Stages of Development in Intimate Relationships

Paul David
Antioch University Seattle

Stage theory is a well established developmental model for understanding the

different transitions that humans undergo as they move through the life cycle (Carter &
McGoldrick, 1999). The stage model presented here delineates a series of phases that
couples typically go through in trying to build their relationship with one another. Since
attachment is the main bond that emotionally connects a couple (Brehm, Miller, Perlman,
& Campbell, 2002; Johnson, 2004), the focus of this model is not so much concerned
with marital relationships per se, but with the broader context of intimate relationships
where couples have, or are trying to form, secure attachments with one another. In
presenting this model, I begin with a discussion of the complementary emotional
dynamics involved in first establishing such an attachment, and then follow with a
description of the various stages of emotional transition that typically characterize
intimate relationships.

Complementarity

Partners in intimate relationships tend to select one another based on two

opposing principles. By far the most influential is the principle of symmetry; that is, the
tendency of partners to select one another based on similarities in their demographic
characteristics, values, attitudes, and personalities. This tendency toward symmetry is
well documented and is why the vast majority of people seek intimate partners who share
the their same background, traits, interests, and tastes (Brehm, Miller, Perlman, &
Campbell, 2002).

While the principle of symmetry exerts a powerful influence in the pairing

process, another less understood–and by far more complicating–factor is the principle of
complementarity; that is, the tendency of partners to select one another based on
differences that offset their backgrounds and makeup. This principle reflects our
tendency to pair with a partner who represents the qualities we are lacking. Given that
one of the central functions of intimate relationships is to provide opportunities for
increased functioning in life (Lewandowski, Aron, Bassis, & Kunak, 2006; Hendrix,
1988; Prodsky, 1991), it makes sense that we would choose intimate partners who could
better manage in those areas where we are deficient.

According to Love (2001), one of the most powerful expressions of this principle
of complementarity is the way in which we are biologically programmed to select
partners with different genetic structures. This biological process is based on research
about tissue rejection in organ transplants that led to the discovery that our bodies
actually have the capacity to detect and select different DNA. More specifically,
scientists have found that human genes—especially those that control the immune
system—direct us to select mates with a different genetic makeup (Goodenough, 1998).
This matching process is managed through a segment of DNA called the human
lymphocyte antigen (HLA). Functioning as our immune system’s disease detector, HLA
 Stages in Intimate Relationships / 2

codes for a limited number of diseases and transmits this capacity to potential offspring
through DNA. Accordingly, if we mate with someone with a different HLA code, we can
increase our offspring’s immunity to disease.

The research on HLA highlights our tendency to mate with partners who have
dissimilar genetic codes. When we come into contact with relevant genetic differences,
we tend to experience an attraction to someone who in essence offers us the possibility of
passing on greater immune capacity to our offspring. Putting it another way, a powerful
aspect of human attraction can be explained as a biological response to meeting our
complementary genetic match. Subsequent research on olfactory sensation (Wedekind,
Seebeck, Bettens, & Paepke, 1995; Jacob, McClintock, Zelano, & Ober, 2002) confirms
the biological process through which this genetic information is transmitted, further
establishing the influential role that the principle of complementarity plays in shaping
intimate relationships.

At the more psychological and relational level, this principle of complementarity

is also manifested in our tendency to select partners who possess the critical qualities that
offset what we are lacking. For example, in regard to basic personality types like those
specified in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1980), introverted types are likely
to select more extraverted types, feeling types are likely to select more thinking types,
sensing types are likely to select more intuitive types, and so on. Although the research
on personality types clearly indicates a tendency to select partners that are similar to us
(Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970), it also suggests that successful intimate relationships
involve matching based on personality differences that are also complementary; that is,
when successful, we tend to select mates with not only similar personality characteristics,
but with dissimilar ones that can offset and help compensate for our particular personality
type (Kiersey & Bates, 1984). Thus, for example when successful, introverts will tend to
select more introverted types, but will also tend to select partners who are more
extraverted than they are to help them more easily socialize and balance out the
limitations of their introversion.

As Prosky (1991) notes, this complementarity is the underlying basis of both the
couple's strengths and difficulties. On the one hand, the combination of assets can
enhance capabilities at the relationship level; on the other hand, it can also generate a
considerable amount of resentment at the individual level. This resentment manifests
itself in a variety ways as both partners become frustrated with the each other’s
differences. For example, the neat one resents the disorder of his or her partner who, in
turn, cannot comprehend why the neat one does not relax; the active one continually
attempts to solicit the sedentary partner's participation in his or her activities, leading the
other partner to question why they can never spend a quiet moment either together or
alone; the practical one gets frustrated by the other partner's wishful thinking, while the
other partner cannot understand why he or she should spend so much time and effort on
trivial details; and so on.

