Personal relationships have generally been studied from the perspective that the persons involved are psychological beings who are drawn together as they come to know, value, and share their respective inner qualities and experiences. However, it is also possible to examine relationships from the perspective that the persons involved are social beings who are drawn together as they each come to find the other's ways of participating in communal life to be attractive and compatible. From the latter perspective, an established, committed relationship between two social beings would consist of an effective partnership in a variety of arenas of communal life because their respective ways of participating are mutually facilitative. Comparison of the two perspectives on empirical grounds indicates that they are surprisingly congruent, and that integrating them is more productive than trying to promote one over the other. This comparison also indicates that communication plays multiple roles in the process of engaging in a personal relationship, and is suggestive about how much we still need to find out about the lived experience of persons in relationships, and how research might proceed in that regard.
Altman, I. & Taylor, D. (1973) Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
2.
Arliss, L. (1989/90) `An Integration of Accounts and Interaction Analyses of Communication in Long-Standing Relationships', Research on Language and Social Interaction23: 41-64.
3.
Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J. (eds) (1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Basso, K. (1979) Portraits of `The Whiteman': Linguistic Play and Cultural Symbols among the Western Apache. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Baxter, L.A. (1990) `Dialectical Contradictions in Relationship Development', Journal of Social and Personal Relationships7: 69-88.
6.
Baxter, L.A. (1993) `The Social Side of Personal Relationships: A Dialectical Perspective', in S.W. Duck (ed.) Understanding Relationship Processes. 3. Social Context and Relationships, pp. 139-165. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Bem, D. (1972) `Self-Perception Theory', in L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 6, pp. 2-62. New York: Academic Press.
8.
Berger, C.R. & Calabrese, R.J. (1975) `Some Explorations in Initial Interaction and Beyond: Toward a Developmental Theory of Interpersonal Communication', Human Communication Research1: 99-112.
9.
Bradbury, T.N. & Fincham, F.D. (1990) `Attributions in Marriage: Review and Critique', Psychological Bulletin107: 3-33.
10.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.L. (1978) `Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena', in E.N. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, pp. 56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Burke, K. (1950) A Rhetoric of Motives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.
Burleson, B.R. & Denton, W.H. (1992) `A New Look at Similarity and Attraction in Marriage: Similarity in Social-Cognitive and Communication Skills as Predictors of Attraction and Satisfaction', Communication Monographs59: 268-287.
13.
Cushman, D.P. & Cahn, D.D. (1985) Communication in Interpersonal Relationships. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
14.
Daly, J. (1983) Participant comment. Seminar on Communicative Competence, SCA convention, Washington, DC.
15.
Davis, M.S. (1973) Intimate Relations. New York: Free Press.
16.
Delia, J. (1977) `Constructivism and the Study of Human Communication', Quarterly Journal of Speech63: 66-83.
17.
Dindia, K. (1994) `The Intrapersonal-Interpersonal Dialectical Process of Self-Disclosure', in S.W. Duck (ed.) Dynamics of Relationships, pp. 27-57. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Dindia, K. (1997) `Self-Disclosure, Self-Identity, and Relationship Development: A Transactional/Dialectical Perspective', in S.W. Duck (ed.) Handbook of Personal Relationships, 2nd edn.Chichester: Wiley.
19.
Duck, S.W. (1973) Personal Relationships and Personal Constructs: A Study of Friendship Formation. Chichester: Wiley.
20.
Duck, S.W. (1983) Friends, For Life: The Psychology of Close Relationships. New York: St Martin's Press.
Duck, S.W. , West, L. & Acitelli, L. (1997) `Sewing the Field: The Tapestry of Relationships in Life and Research', in S.W. Duck (ed.) Handbook of Personal Relationships, 2nd edn.Chichester: Wiley.
23.
