Knapp’s Relationship Model

Overview

Few modern human communication models have been as widely cited as that of Knapp’s relationship model, a ten-stage, dual staircase model that proposes the stages of relational development between two individuals. Drawing on Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory, Knapp described the course of a relationship within the context of stages of escalation and de-escalation. Although not without its flaws, Knapp’s relationship model has aided many researchers in further understanding the complexities of human relationships, especially in the digital age.

Mark Knapp (1978) sought to reduce the ambiguity of relational communication by furthering the field of communication theory with his ten-stage relationship model. The ten stages, presented in five stages of escalation, or “coming together,” and five stages of de-escalation, or “coming apart,” are depicted in a dual staircase in an effort to show the movement of the couple from one stage to the next.

Hall, Travis, Anderson, and Henley (2013) have elaborated on the specifics of each stage of Knapp’s relationship model, especially regarding its manifestation in the relationship. According to Hall et al., the first, initiating, stage is “characterized by visual contact and intention to communicate with another individual” (p. 52). In other words, the individuals establish that they want to communicate with each other. During the initiating stage of Knapp’s relationship model, according to Alberts (1986), people try to convey “likeable” qualities to the other person.

In the next stage, the experimenting stage, the two communicate about general topics of mutual interest. For example, the couple exchange information about their background. According to Alberts (1986), this is where they each assess the possibility of their establishing a relationship. Unlike the initiating stage, here the parties work to figure out just why their particular relationship is different. They circle the idea of labeling it a relationship. In the third stage, intensifying, a deepening occurs, both in regard to the topics communicated as well as their disclosure. According to Alberts, the intensifying stage is denoted by the two parties growing closer, as they “see themselves as connected” (p. 136). As in the previous stage, experimenting, the couple uses conversational features such as metatalk and relational innuendo; however, in this stage the talk is more explicit and direct. They also use mitigation.

The integrating stage, the fourth stage, is where the conversation is at its deepest, as the couple discloses private information. It is here, during this stage, that the couple begins to identify as “we.” During the integrating stage, the people “view themselves as a couple” or “fuse,” (Alberts, 1986, p. 137). At this point, the couple exchanges “I love you,” which is symbolic of that fusion. Such is considered a speech act, as it both says and does something, simultaneously. The fifth stage, assert Hall et al. (2013), serves as a “boundary” between the escalating and deescalating phases or the coming together and coming apart phases. This stage is called the bonding stage, and it is the pinnacle of the escalation. Here, according to Hall et al., the couple may engage in a number of “acts of formal commitment,” including, engagement, marriage, or moving in together (p. 52). Alberts (1986) adds that the primary purpose of this stage is to seek alignment by defining the relationship. At this point, the couple has reached their highest levels of intimacy.

Hall et al. (2013) contend that it is during the escalating, or coming together, stages, which are marked by noninstrumental complaints, that is, those complaints in one partner, in fact, has no agency to “physically change or do anything” but to offer their partner support. As a result, the complaint then serves as an opportunity “to share information and grow closer” (p. 53). In other words, they end up sharing solidarity with one another, being on the same side.

Knapp then introduces the potential de-escalating, or coming apart, phases of a relationship, the first of which is differentiating. During this sixth stage, individuality becomes more of a goal for the couple while the seventh stage, circumscribing, marks the introduction of tense and infrequent communication between the couple, according to Hall et al. (2013). During the eighth stage, stagnating, the couple tends to avoid conversation, in particular, out of the assumption that engaging in a conversation will resort to more tension. As a result, communication is significantly reduced or lacking. Also, during the stagnating stage, each individual in the couple may resort to imagined conversations, or what was previously referred to researchers in the field as “self-talk,” in which they rationalize their partner’s response in their mind, which then leads them to the avoidance of an actual conversation, as they have already determined their partner’s response.

Both the ninth stage, avoiding, and the tenth stage, terminating, are both signified by the end of all communication between the couple as well as the relationship. In fact, Hall et al. (2013) mention that the only communication that does occur at the final stages is in relation to the termination of the relationship.

