This week’s lecture mentioned about Knapp’s Model of Relational Development. It describes the progression and development of relationships as a series of 10 stages. Knapp’s model marked out generic relationship models, the phases that individuals have to go through to in order to get into an interpersonal relationship with others.
However, personally, I feel that Knapp’s Model is rigid and it gives humans what seems like a passive role to play in interpersonal communication. Humans are living creatures. Living creatures are dynamic; they are not inert computers. I think that the framework and structure to form interpersonal relationship looks at relationships in such simplistic manner that it does not do justice to the efforts that people have to put in to secure relationships with others.
While surfing the net, I found an interesting article that proves my point.
There is a news article on an update about this couple who were wed in a shopping mall 11 years ago. David and Elizabeth Weinlick had met for less than five seconds before they turned up at the altar in a stunt whipped up by a TV station. The event set up to find David a bride in the shopping mall, where “bride wanted” flyers were distributed, encouraging interested ladies to sign up. Now, 11 years later, they still happily married with 4 children, still madly in love and planning to renew their wedding vows to tell everyone that they fell in love for real.
This couple did not follow what most people think is the usual script for two people to enter an interpersonal relationship. Elizabeth ran into David handing out the “bride wanted” flyers and after talking to him (initiating), she decided to sign up for David’s bride searching event by filling in a questionnaire of her likes and dislikes (experimenting through self disclosure) at 10am that Saturday. After going through interview by the selection committee which comprised of David and his family and friends (experimenting through self disclosure and reciprocity). By 4pm, after knowing David for 6 hours and saying a formal hello to David, Elizabeth was in a white dress saying “I do” at the shopping centre in Minneapolis, America, directly jumping to the Bonding stage. They dated after marriage, making up for the intensifying and integrating stage that they had missed, increasing commitment level to their relationship and coupling their individual characters into their relational identity and marriage.
Yes, the model has a note that indicated that stages are not linear; they can regress to a previous stage or skip a stage. However I believe that the model has missed out a very important point of relationship, and that is chemistry between two people. Nothing, other than chemistry could have resulted in the couple getting together. Knapp’s model might have served as a very good guideline for interpersonal relationships, but I strongly feel that human interaction and relationship development is not just a direct procedure like doing addition in mathematics, putting 1 and 1 together to get 2.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I believe the Knapp model, like many other "systems of behavior" that people have come up with to explain human behavior, is due to observable patterns. It is in the attempt to make a science out of human relationship.
But "chemistry" between two people is also a questionable topic.
Is it because of chemistry that two people can get together? This would be saying that relationships are formed with a little bit of luck and divine intervention thrown in. It is like viewing people was mere jigsaw pieces shuffled about a board until two pieces that fit with each other so happen to meet, by chance, and get "attached" because they have the complementary shapes to fit each other.
Or, is chemistry developed over the course of time when two people are together? Two people who get together may not seem to have any "chemistry" at first. But as time goes along, they learn more about each other; their likes and dislikes, their past and their hopes for the future for example. With self revelation comes familiarity and trust. With trust, the two people soon develop a liking for each other, they develop their chemistry.
So which is better? That is hard to say. There have been couples with "chemistry" that break up after a few dates. Then there are elderly married couples who were put into a forced marriage, knowing nothing of each other before their marriage, but grew so loving toward each other over time.
It all depends on the individuals and their own personalities. Whether a relationship is formed or lasts depends on the people that make up that relationship and less so on luck or divine intervention.
For me, I indeed apply some Knapp's model into my relationships I have in life, the thing is sometimes relationship is not just based with Knapp's model. It is depends towards what we see things, whether we should just go from the 1st step to the 3rd one. Thus we cannot keep being as rigid as Knapp wants instead we should see what and how should we act.
I guess i have to defend dear Knapp and his model. The truth is, with all communications models, there are bound to be some odd cases where the model fails. Even though knapp's model 'fail' in the example that you gave, knapp's model is still one of the best models to explain the process of human relationships. That is until we can advance and put a scientific defination to the term 'chemistry' in terms of human relationships.
I guess Xamuel's point makes sense that chemistry between two people is questionable. It is up to us to define what is chemistry. Chemistry needs time in its formation, and i believe that even couples from the past who were brought together in arranged marriages grew in their chemistry. Therefore i feel that it should have been listed in knapp's model of relation developments as a factor of uncertainty.
The Knapp model still could be applied here. The so called 'chemistry' is just probably a catalyst that accelerates stages.
There is Initiating and Experimenting as mentioned. The next 2 stages, is what appears to be missed out, intensifying and integrating. Yet, these 2 stages could have already happened in the short time period that they may have met. Since they are probably similar in interests and character, the 2 stages needed lesser time than usual. Add in the catalyst, and it does pretty make sense.
This is actually a very interesting example of an interpersonal relationship. Its uniqueness is probably what makes it so different from regular relationships and thus results in it not linearly following the Knapp Model.
The Knapp Model is merely a guideline to the steps that a relationship MIGHT take, steps which most relationships take, and is not 100% accurate.
Even though you mention that chemistry is important in a relationship, it is important to take note that not all people enter relationships as a result for chemistry. Motives such as prestige and power are great influences as well.
While the fields of psychology and behavioural analysis have grown by leaps and bounds, I believe it is safe to say that we will never be able to properly define the thought and behavioural patterns of a human being in general. Basically because human beings are both collectivists and individualists in nature.
When asked 'What is being?', Zen monks often do not provide an answer in words. Instead, they respond with sudden acts of extremities: such as cutting off the finger of the person asking.
So can we truly use any one model to define the habits of homo sapiens? Maybe we should try cutting our thumbs off.
Well it is really hard to beleive that two people got married after knowing each other for less than 5 seconds? Does it take that fast to develope chemistry? Maybe it was physical appearance. Anyway i do agree with selene that the knapp model is rigid and missing a few parts such as chemistry. However, i also think that the model gives us a useful skeleton on how relationships are formed and developed.
I think we need to define what is chemistry. Chemistry is the factor that brings people together? or can chemistry be created after two people get together? In any case, chemistry might be created when two individuals share about themselves, or when they find a common topic. Under such circumstances, chemistry can be said to be indirectly included within Knapp's model of relation development.
Honestly, it just depends on our own school of thought. Whether "chemistry" between two people is "found" or "formed", both are totally correct in their explanation. And as long as either methods result in a long lasting and fruitful relationship, who are we to say which is better?
In reply to "gamemaker"'s comment, the Knapp model is just a pattern. That is what scientists do, collect data via observation and study, then generating a hypothesis based on that data. This is a "deductive" reasoning. However, such deductive reasoning of relationships have to be taken together with the "intuitive" aspect of a relationship. Just a brief explanation, "intuition" is what allows us to believe things without actually being able to articulate evidence or reasons for said beliefs.
i agree with parvin. the KNAPP model is just to show how the relationship should be not how it has to be. various relationships are formed on various basis and they do not necessarily follow the KNAPP model. skipping certain steps does not mean the relationship will fall apart or be stronger but because it just so happened to be.
ALl in all i would say that the KNAPP model can show the progression of a relationship but its not something to fall back on when things go wrong.
Post a Comment