Fehr, B. (1993) `How Do I Love Thee? Let me Consult my Prototype', in S.W. Duck (ed.) Individuals in Relationships, pp. 87-120. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Fitch, K. (1994) `Culture, Ideology, and Interpersonal Communication Research', in S. Deetz (ed.) Communication Yearbook 17, pp. 104-135. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Fitzpatrick, M.A. (1988) Between Husbands and Wives: Communication in Marriage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
28.
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
Hagestad, G.O. & Smyer, M. (1982) `Dissolving Long-Term Relationships: Patterns of Divorcing in Middle Age', in S.W. Duck (ed.) Dissolving Personal Relationships, pp. 11-74. London: Academic Press.
31.
Heider, F. (1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
32.
Katriel, T. (1986) Talking Straight: Dugri Speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Kelley, H.H. & Thibaut, J.W. (1977) Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York: Wiley.
34.
Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
35.
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36.
Metts, S. (1997) `Face and Facework: Implications for the Study of Personal Relationships', in S.W. Duck (ed.) Handbook of Personal Relationships, 2nd edn.Chichester: Wiley.
37.
Milardo, R.M. & Wellman, B. (1992) `The Personal is Social', Journal of Personal and Social Relationships (Special Issue: Social Networks)9: 339-342.
38.
Pearce, W.B. & Cronen, V.E. (1980) Communication, Action, and Meaning: The Creation of Social Realities. New York: Praeger.
39.
Philipsen, G. (1975) `Speaking "Like a Man" in Teamsterville: Cultural Patterns of Role-Enactment in an Urban Neighborhood', Quarterly Journal of Speech62: 13-22.
40.
Pond, K. (1988) `Coordinating Silence in Established Relationships', unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa.
41.
Sanders, R.E. (1987) Cognitive Foundations of Calculated Speech: Controlling Understandings in Conversation and Persuasion. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
42.
Sanders, R.E. (1995a) `A Neo-rhetorical Perspective: The Enactment of Role-Identities as Interactive and Strategic', in S.J. Sigman (ed.) The Consequentiality of Communication, pp. 67-120. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43.
Sanders, R.E. (1995b) `A Retrospective Essay on the Consequentiality of Communication', in S.J. Sigman (ed.) The Consequentiality of Communication, pp. 216-222. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
44.
Sanders, R.E. & Freeman, K. (1995) `Children's Neo-rhetorical Participation in Peer Interactions', paper presented at the Conference on Children's Social Competence, University of Surrey, England.
45.
Sigman, S.J. (1987) A Perspective on Social Communication. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
46.
Sigman, S.J. (1991) `Handling the Discontinuous Aspects of Continuous Social Relationships', Communication Theory1: 106-127.
47.
Sigman, S.J. (ed.) (1995a) The Consequentiality of Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
Sigman, S.J. (1995b) `Order and Continuity in Human Relationships: A Social Communication Approach to Defining "Relationship"', in W. Leeds-Hurwitz (ed.) Social Approaches to Communication, pp. 188-200. New York: Guilford.
49.
Spencer, T. (1994) `Transforming Relationships through Ordinary Talk', in S.W. Duck (ed.) Dynamics of Relationships, pp. 58-85. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
Sypher, H.E. & Applegate, J.L. (eds) (1984) Communication by Children and Adults: Social Cognitive and Strategic Processes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
51.
Taylor, C.E. (1995) `"You Think it was a Fight?": Co-Constructing (the Struggle for) Meaning, Face, and Family in Everyday Narrative Activity', Research on Language and Social Interaction28: 283-317.
52.
Thibaut, J.W. & Kelley, H.H. (1959) The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.
53.
Varenne, H. with Hill, C. & Byers, P. (1992) Ambiguous Harmony: Family Talk in America. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
54.
White, L.K. (1990) `Determinants of Divorce: A Review of Research in the 1980s', Journal of Marriage and the Family52: 904-912.
55.
Wood, J.T. (1993) `Engendered Relations: Interaction, Caring, Power, and Responsibility in Intimacy', in S.W. Duck (ed.) Understanding Relationship Processes, 3. Social Context and Relationships, pp. 26-54. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
