Douge 1

Emmanuel Douge
Professor Wang
HCS 100-19
1 October 2014
Analysis of My Interpersonal Relationship with My Close Friend
Have you ever analyzed your relationship with a close friend? I have and it is interesting
to see where you stand objectively in a relationship when you apply an understanding of
interpersonal communication to your friendship. Interpersonal communication is
communication with or between persons who approach one another as individuals in a
relationship (A. Edwards, C. Edwards, Wahl and Myers 9). During my analysis of my
conversations with my friend, not only did I take our current relationship into account, but also
how our relationship formed and recently terminated. Our friendship went through the model of
interaction stages, which includes the five stages of coming together-initiating, experimenting,
intensifying, integrating, and bonding- and five stages of coming apart-differentiating,
circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and terminating (Knapp and Vangelisti, 1999). However,
before divulging into those details, I will explain the state of our relationship during those stages
in relation to concepts such as relational dialectics theory (Baxter 257-273), disconfirming
communication (Laing, 1970), convergence (Pew Research Center, 2013), the social penetration
theory (Altman and Taylor, 1973), and proximity (Festinger, Schachter, and Back, 1963).
Learning about interpersonal communication and its related concepts, I now have a better
understanding of where I stand in a relationship and how to improve them as well as how to
recognize situations in which I could have done a better job or notice when it is changing me
thorough the social construction metaphor (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) and possibly alter the
Douge 2
relational climate (Edwards et al. 179) we were headed in my imagined trajectories (Honeycutt,
1993).
My friend, Hassan, and I first met at Shippensburgs Bingo Night. He happened to sit at
our table, most likely because he did not want to seem like a loner as he repeatedly told me as we
opened up to each other. I approached him first by asking him a question about his bingo board
and we began by greeting each other, beginning our initiating and experimenting stage in the
model of interaction stages. Throughout the night, we talked about superficial information such
as our likes and dislikes and realized we had a lot in common. Soon after, we realized we lived in
the same dorm. Proximity and location played a huge in this meeting. Proximity is the distance
between two people. When people share a space, whether it is at school, at work, or online, it
becomes more likely that they will interact and form a relationship (Edwards et al. 161). The
location of the bingo night also played a huge role as it was in an occasionally visited public
place, dramatically increasing the chance of us meeting. We may have gotten along because of
our similar interests and tastes, but it was the physical proximity between us that made the
relationship possible in the first place. In that setting, Welcome Week, students were encouraged
to make acquaintances and possibly friends. However, it became increasingly difficult to hold up
appearances and relationships could easily get past superficial layers in the social penetration
theory. In that situation, it is very much possible that many relationships were formed that many
students did not want to maintain. I was put in a similar situation in Kieffer Hall before I moved
to McLean because of financial reasons. Relationships went through the model of interaction
stages so fast that people would not even remember each others name, despite upholding
formalities as friends for the first week of class. This was the case for me until I was able to
make my first, real friend in college.
Douge 3
As time passed, we went to intensifying stage as we committed time to each other to hang
out, even if it was going to the library together to study together as we talked more about
ourselves, our beliefs, religion, and began to shed our middle layers in coherence to the social
penetration theory. The fact that we got to that point implicitly means we got pass the superficial
layers and grew closer. More importantly, we were able to shed these layers relatively fast. This
may have been because we were both really good critical and discriminative listeners and able to
evaluate an opinion and our own based on the information and evidence we receive. We were
also able to pick up each others nonverbal cues without much effort, especially kinesics, facial
expressions, and vocalics.
In the integrating stage of our relationship, we also often shared sleeping quarters. This
was a time when he was uncomfortable with his roommate or we stayed up all night studying
and doing work. In this way, we were able to gain a sense of trust as we were able to leave each
other alone in each others room without supervision. We often left our belongings in each
others rooms. I felt uncomfortable for a little while because I felt like I had given up my
autonomous lifestyle. However, through selection, which is satisfying one of the two dialectical
needs, but denying the other (Edwards et al. 173)," I chose connectedness because as much as I
enjoyed being alone, I had a much more enjoyable time spending it with him. During the nights,
we talked about our deepest fears, our goals, as well as goals we wished we could have achieved
in the past, but became missed opportunities, shedding our middle layers and showing our inner
selves. In a way, you could say we shared a discontinuous area of space, ignoring the concept of
territoriality to communicate occupancy or ownership of space. More importantly, I believe we
had properly entered the intimate zone which is about zero to eighteen inches and is usually
reserved for our significant others, family members, and closest friends (Edwards et al. 90). I
Douge 4
distinctly remember helping each other out on each others laptops as we invaded each others
personal space without complaint. However, just as we entered the bonding stage, our
relationship started to deteriorate. Whereas the previous five stages addressed how I
communicated with Hasan to form relationships, the next five stages will discuss how we
communicated that began to dissolve our relationship.
The differentiating stage is the first stage and is characterized by communication that
asserts the separateness of relationship partners (Edwards et al. 169). We began to have different
goals as the college environment began to exhaust him, while I continued to focus on my work.
We also began to influence each other as we played god and devils advocate. Sometimes he
would try to persuade me to go to parties while I would attempt to make him study because his
grades were dropping dramatically. By that time, our relationship started to have interpersonal,
or normative turning points which occur when you evaluate yourself, your partner, or the
relationship by standards of what is ideal and or normal, positive or negative (Edwards et al.
