Puzzle Pieces and Relationship Identity

Mark Kavanaugh, MS.

 

"Puzzle Pieces" is what I call the theory I am developing on the developmental perspective on relationships.  This theory does not focus so much on relationships at different ages through the lifespan, but on the development of specific relationships over timeÉthe development of the relationship itself.

 

I use the analogy of puzzle pieces as the theory suggests that we develop, over time, what I will call a "relationship personality".  This is a "self" that we reserve specifically for interactions with people we have significant relationships with.  We may have a unique "relationship personality" for each person important enough to warrant one so we have many selves that we utilize to interact with others in different ways.

 

I am most interested in the relationship personality we develop in close partnerships such as boyfriend-girlfriend and marriage relationships (as well as in same couple relationships).

 

The puzzle piece analogy describes the idea that we formulate aspects of this relationship personality by developing specific parts of our identity.  These take shape over time as a result of our maturation and our experiences.  Consider an unfinished jigsaw puzzle and note that there is an edge that is convoluted based on the pieces that make up that edge.  In a jigsaw puzzle there is only one specific set of other pieces that will fit to that edge. 

 

In a similar manner we shape our "unfinished edge" of our relationship personality and seek a compatible set of pieces with which to join so we can have a completeness in that aspect of our lives.

 

Assumptions

 

I make some assumptions in this theory.

 

  1. I feel that we are constantly changing and managing many aspects of our identity and self throughout the lifespan.
  2. I feel that our "relationship personality" is a vital and important aspect of our overall identity development, however, different individuals will satisfy this aspect of their growth in different ways.
  3. I feel that there is a part of us that senses when we are in the presence of a person who matches what our "relationship personality" is looking for.
  4. The contour of the "edge" of our relationship personality (puzzle piece analogy) is shaped by many forces and can be changed, however, the longer we have maintained the contour of particular pieces the more difficult they can be to change.

 

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

 

Being a thinker more than a researcher I owe much of what I have put together in this theory to a number of specific theories of human development and psychology put forth by some of the greatest names in the field.

 

Erik Erikson

 

Erikson's Psychosocial theory of human development is the base model for puzzle pieces. In itself, it is an excellent model for the understanding of how relationships develop.

 

Consider the following brief description of Erikson's theory as how a relationship may progress over time:

 

Stage 1 - Basic Trust vs. Mistrust

  • At the beginning of the relationship information is shared about other relationships, past history and assessments are made on each part as to how the relationship may progress

Stage 2 - Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt

  • Each member of the relationship begins to experiment with exposing aspects of their true personality to the other.  Following the beginning phase of the relationship each begins to decide if the relationship fits in with all the other aspects of their autonomous selves

Stage 3 - Initiative vs. Guilt

  • Members of the relationship begin to take initiative in creating opportunities for further growth together.

Stage 4 - Industry vs. Inferiority

  • Each partner begins to get a feel for what they are good at in the relationship and seek to master those aspects of the relationship.  They are each trying to get good at being with each other.

Stage 5 - Identity vs. Role Confusion (or "Diffusion")

  • This could be a crisis point where each of the members needs to explore what the relationship is and where it is going.
  • Is this a committed relationship or just temporary?  Without a successful resolution to this the relationship can remain confused and "diffused" with no clear direction.

Stage 6 - Intimacy vs. Isolation

  • This is where true intimacy comes into play.  Once each partner has agreed on what the relationship is going to be and they have developed some shared goals they, for the first time, begin to understand each other's role in the relationship.
  • If this is not successful then the relationship may end and each individual may become more isolated.

Stage 7 - Generativity vs. Stagnation

  • With agreed upon goals the relationship can now begin to produce what it will in these individuals' lives.  This could be children it could be traveling, depending on the set goals of the individuals.
  • Without this the relationship can stagnate.

Stage 8 - Ego Integrity vs. Despair

  • Finally, with a life of its own, the life-long partnership of two individuals can flourish and become greater than simply a sum of the two individuals' personalities as they developed a shared identity which began it's formation during stage 6.

 

In the regular application of Erikson's theory we see that relationships come onto the stage of a person's development somewhere around stages 5 and 6.  So we see this theory acting in a theoryÉas we approach stages 5 and 6 in our lives and engage with others we go through a mini set of stages for those relationships.

 

Just as in Erikson's general theory we bring to life certain traits, expectations and skills, so do we bring certain traits, expectations and skills to each new relationship.

 

James Marcia

 

James Marcia looked deeper into this 5th stage of Erikson and has given us a way to describe the ways in which we go about defining our selves, including our RP. 

 

Marcia refers to the concept of Identity Status meaning that at any given time each of these puzzle pieces is in a specific state.  This lends support to the idea that our identity is a changeable aspect of our existence. Each state is described in terms of the process of Crisis and the decision of Commitment.