Whatever the configuration, the complimentary qualities that bring a couple

together--the very qualities that can potentially contribute to a couple's success, can
 Stages in Intimate Relationships / 3

present major obstacles to a couple’s individual and collective sense of well being. As a
result, many partners struggle with the fear that they are incompatible with one another.
They believe, as Protsky (1991) observes, that they may have made the wrong choice for
a partner, and have little understanding of the inevitability and universality of their
situation, nor do they comprehend the importance for their own life development in terms
of the differences they find so frustrating.

There is an important value in the complimentary differences beyond meeting the

world as a more complete unit; namely, these differences provide the potential basis for
the further maturation and differentiation of each partner. As Hendrix (1988) argues, the
essential psychological function of an intimate relationship is to provide an opportunity
for two incomplete people to have the opportunity to make themselves much more whole
and more differentiated human beings. Thus, by joining with someone different—with
someone almost opposite in many ways, each partner has the chance to enhance the
underdeveloped parts of him or herself. For example, the neat one can learn to be more
relaxed, while the sloppy one can learn to be more orderly; the active one can learn
something about inner peace, while the sedentary one can learn to act more vigorously;
the practical one can learn to envision possibility, while the dreamer can learn to be more
realistic; and so on (Prosky, 1991).

If both partners can accept and learn from one another, they can move toward
their own completion by becoming more developed and resourceful human beings.
While this learning process is very difficult and produces much resentment and
frustration, research shows that the resulting collaboration can also generate considerable
contentment and satisfaction in the relationship (Aron, Norman, Aron, & Lewandowski,
2003). From a developmental perspective, this process can be understood as a transition
between fusing and then differentiating in the relationship (Bowen, 1978). What I
propose here is a model for deciphering the different phases that couples typically
experience as they go through this fusion-differentiation process. This model consists of
four different stages: (1) infatuation & fusion, (2) conflict & power struggle, (3)
adjustment & consolidation, and (4) maturation & differentiation.

Stage I: Infatuation & Fusion

The first stage of an intimate relationship takes place as two people meet, become
intensely involved, and fall in love. This is the most pronounced “in love” phase of the
relationship and is what is often popularized in film and literature as the romantic part of
an intimate relationship. Love (2001) refers to this stage of an intimate relationship as
the infatuation syndrome. She describes this syndrome as a powerful neurochemical and
psychological transformation of the lovers where they experience a kind of altered state
of consciousness characterized by increased positive attitude, energy, concentration, and
feelings of euphoria with one another. While this transformation is certainly an important
part of helping partners bond and form a strong attachment (Brehm, Miller, Perlman, &
Campbell, 2002; Johnson, 2004), it keeps them focused on their similarities and the
comfortable aspects of their differences. Accordingly, they will tend to form this intense
bond without a sufficient understanding of the major differences that will likely play a
 Stages in Intimate Relationships / 4

central role in their later development. Largely ignoring these differences, they surrender
to their courtship--a state of being that generally functions to limit critical reflection and
to promote an intense idealization of the relationship (Hendrix, 1988).

Beside the limitations involved in being unable to understand their major

differences, the couple’s infatuation also has the tendency to pull each partner away from
their individual selves and fuse them together. Spurred by the altered state of
consciousness generated by their infatuation, this fusion creates the mistaken impression
that they have actually connected with someone who is more or less identical to
themselves. However, this fusion of selves, which can provide an enormous sense of
exhilaration at the beginning of the relationship, gradually deteriorates over time. As this
deterioration takes place [over an average period, according to Love (2001), of about six
months], more tension and conflict enter the relationship because each partner can no
longer suppress the parts of themselves they put aside to fuel their infatuation.

At this juncture, having become aware that they are quite different from one
another and that they can no longer continue to suppress their individuality, many
partners become disillusioned and terminate the relationship. However, many others
continue with the hope and the commitment that they can work out their difficulties.
Some of these partners, particularly those that have already achieved a certain amount
differentiation, begin revising their expectations. Rather than considering the loss of their
infatuation as a crushing blow, these partners come to realize their difficulties are part of
the normal transition that successful couples must make in moving from a “romantic
relationship” to a “working partnership” (Huston & Vangelisti, 1991). When they are
able to make this transition, the partners are in the position to develop a more stable
relationship and proceed to Stage IV. More typically, the partners who remain together,
but who fail to come to terms with their relationship in this manner, often move to Stage
II.