Further Insights

Although Avtgis, West, and Anderson (1998) acknowledge that Knapp’s ten-stage model of relationships is the most complete in comparison to its predecessors, primarily because it gives a “full treatment of the relationship life cycle,” they also argue it lacks “a solid empirical foundation” (p. 280). Specifically, Avtgis et al. commend Knapp’s model for applying social penetration principles and its ability to depict how the people evaluate relational rewards and costs, which ultimately determines the direction and speed of a relationship. Despite its comparative comprehensiveness, Knapp’s model lacks valid measurement instruments, thus making it “ripe for further development” (p. 281). Where the model falls short or requires further development, according to Avtgis and colleagues, is that it assumes a systematic or sequential progression of relationships through the model, which in reality, may occur in any direction on the staircase, including up, down, and sideways. Avtgis et al. (1998), therefore, argue that Knapp’s model, although more comprehensive than others, is also in need of a “deductive method for determining relationship stages” (p. 281). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of each stage of Knapp’s relationship model require classification, according to Avtgis et al. (1998). Because there is evidence of the “concurrent appearance of items,” that is an overlapping of stages, which was apparent on both the coming together and coming apart phases, they urge a nominal categorization via a corresponding measurement instrument of these overlapping of stages to further address Knapp’s relationship model.

Weiser and Weigel (2014) have explored the implications of infidelity as it relates to its impact on the human communication in relationships, especially when examining Knapp’s model of relationship escalation and de-escalation. According to Weiser and Weigel, another critical factor that can significantly influence the stages of relational communication is the responses to relationship infidelity and how partners determined whether a relationship continues or is dissolved. Depending on when the infidelity occurs, infidelity can cause a number of possibilities up to and including termination of the relationship, even during the early stages. Weiser and Weigel argue that it is imperative to both acknowledge and investigate the implications of infidelity (especially physical or sexual) and the communication responses that ensue, as research indicates that a “number of individuals will experience infidelity in their lifetimes” (p. 415). Weiser and Weigel argue that, in conjunction with previous research, accommodation responses (active vs. passive and constructive vs. destructive), gender as well as the investment model (i.e., intent to remain in the relationship, level of attachment to a specific relationship), relationship length, and infidelity all affect the communication responses following a serious relationship transgression such as infidelity.

Welch and Rubin (2002) point out the significance of another aspect of Knapp’s staircase model of relationship stages: disclosure and depth with respect to human relational communication. In other words, as Welch and Rubin clarify, as one partner shares more about themselves, their relationship to the other person advances (p. 25). Welch and Rubin contend that such increasing disclosure and depth is exemplified in Knapp’s escalation, or coming together, stages, starting with initiating or visual contact and the subsequent determination of further contact where, during the public bonding stage, “empathy, trust, and intimacy” are also at their highest (p. 25). According to Welch and Rubin, the reverse is true in Knapp’s de-escalation stages of coming apart. Starting with differentiating, signified by the couple becoming more focused on individualism (i.e., more “I” than “we”), disagreements increase, culminating in the further deescalating to the eventual point of terminating in which the communication that does take place centers on “farewell speeches” (p. 26).

Stamp and Knapp (1990) add yet another factor of consideration during human communication, especially with respect to relationships: intent. According to Stamp and Knapp, intent can be broken down into three dominant perspectives: encoder, decoder, and interaction. While the encoder perspective links a “human conscious activity” and the decoder links to “observable actions,” it is the third perspective, the interactional, that is most comprehensible, as it accomplishes the task of considering both the encoder and decoder’s intentions, though it too possesses its own flaws. It is, therefore, a dialog of the “negotiated intentions,” which more closely depicts the nature of the interaction or communication process between humans because of its emphasis on the “context of relationship” (Stamp & Knapp, 1990, p. 296).

Viewpoints

Though highly regarded and widely used as a basis for subsequent research since its initial introduction, Knapp’s relationship model is not without its critics. In her discussion of feminism, Holl (2004) addresses the precedent set by such research, especially with respect to rhetoric, which has been further perpetuated as a result of the influence of authors like Knapp. Specifically, Holl takes issue with the “reinforcement of culturally prescribed gender roles” used in the investigation of communication and human relationships. She draws attention to the fact that Knapp and Vangelisti (2005) use examples in which an argument ensues between a couple over something not reflective of what indeed concerns them. For example, a woman addresses her husband’s TV watching habits when she actually wants him to spend more time with her. Such examples, according to Holl, invariably reinforce traditional gender roles, which is at the base of fundamental discussions regarding feminism because it further perpetuates expectations of the genders. For Holl, the problem lies in the fact that if respected authors in the field like Knapp and Vangelisti were to change their rhetoric, they would have a significant impact on the field and subsequently promote a consensus that has yet to be reached regarding conversations about what is feminism.