 

For clarity, Marcia defines Crisis  as the active process of "looking at the alternatives" related to choosing a specific identity.  The term Commitment is the process whereby we select a specific identity.

 

Marcia felt we could be in any one of four states relevant to a specific aspect of our identity.  At any time we may be in different states regarding different parts of our identity.

 

These states are as follows:

 

Achievement: individuals who have explored alternatives and have deliberately chosen a specific identity (both crisis and commitment)

Moratorium: individuals who are still examining different alternatives and have yet to find a satisfactory identity (only crisis)

Foreclosure: individuals whose identity is determined largely by adults, rather than from personal exploration of alternatives  (only commitment)

Diffusion:  individuals who are confused or often overwhelmed by the task of achieving an identity and are doing little to achieve one  (neither crisis nor commitment)

 

As we experience early relationship, we begin to formulate a template for what we are "looking for".  In essence this is a form of Marcia's Foreclosure.

 

We develop an early template of expectations for love relationships based on:

  • Early experiences
  • First loves and maturity
  • Repeated, predictably relationships

 

What we Bring to the Table

 

As we approach forming relationships with significant others we come to the table with a number of things that are the result of the puzzle pieces of your relationship personality and socialization.

 

Rsearch has been done on what men and women think of if they are considering an ideal Partner.  Women and men have the same list except for the ones listed below that indicate a characteristic that men wish for and one that women wish for.

  • Kind and understanding
  • Exciting personality
  • Intelligent
  • Physically attractive (men)
  • Healthy
  • Easygoing
  • Creative
  • Wants children
  • Educated
  • Good earning potential (women)

 

Robert Sternberg

 

Bob Sternberg has developed a model of love that I have been looking at as almost having prescriptive applications (being able to guide people on how to correct relationship that are not going well).

 

His "Triangular Theory of Love" states that a love relationship, and its various related types of relationships are composed of three dimensions: intimacy (knowledge of the person), commitment (agreed upon goals for the relationship) and Passion (a desire to be with the person).

 

The presence or absence of these indicate different kinds of relationships between people.

 

This diagram depicts this theory and some of the different kinds of "loves" that it can describe.

 

 

 

 

Triangular Theory of Love

 

 

 

Making it Work

 

In the end this is how my theory worksÉ

 

I believe that early experiences shape the contours of our relationship identity (or personality).  We are drawn to individuals that best meet these needs.  Some of them can be rational (I want someone who is financially secure) while others can be irrational (I need someone who depends on me for survival).  You can see that these contours could act to bring us to someone who meets our needs, but is not "right" for us.

 

By focusing on the developmental process of a relationship we can see that it changes over time and that change is part of a healthy, dynamic relationship.  If someone is fighting for things to "just stay as they are"Éthere is trouble there!

 

So, we come to relationships looking for a good fit to our relationship identity so we can match up with them and form a shared identity.  Some aspect of our personality (identity) remain in flux (Marcia's theory) while others may be foreclosed and very difficult to change.

 

In the end, following Sternberg's theory, we wish for a balanced caring relationship that has a good helping of passion, commitment and intimacy.  If any of these are lacking, we can take measures to correct them.

 

In the end the stability of the system comes from our ability to continue to develop parts of our identity, including those that identify and define the relationship personality.  We do this by adding a "depth" to the triangle of Sternberg.

 

I call this "depth" personal growth. 

 

My theory dictates that within a relationship each of the individuals needs to continue to sustain a personal growth path of learning and experiencing (within the limits of the commitment of the relationship).  This way the personality of the person is, in some ways, always in flux, or always changing.

 

A relationship then becomes dynamic as the process of forming Intimacy (knowledge of the person) is always needed because each is growing.

 

If one is growing and the other is notÉwell, they "grow apart" and we see the 50%+ divorce rate.

 

This making a relationship work is like hitting a moving target.

 

Certain traits are associated with happy and unhappy relationships in our society.  Each of these traits is indicated if two individuals are growing and developing while forming their emotional bond.

 

Happy and Unhappy Relationships

  • Unhappy
    • Spent too much time criticizing one another
    • Too defensive when one of their faults was criticized
    • One or both showed contempt for the other
    • StonewallingÑunwillingness to communicate
  • Happy
    • Found a successful way to deal with the four problems mentioned above
    • Husbands were good at not immediately rejecting their wives' advice but either accepted it or found something reasonable in it
    • Wives were careful to express their complaints and advice in gentle, soothing ways, which were easier for their husbands to accept.

 

This theory is very much in progress and this document just represents some quick notes on the thoughts I am having.  I would like to hear comment about the theory.  I know it sounds complex, but that is mostly due to poor time management and writing!