Stage II: Conflict & Power Struggle

Stage II involves the struggle of couples to differentiate themselves from their

fusion. Fused together, they struggle about how to exert their individuality in the
relationship. The less that they are differentiated, the more likely they will concentrate
on each other’s limitations (Gilbert, 2006; Hendrix, 1988). In essence, this struggle is the
underside of Stage I. What was perceived as a strength in Stage I is viewed as a liability
in Stage II. What was seen as the partner's seductive beauty in Stage I is perceived as his
or her time-consuming preoccupation with physical appearance in Stage II; the strong
silence of the partner in Stage I becomes his or her unwillingness to discuss the
relationship and other intimate matters in Stage II; and so on (Protsky, 1991). In other
words, from the relative optimism of Stage I where the glass was half full, couples find
themselves in the worry and anxiety of State II, where there is more ongoing conflict and
the glass now becomes half empty.

The shift from the bliss of Stage I to the tension of Stage II accentuates a major
transition in the couple’s relationship. The failure to understand and adjust to this
 Stages in Intimate Relationships / 5

transition as a normal developmental task keeps the couple mired in their worry and
anxiety. Love (2001) characterizes this phase of the relationship as the post-rapture stage
in which the sentiments of “I-love-you-but-I’m-not-in-love-with-you” predominate. As
these sentiments take hold, the partners become frightened by the disintegration of the
images they held of their lovers, and commonly make a frantic attempt to reinstate their
former perception of merged bliss. As Hendrix (1988) notes, these effects create a very
difficult but powerful learning opportunity, but one that is mostly outside of the couple’s
awareness. This lack of awareness and understanding compounds the pain. Their fights
are rarely about what the couple perceives them to be; rather, their quarrels are superficial
manifestations of their deeper struggle to differentiate themselves (Gilbert, 2006).

Gottman’s (1999) research on conflict in intimate relationships documents this

phase of the couple’s conflict in painful detail. In this stage, the couple gets bogged
down in gridlock and becomes embroiled in power struggles. Different ways of dealing
with conflict and destructive engagement in criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and
stonewalling eventually cascade the couple into a mutually reinforcing pattern of
distancing and isolation. As Johnson (2004) argues, at the root of this conflict is a state
of disconnection that erodes the couple’s emotional bond and reduces their capacity to
manage their conflict.

It is during this struggle, as Protsky (1991) points out, that each partner
experiences a pull toward the opposite pole and consolidates his or her differences. At
some point--which can take years to reach--the partners finally begin to realize that their
attempts to change one another are failing. They begin to see themselves for who they
are, and are able to face the fact that the only person they can really change is themselves.
This is an extremely important juncture and a point of decision. According to Prodsky
(1991), it is here that the relationship road divides and the couple is compelled to make a
choice about what route to take. One route leads to their separation, another to the
consolidation of their differences, and still another to their differentiation.

There are generally two different paths that couples take when deciding to
separate at this stage. The first is taken prior to the critical point at which the partners
acknowledge their differences. It occurs while the couple is still in the midst of their
fusion and struggle to differentiate themselves. They have not yet reached an
understanding of each other's positions and are not ready to be fully responsible for
themselves. Thus, when they separate, the partners tend to do so with a good deal of
blaming and anger. The relationship is broken off without the partners having come to
any sort of mutual understanding, and frequently communication between them is cut off.
The pain from the wounds of their conflict is reduced by taking this particular path; but
these wounds continue to fester until some more substantive resolution is reached
between the parties or by each partner individually (Prodsky, 1991).

The second path is taken after the critical point at which the partners identify their
differences. The consequence of taking this path often leads to a sadder-but-wiser
understanding. Anger and blaming are at a minimum, and each partner recognizes his or
her contribution to the breakup. There is also some comprehension of the process that
 Stages in Intimate Relationships / 6

brought the couple to the point of separation. Separation obviously brings to an end the
possibility of being able to utilize the relationship for their further development.
However, separation can also bring great relief, a heightened sense of self, and the
possibility of investment of energies elsewhere (Prodsky, 1991).

