the authors find that European and Caribbean adolescents followed the expected progression while Asian adolescents did not progress in their relationship formation at all over the one-year period.

A second empirical study by Davies and Windle examines dating pathways over a one year interval among middle adolescents and year-olds in a local sample. In this study, respondents are classified into four relationship patterns defined at two points in time over one year: The cross-classification of these four patterns of dating at times 1 and 2 reveals several patterns consistent with the relationship progression idea.

Common transitions between the two time points are: In this study, most respondents experienced transitions between these types of dating experiences, and most transitions followed the orderly patterns predicted by theory — forward progress from fewer short and less intense relationships to more relationships overall, often to a single committed steady relationship.

Finally, a recent study by Seiffge-Krenke uses a prospective sample of West German subjects to assess the individual and relationship precursors to and developmental sequence of adolescent to young adult relationships. Results confirm that with age adolescents gain more experience, maintain relationships for longer durations, and give higher ratings of partner support. Moreover, adolescent romantic relationships exhibit stronger effects on young adult relationship quality than peer relationships or conceptions of the self.

Thus, while other studies have examined the influence of earlier relationships in other domains, it appears that relationships in the same domain romantic hold more sway over young adult relationships. While the prior empirical research is instructive, several limitations remain. First, most studies examine one or a few discrete aspects of relationships like number of partners or duration or qualities of relationships. While most studies examine age and gender differences in one of the aforementioned aspects, few studies examine the influence of other demographic characteristics, and rarely do studies examine relationship and individual characteristics together.

Two of the aforementioned studies are ground-breaking in their use of prospective data to confirm propositions about how adolescents enter and progress in romantic relationships during early Connolly et al and middle Davies and Windle adolescence.

However, these studies do not cover a wide age range or span of time.

relationship progression theory

Seiffge-Krenke accounts for relationships over a wider age range, but because the analysis ends at age 21, it may miss the bulk of the transition to adulthood which some suggests stretches into the 30s Arnett A primary disadvantage of such samples is their homogeneity compared to the experience of all adolescents. Local norms probably condition the process of romantic relationship development as much as age or gender does. Therefore, considering homogeneous subjects in a single or several schools in a geographically limited area substantially restricts generalizability.

While several high quality studies have described adolescent romantic relationships using the Add Health data, they have used only one Carver et al or two Joyner and Udry ; Giordano et al waves of these data. This means that observations end at about age 18 and miss young adult relationships. One new study by Raley and colleagues uses Add Health data to examine the influence of time 1 relationships on duration to cohabitation and marriage at time 3 among only the oldest sample members.

To date, none of these studies explicitly test developmental theories of relationship progression over time. The present study describes relationship patterns over the course of approximately seven years by considering both relationship type and quality among a nationally representative sample of adolescents during the transition to adulthood.

The sample consists of adolescents ages at time 1at time 2 and at time 3allowing us to test the idea of relationship progression across a wider age range than has been possible in past studies. In addition, at each interview, respondents report retrospectively on multiple recent romantic relationships, allowing us to capture more than current relationship experience. Although there are not rich measures on romantic relationship qualities, we include a few available measures to give us some sense of how relationships change qualitatively across adolescence.