Running head: INCORPORATING INTERACTION STAGE

Incorporating the Model of Interaction Stages in a Personal Relationship

Ashley L. Dukart
SPCH 3350-001
East Tennessee State University

INCORPORATING INTERACTION STAGES

Abstract
This paper incorporates the Model of Interaction Stages in Relationships, as defined by Knapp,
Vangelisti, and Caughlin (2014). The stages differ from relationship to relationship but offer a
tangible groundwork to study interpersonal communication in relationships. Knapp et al. suggest
ten stages of interaction within a given relationship. However, for this paper only nine are
covered in great detail. This paper brings to life the stages of interaction through a personal
relationship story.

INCORPORATING INTERACTION STAGES

Incorporating the Model of Interaction Stages in a Personal Relationship

Relationships are unavoidable for anyone living in todays modern world. There are
relationships in the workplace, at the supermarket, or at home. However, it becomes increasingly
difficult to navigate through relationships without evaluating where a relationship stands. Hence,
Knapp, Vangelisti, and Caughlin (2014) suggest their Model of Interaction Stages in
Relationships. Through this model, Knapp et.al differentiate levels of communication by the
stages presented in their model. The purpose of the interactions stages is to describe what seems
to happennot what should happen (p.33). Processes of communication are complex, which is
why the model simplifies relational communication. The model is not meant to provide all the
reasons for growth and decay of relationships.
Interaction stages in a relationship range from those that involve people coming together
and coming apart. Knapp et.al list the coming together stages as: initiating, experimenting,
intensifying, integrating, and bonding. Likewise, the coming apart stages are: differentiating,
circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and terminating. As stated, relationships are complex and
these stages intermingle as relationships progress (or digress), but stage identification becomes
a matter of emphasis (p. 34) on how proportional an aspect of a stage is to another.
Personalization of the model brings the stages into better clarity. For this paper, I have
chosen to describe the growth and decay of a past, long-term dating relationship. Throughout this
relationship the interaction stages of communication are prevalent. However, the differentiating
stage will not be touched on because there yields no example of this stage being executed. All of
the other interaction stages were emphasized in some way during our dating relationship.
First, the initiating stage involves the processes enacted when we first come together
with other people (p. 38). These processes include what we know of the person, previous

INCORPORATING INTERACTION STAGES

interactions that took place, and possible stereotypes. With regard to my past relationship, I
remember a short initiating phase. Mainly, I remember introducing myself in an abrupt, yet
approachable, manner. I essentially called him out because I did not know him and asked for his
name, and proceeded to engage in conversation. I made sure I was perceived as socially adept,
(p.38) and moved quickly on to the next phase of interaction.
Second, the experimenting stage is the point in a relationship where discovering the
unknown is explored. This phase is wrought with questioning, which consists of three bases of
prediction for interpersonal encounter. Through cultural information, a stranger is able to
perceive like-mindedness in a cultural sphere or perhaps asking question to inquire about cultural
background. Sociological information is taken into account when meeting someone because of
labels that tend to surround individuals. After a reference is made towards an individual, we are
quick to examine the person based on that reference point. Thus, determining whether it was a
valid reference or not. Lastly, psychological information is taken into consideration when
forming a prediction about an individual. This information is best summarized by the text as
recognizing individual differences associated with ones conversational partner (p.39).
Experimenting in my past relationship started with multiple small talk conversations. I learned
about childhood background, age, and interests; however, I was searching for an integrating
topic. Luckily, he mentioned that he had siblings, and with further probing, I realized his siblings
were twins. I related to this topic because I am a twin. The integrating topic had been found and
would be a strong basis throughout the rest of the experimenting phase. Conversations, if they
did fall back into small talk parameters, would be directed back to the integrating topic and
deeper conversation was reached again.