Stage III: Adjustment & Consolidation

Another major route that partners take is to consolidate their differences; that is,
they can form a stable definition of themselves--the one with which they entered the
relationship--such that each performs the functions for the relationship that lie within the
domain of his or her half of the world. In taking this route, partners can choose to
function literally as each other’s “other half,” and specialize in their own areas of
proficiency. Instead of the partners advancing the underdeveloped parts of themselves,
they each exercise the already developed parts of themselves in attempt to reduce their
frustrations and make their relationship work more smoothly. The partners in effect
agree to play it safe in trying to stabilize the relationship in this manner.

Consolidation of differences works fairly well for the management of the external
world, but as Prodsky (1991) argues, it has several internal limitations. First, it builds in
as a constant feature of the relationship a sense of frustration and irritation with the areas
of marked difference between the two partners. Chronic dissatisfaction results and is
manifested in frequent arguments over the same issues. The relationship is well-defined–
each knows what to expect of the other, but it pays the price in a high degree of rigidity
and repetitiveness.

Second, as the partners become fixed at one side or the other of their
complementarity, their natural traits often become exaggerated, and over time they can
become caricatures. In this situation, for example, the sloppy one might become more
disorganized; the sedentary one might become more inert, and the active one might
become more frenetic; the practical one might become more joyless, the dreamer might
become more fantastical, and so on.

Consolidating differences generates a third limitation as partners become more

and more dependent upon one another. This leads to mounting resentment. It is one
thing to feel that one’s contribution is appreciated; it is quite another to feel so obligated
that if one partner does not contribute, the other suffers. The latter is a sort of tyranny of
neediness, often masquerading as love. The partner who does not make the expected
contribution is faulted. When one partner relies on the other to complete his or her
existence, too great a burden is placed on the relationship, and failure to fulfill
expectations generates distress and resentment. Moreover, an undercurrent of resentment
can erupt into serious fights, physical illness, and psychological problems for the couple.

In a relationship in which less is necessary for the completion of each partner,

each contribution can be viewed more as a gift than as something owed or due. The
relationship actually builds up a supply of good will that can be drawn upon in times of
stress. However, if partners create a relationship in which they expect others to
 Stages in Intimate Relationships / 7

contribute for them, resentment can be generated and stored when their needs are not met.
Conversely, if partners create a relationship in which each partner is relatively self-
sufficient, there can be gracious appreciation for the contributions made, and good will
can be generated and stored (Gottman, 2001).

The fourth internal limitation of a relationship in which differences are

consolidated is that each partner carries a perpetual fear of being left alone, either through
a breakup, illness, or death. The effects of this kind of chronic–though subliminal–fear
are very powerful and it contaminates the relationship. Partners become suspicious of
one another or become overly worried–selfishly–about one another's well-being. This
creates a subtle atmosphere of mistrust that may never be consciously identified by either
partner (Prodsky, 1991).

The stabilization of differences can also provide important benefits to the couple.
It can result in less internal struggle, maintain a sense of dependency, and provide the
comfort of a dependable relationship. These benefits are not to be underrated, but it
should be understood that consolidation of differences constrains the partners from
achieving substantial individual development (Prodsky, 1991).

Taking an overview of this critical juncture and the three potential routes that can
be taken, it is important to mention that the first and second options are reversible. The
separated couple can decide to come back together to work further on their relationship.
Partners who have stabilized their differences can decide to understudy each other in
order to become more self-sufficient and move their relationship into Stage IV. The
decision to move to this phase is not reversible in the same way, although it can lead to a
full-circle developmental spiral wherein the partners decide to stabilize their
separateness.

Stage IV: Maturation & Differentiation

The fourth stage of the relationship marks the emergence of two mature and self-
sufficient individuals. For the first time, a sense of differentiation is possible in the
context of a mutual relationship. There is also a new found clarity about the relationship
and the difficulties it encounters (Gilbert, 2006).

Couples who choose to move on to Stage IV of the relationship begin to value

their individual differences, learn the other's point of view, and integrate the
complementary elements of their partner into their own functioning. When a difference
causes conflict for these couples, each partner attempts to identify the fear it generates in
him or her, with the purpose of better understanding individual weaknesses. Each partner
attempts to understand the importance of the other person's position in order to learn
more about the other's world. Blaming the other person becomes out of bounds in
disputes, and the acceptance of a high degree of personal responsibility in their conflicts
replaces it. Whereas, blaming has the effect of making the other partner more defensive
and intractable, hence stifling development; taking responsibility tends to elicit
responsibility on the part of the other partner, thereby enhancing development. Partners
 Stages in Intimate Relationships / 8

on this path tend to discipline themselves to take more personal responsibility for
themselves with each partner attempting to look at what he or she–not the other–might
have done differently to handle their conflict more wisely (Prodsky, 1991).