Another issue of concern relates to the digital age in which there are new implications that have arisen with respect to romantic relationships as a result of the advent of social media. “The Role of Facebook” (2012) notes that social networking sites such as Facebook are a “primary means of uncertainty reduction” (p. 1). Such is significant given the number of people who maintain a profile on Facebook. Even in the digital age, certain unique phenomena of each stage of Knapp’s relationship model remains the same across the medium of communication. This was evident in the escalation stages; in the integrating stage, the couple begins to share a “public relational identity” in an effort to focus on connectedness. Here, as Knapp referenced, they use the terms “us” and “we.” Such declarations may include “Facebook official” labeling, among others. Moreover, in the bonding stage of escalation, the couple goes public with a formal or official announcement of their relationship on the social networking site.

Terms & Concepts

Avoiding: The fourth stage of “coming apart,” in which the couple continues to lead separate lives if in the same space, accompanied by limited communication or antagonistic communication if there is any at all.

Bonding: The fifth stage of “coming together,” in which the couple engages in a public and formal declaration of their togetherness, signifying the relationship as exclusive, including marriage or living together.

Circumscribing: The second stage of “coming apart,” in which the couple begins to decrease communication in avoidance of unpleasant exchanges or possible arguments, deferring to safe topics.

Coming Apart: The five stages of de-escalation (i.e., differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and terminating) in Knapp’s relationship model.

Coming Together: The five stages of escalation (i.e., initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and bonding) in Knapp’s relationship model.

Differentiating: The first stage of “coming apart,” in which the couple begins to engage in individualistic activities and differences emerge as problematic.

Experimenting: The second stage of “coming together,” in which the couple begins to exchange personal details or self-disclosure, followed by small talk.

Initiating: The first stage of “coming together,” in which the couple meets and exchanges first impressions.

Integrating: The fourth stage of “coming together,” in which the couple engages in further intensification efforts, including sharing friends and social identities.

Intensifying: The third stage of “coming together,” in which the self-disclosure deepens, and the couple engages in tests to determine the level of intensification.

Stagnating: The third stage of “coming apart,” in which the couple further decreases communication, but now, there are more imagined conversations whereby one partner imagines or plays out their partner’s reaction while still in the same space.

Terminating: The fifth stage of “coming apart,” in which the couple formally dissolves the relationship and ceases physical contact and communication with one another.

Bibliography

Alberts, J. K. (1986). The role of couples’ conversations in relational development: A content analysis of courtship talk in Harlequin romance novels. Communication Quarterly, 34(2), 127–142. Retrieved April 1, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=18452705&site=ehost-live

Avtgis, T. A., West, D. V., & Anderson, T. L. (1998). Relationship stages: An inductive analysis identifying cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of Knapp’s relational stages model. Communication Research Reports, 15(3), 280–287. Retrieved April 1, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9461301&site=ehost-live

Hall, E. D., Travis, M., Anderson, S., & Henley, A. (2013). Complaining and Knapp’s relationship stages: Gender differences in instrumental complaints. Florida Communication Journal, 41(1), 49–61. Retrieved April 1, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=87490412&site=ehost-live

Holl, A. (2004). What’s feminism? Well, I don’t have a definition, but I have a general idea. Review of Communication, 4(3/4), 147–155. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=15796926&site=ehost-live

Minei, Elizabeth M., and Elise Juvan. "Using Music to Identify and Evaluate Knapp's Relationship Model." Communication Teacher, vol. 37, no. 2, 2023, pp. 113–19. DOI:10.1080/17404622.2022.2091152.

Stamp, G. H., & Knapp, M. L. (1990). The construct of intent in interpersonal communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76(3), 282–299. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9104151357&site=ehost-live

The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development: An exploration of Knapp’s relational stage model. (2012). Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1–32. Retrieved April 1, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=85899488&site=ehost-live

Weiser, D., & Weigel, D. (2014). Testing a model of communication responses to relationship infidelity. Communication Quarterly, 62(4), 416–435. Retrieved April 1, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=97226498&site=ehost-live

Welch, S.-A., & Rubin, R. B. (2002). Development of relationship stage measures. Communication Quarterly, 50(1), 24–40. Retrieved April 1, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=8643030&site=ehost-live