INCORPORATING INTERACTION STAGES

Third, the intensifying stage is an active stage in relationships. There is an awareness of

how information is being presented and carried out. This stage involves, both, non-verbal and
verbal behaviors. Disclosures of intimate information usually intensify the conversations
between individuals and more physical intimacy is explored within this phase. In my
relationship, disclosure of information was more prevalent than the experimenting of physical
intimacy. At one point, my partner told me about the inward struggles he faced watching his
father battle with weight loss and gain. This might not seem like a huge leap in communication,
but it was an inward struggle that intensified our communication patterns.
Next, the integrating stage is the point at which individual personalities mingle more than
the previous stages. This mingling can be seen in how opinions change to fit into that of the other
individual or social circles begin to acknowledge the pair as a single entity. Integrating weaves
together many aspects of life, such as, social networks, physical appearance matching that of an
individual, or verbal behavior mimicking that of a partner. In my relationship, integrating was
found in the merge of social circles. I did not have the same friend group as him. However, after
we spent together I felt it important to be more incorporated into his friends lives. Thus, I would
attend events with his friends and they began to associate us as a dating couple instead of two
individuals. This is not to say that we lost our distinct selves (p.42) and still held onto our
unique personality traits.
Bonding goes hand-in-hand with the integrating phase, but does so as an extension of the
previous stage. There is debate on whether bonding should be considered its own stage, but the
text points out the importance of separating the two; The institutionalization of the relationship
hardens it, makes it more difficult to break (p. 42). The concreteness of bonding gives a

INCORPORATING INTERACTION STAGES

cornerstone to the relationship. A direct statement of This is my girlfriend, and vice versa,
solidified our relationship as a dating relationship.
These next stages point out the coming apart of a relationship starting with the
circumscribing phase. This stage is all about constriction in the conversation. The breadth and
depth that was shared is now shrunk back to a few topics of conversation. The divulgence of
personal information is taken back to a public sphere of information. Conversation towards the
end of my relationship was limited to basic small talk. We tended to ask how the day was going
and how we were doing, but these conversations did not elicit any deep remarks from the other.
Following the circumscribing stage is the stagnating phase. Stagnating is defined as being
motionless or inactive. Communication mimics this definition throughout the stagnating stage.
Conversations do not move off of accepted conversational themes, usually having to do with
topics discussed most similarly between strangers. The stagnating stage is thought to be one
where conversation is limited because an individual knows what the other will say or how they
actively respond. I relate to this stage because of the explanation that stagnation is executed to
avoid the pain of terminating the relationship, which they may anticipate will be stronger than
the current pain (p. 45). My past relationship remained stagnate to avoid the final stage of
interaction.
Avoiding stage is the second to last stage in the model. Avoidance is exactly what it
sounds like. There is an avoidance of face-to-face interaction or communication altogether.
Avoidance can be one-sided but is felt by both individuals in a relationship. My experience with
this stage involved my partner separating himself geographically. We did not speak for weeks
due to him leaving and avoiding communication in any form. Thus, upon return, we were left
with the final stage of interaction.

INCORPORATING INTERACTION STAGES

Last but not least, the terminating stage is executed within the model. This stage
exemplifies cutting ties in a communicating relationship. For the purposes of this model,
termination dialogue is discussed because it is a clear indication of where the status of the
relationship is headed. My relationship did involve termination and was accompanied by
distance, in a physical sense. However, some relationships attribute termination through
disassociation with a partner. This means that conversation is always linked to how the partners
will lead different lives, without the other.
Discussion
Throughout the relationship, scripts were utilized to determine where communication
should begin. Cultural-level scripts were essential for the initiating and experimenting stages.
Through cultural likeness, conversations within my relationship were able to start because there
was always similarity in that aspect of our lives. Interpersonal-level scripts were found
throughout most of the model of interaction stages. Predominantly, interpersonal scripts
encompassed communication in the intensifying, integrating, and bonding stages. Each one of
these stages is laden with personal information or intimate physical encounters. Without
evaluating the interpersonal scripts of each stage, then further communication would not have
been fulfilled. Intrapsychic-level scripts were rampant in the coming apart stages of a
relationship. Stagnating stage, to me, is the stage at which intrapsychic scripts are utilized
exclusively. Partners in stagnate relationships are constantly telling themselves how someone
will perceive a message, which is exactly how intrapsychic scripts are used.
All in all there is a mingling of different scripts, theories, and models to formulate
communicative relationships between individuals. Each are pivotal to better understand the
unavoidable relationships that confront us everyday.

INCORPORATING INTERACTION STAGES

Reference
Knapp, M., Vangelisti, A., & Caughlin, J. (2014). Interpersonal Communication and Human
Relationships (7th ed., p. 464). New Jersey: Pearson.