173). In my case, our relationship began straying from the ideal relationship we had before
where we kept each other on track. The imagined trajectory I had in mind began to have a
negative trend and is very similar to accelerated-arrested trajectory in which the relationship gets
serious early on, but then loses momentum and as it slowly deteriorates (Edwards et al. 172).
This could have been avoided if I had put more effort into helping him as he struggled with
biology or if he went to tutoring instead of struggling by himself. The territoriality that was
practically nonexistent before entered our relationship faster than expected. It was the first time,
we explicitly had to ask permission to use each others things and would openly deny
permission. Conflicts began to develop between us as we entered the next stage of coming apart,
circumscribing.
Douge 5
In the circumscribing stage, communication moves from identifying differences to
restricting the communication between partners. Partners may talk less and reveal less intimate
information for fear of conflict. They may begin to lose interest in the relationship altogether
(Edwards et al. 170). We would talk less face to face and send each other short and vague
messages. This was a dramatic change as we would primarily use our phones to schedule
meetings rather than to exchange thoughts or update each other on our private lives. As we
continually did this, we lost touch with each others emotions because the face can be considered
a gallery for our emotional displays (Edwards et al. 96). In our case mediated and hyperpersonal
communication, situations when the affection, emotion, and intimacy that develops through
computer-mediated communication equals or surpasses what happens face (Edwards et al. 171),
did not strengthen our relationship, but rather acted as a catalyst for its decay and facilitated the
coming apart process of the model of interaction stages. I empathized strongly with the
conclusion of Pew Research Centers survey about the potential positive and negative impacts of
the internet on interpersonal communication. They concluded that the internet could be both
good and bad in that it can strengthen relationships with distant friends and family, but may eat
away time from our relationships with the people right next to us (Edwards et al. 184). At this
time, we also quickly passed through the stagnating stage of coming apart. We would also
choose our words less carefully through disconfirming communication which refers to
messages and interactions that make people feel devalued and disrespected (Edwards et al.
180). We would hurt each other intentionally by not texting back at all or texting messages such
as I dont care, whatever, stop being a pussy, and youre a dick. Reflecting back on
these messages also made me realize I was not fostering a supportive climate for the both of us
and contributed to the worsening of our relationship. We should have tried to work together to
Douge 6
solve the problems between us, been more empathetic, and honest. Maybe the relationship would
not have gotten to this point had I used confirming communication. By this time, we began to
avoid each other as he began to hang out with the wrong people. If he was hanging out with
certain individuals, I would purposely steer away from them as to not draw their attention
towards me. With this, we also quickly entered and exited the avoiding stage. The termination
stage happened rather abruptly as he went home over the weekend and never came back about a
week and a half ago. As I am writing this paper, I still do not where he went nor does his
roommate because his stuff is still in his room.
However, he appeared the night I am writing this paper. He seemed rather happy to see
me, which made me smile back in response. I implicitly invited him in by opening the door
widely. He made eye contact with me to get permission and I nodded him in. The moment he
entered the door, he started laughing. During this time, many nonverbal codes were exchanged.
He was very careful and nostalgically looked around the room before telling me the reason he
was gone for about a week and a half. In this way, I believe our relationship experienced a
dyadic turning point in which a bit of positive, direct communication transformed our
relationship. I believe this might change our relationship to a prolonged trajectory because we do
not meet often, but we an air of friendship between that was gone previously. Our relationship
might not go back to the way it was before, but it was definitely a change in the right direction.
However, I felt that our relationship had sort of reset back to experimenting stage where
we probed for reciprocation of disclosures. He asked me, So you still working on that history
essay? I replied, Nah, I took the test already. How about you? Didnt you miss your biology
test? He said to me back, Yeah, but my teacher said I can make it up. We quickly moved to
the intensifying stage again when we began to use affection communication through jokes. I
Douge 7
realized that the model of interaction stages is very good model considering how well it fit into
my relationship with my friend.
Learning about interpersonal communication allowed me to analyze my current
friendships and prepare for future ones. Without it, I would not have been able to see the flaws in
my way of communicating and see the places in which I can improve to maintain positive
relationships in my life. I also hope to strengthen and reform our broken relationship.

















Douge 8
Works Cited
Altman, Irwin, and Dalmas A. Taylor. Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal
Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Print.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality; a Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.
Duck, Steve, and A. L. Baxter. Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research, and
Interventions. Chichester: Wiley, 1988. 257-73. Print.
Duck, Steve, and Honeycutt. Individuals in Relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, 1993. Print.
Edwards, A., Edwards C., Wahls, and Myers. The Communication Age: Connecting & Engaging.
Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2013. Print.
Festinger, Leon, Stanley Schachter, and Kurt W. Back. Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A
Study of Human Factors in Housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1963. Print.
Knapp, L. M., and A. L. Vangelisti. Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships.
4th ed. S.l.: Allyn & Bacon, 1999. Print.
Laing, R. D. Self and Others. New York: Pantheon, 1970. Print.
Pew Reseach Center. "Second-Generation Americans." Pew Research Centers Social
Demographic Trends Project RSS. Millenials, 7 Feb. 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.