The choice to push on to Stage IV requires a commitment of time and energy to

the relationship equal to that often reserved for work and children. It requires continually
facing oneself and one's own greatest problems and weaknesses. The entry into Stage IV
is marked by a gradual recapturing of a sense of harmony. This time it is built not on the
highly skewed perceptions of the infatuation phase, but on the hard-won understanding of
the self and other. In Stages II and III, struggles were compounded by the couple's
mutual lack of understanding; in Stage IV, with an increased clarity about self, there is an
increasing degree of clarity about their disagreements. Fights address actual issues,
making them far less confusing than Stage II fights, though potentially more painful in
the sense that they get at the root of the matter.

The mature and differentiated couple has come to a deep and abiding love that
leaves some of their needs incompatibilities unresolved. The partners experience
aloneness even though they are an intimate couple, because they have begun to
experience their ability to function autonomously in the world. This perception leads a
couple toward an expansion of their goodwill, and a new sense of trust, generosity,
respect, and understanding is established between them. Reaching this stage is a major
accomplishment and one that yields considerable gratification. Relationships in Stage IV
tend to generate and store goodwill so that satisfaction deepens, protecting the
relationship from deterioration (Gottman, 1999).

Conclusion

These then are the four stages that typically constitute the evolution of intimate
relationships: (1) infatuation and fusion, (2) followed by conflicts about differences and
individuation, (3) often accompanied by adjustment and consolidation of these
differences, and (4) finally succeeded by a relationship of harmony between two
differentiated people. Although this fusion-differentiation process has been presented as
consisting of four stages, these stages are only meant to serve as a general framework for
depicting the different challenges that many couples face in attempting to maintain and
enhance the quality of intimacy in their relationship. In addition, it should be further
noted that intimate relationships rarely move smoothly from one stage to another; instead,
they tend to move in fits and starts, with different aspects of each stage simultaneously
manifesting themselves at any given time. Thus, it is important to keep in mind that the
structure of the stage model presented here should be viewed as dynamic in nature with a
structure that becomes progressively complex but is not strictly hierarchical in its
organization. It should be also understood that this model is meant to portray some–but
certainly not all–of the key emotional features and phases that couples tend to experience
in their efforts to achieve greater intimacy with one another.
 Stages in Intimate Relationships / 9

References

Aron, A., Norman, C., Aron, E., & Lewandowski, G. (2003). Shared participation in
self-expanding activities. In P. Noller and J. Feeney (Eds.), Marital interaction (pp.
177-194). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York, NY: Jason Aronson.
Brehm, S., Miller, R., Perlman, D., Campbell, S. (2002). Intimate relationships (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Cattell, R., Eber, H., & Tatsuoks, M. (1970). Handbook on sixteen personality factor
questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Carter, B., & McGoldrick, M. (1999) (ed.). The expanded family life cycle (3rd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gilbert, R. (2006). Extraordinary relationships. Falls Church, VA: Leading Systems
Press.
Goodenough, U. (1998). The sacred depths of nature. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Gottman, J. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New
York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Gottman, J. (2001). The relationship cure. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Hendrix, H. (1988). Getting the love you want. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Huston, T., & Vangelisti, A. (1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital
relationships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61(5), 721-733.
Jacob, S., McClintock, M., Zelano, B., & Ober, C. (2002). Paternally inherited HLA
alleles are associated with women's choice of male odor. Nature Genetics, 30(2),
175–179
Johnson, S. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused therapy (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Kiersey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me. Del Mar, CA: Promethus
Nemesis.
Lewandowski, G., Aron, A., Bassis, S., & Kunak, J. (2006). Losing a self-expanding
relationship: Implications for the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 13(3), 317-
331.
Love, P. (2001). The truth about love. New York, NY: Fireside.
Myers, I. (1980). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Mountain View, CA:
Davis-Black Publishing.
Prosky, P. (1991). Marital life. Family Therapy, 18(2), 129-143.
Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T, Bettens, F., & Paepke, A. (1995). MHC-dependent mate
preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1359(260),
245–249