Knapp’s Relationship Model

Overview

Few modern human communication models have been as widely cited as Knapp’s relationship model, a ten-stage, dual-staircase model that proposes the stages of relational development between two individuals. Drawing on Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor’s social penetration theory, Mark 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.

Known for his expertise in nonverbal communication, Knapp 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 model to show the couple's movement from one stage to the next.

Other researchers have elaborated on the specifics of each stage of Knapp’s relationship model, especially regarding its manifestation in the relationship. The first, initiating, stage is defined by visual contact and the intention to communicate with someone. In other words, the individuals establish that they want to communicate with each other. During the initiating stage of Knapp’s relationship model, people try to convey “likeable” qualities to the other person.

In the next stage, experimenting, the two communicate about general topics of mutual interest and assess the possibility of establishing a relationship. For example, they exchange information about their background. Unlike the initiating stage, here, the parties work to figure out why their particular relationship is different. They circle the idea of labeling it a relationship. In the third stage, intensifying, a deepening occurs, both regarding the topics communicated and their disclosure. The intensifying stage is denoted by the two parties growing closer, as they “see themselves as connected." As in the experimenting stage, the couple uses conversational features such as metatalk and relational innuendo, but 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 during this stage that the couple begins to identify as “we.” During the integrating stage, the people perceive their relationship as a couple, or a fuse. At this point, the couple exchanges “I love you,” which symbolizes that fusion. Such is considered a speech act, as it both says and does something simultaneously. The fifth stage serves as a “boundary” between the escalating and de-escalating 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, the couple may engage in a number of formal commitment methods, including engagement, marriage, or moving in together. 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.

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 change in a physical way but to offer their partner support. As a result, the complaint becomes an opportunity to become closer by sharing information. 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. During the eighth stage, stagnating, the couple tends to avoid conversation, in particular, out of the assumption that engaging in a conversation will result in 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 by 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. The only communication that occurs at the final stages is in relation to the termination of the relationship.

Further Insights

Glen H. Stamp and Mark L. Knapp add another factor of consideration in their 1990 article, especially with respect to relationships: intent. 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 dialogue of the negotiated intentions, which more closely depicts the nature of the interaction or communication process between humans because of its emphasis on the relationship's context.

Researchers Theodore Avtgis, Daniel West, and Traci Anderson acknowledged in their 1998 article that Knapp’s ten-stage model of relationships is the most complete compared to its predecessors, primarily because it gives a “full treatment of the relationship life cycle.” They also argue it lacks “a solid empirical foundation." Other researchers commended Knapp’s model for applying social penetration principles and its ability to depict how 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, making it open to evolution and expansion by later practitioners. Avtgis and his colleagues argued that the model required further development in its assumption of 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. Although more comprehensive than others, these researchers also argued that Knapp’s model needed a “deductive method for determining relationship stages." The cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of each stage of Knapp’s relationship model required classification. Because there is evidence of the “concurrent appearance of items,” that is, an overlapping of stages, which was apparent in both the coming together and coming apart phases, they urged a nominal categorization via a corresponding measurement instrument of these overlapping stages to further address Knapp’s relationship model.

S. A. Welch and Rebecca B. Rubin's 2002 article pointed 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 clarified, as one partner shares more about themselves, their relationship with the other person advances. Welch and Rubin contended 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. 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 further de-escalating to the eventual point of terminating, in which the communication that does take place centers on “farewell speeches."

In a 2014 article, Dana Weiser and Daniel Weigel explored the implications of infidelity regarding its impact on 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 determine whether a relationship continues. Depending on when the infidelity occurs, it can cause several possibilities up to and including termination of the relationship, even during the early stages. Weiser and Weigel argued that it is imperative to acknowledge and investigate the implications of infidelity (primarily physical or sexual) and the communication responses that ensue, as research indicates that a “number of individuals will experience infidelity in their lifetimes.” Weiser and Weigel also argued 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.

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 2004 discussion of feminism, Andrea Holl addressed the precedent set by such research, especially with respect to rhetoric, which had been further perpetuated as a result of the influence of authors like Knapp. Specifically, Holl took issue with the “reinforcement of culturally prescribed gender roles” used in the investigation of communication and human relationships. She drew attention to the fact that some researchers 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 television-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 were to change their rhetoric, they would have a significant impact and subsequently promote a consensus that had yet to be reached regarding feminism's meaning.

Another issue relates to the digital age, in which implications arose concerning romantic relationships due to the advent of social media. “The Role of Facebook,” published by Jesse Fox, et al. in 2012, noted that social media platforms such as Facebook are a “primary means of uncertainty reduction." This is significant given the number of people who maintain a Facebook profile. Even in the digital age, certain unique phenomena of each stage of Knapp’s relationship model remained the same across the communication medium. 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 social media.

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. “The Role of Couples’ Conversations in Relational Development: A Content Analysis of Courtship Talk in Harlequin Romance Novels.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 2, 1986, pp. 127–42, doi:10.1080/01463378609369628. Accessed 13 Mar. 2026.

Avtgis, T. A., et al. “Relationship Stages: An Inductive Analysis Identifying Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Dimensions of Knapp’s Relational Stages Model.” Communication Research Reports, vol. 15, no. 3, 1998, pp. 280–87.

Fox, Jesse, et al. “The Role of Facebook in Romantic Relationship Development: An Exploration of Knapp’s Relational Stage Model.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol. 30, no. 6, 2013, pp. 771–94, doi:10.1177/0265407512468370. Accessed 13 Mar. 2026.

Golchha, Karishma. "Knapp’s Relationship Model." Evolve, 14 May 2022, evolveinc.io/self-improvement/motivation/knapps-relationship-model. Accessed 13 Mar. 2026.

Hall, Elizabeth D., et al. "Complaining and Knapp’s Relationship Stages: Gender Differences in Instrumental Complaints." Florida Communication Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, 2013, pp. 49–61.

Holl, Andrea. “What’s Feminism? Well, I Don’t Have a Definition, but I Have a General Idea….” Review of Communication, vol. 4, no. 3-4, 2004, pp. 147–55, doi:10.1080/1535859042000289405. Accessed 13 Mar. 2026.

"Knapp’s Relationship Model." Communication Theory, www.communicationtheory.org/knapps-relationship-model. Accessed 13 Mar. 2026.

Stamp, Glen H., and Mark L. Knapp. “The Construct of Intent in Interpersonal Communication.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 76, no. 3, 1990, pp. 282–99, doi:10.1080/00335639009383920. Accessed 13 Mar. 2026.

Sus, Viktoriya. "Knapp’s Relationship Model: 10 Stages and Examples." Helpful Professor, 21 Sept. 2023, helpfulprofessor.com/knapps-relationship-model. Accessed 13 Mar. 2026.

Weiser, Dana A., and Daniel J. Weigel. “Testing a Model of Communication Responses to Relationship Infidelity.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 4, 2014, pp. 416–35, doi:10.1080/01463373.2014.922482. Accessed 13 Mar. 2026.

Welch, S. A, and Rebecca B. Rubin. "Development of Relationship Stage Measures." Communication Quarterly, vol. 50, 2002, pp. 24–40, doi:10.1080/01463370209385644. Accessed 13 Mar. 2026.