Interpersonal Communication- A Mindful Approach to Relationships, 2020a

overly assertive in their conflict with each other. Of the three types, people in traditional marriages report
the greatest levels of satisfaction.
Independents
The second relational definition that Fitzpatrick described was called independents. have
a high level of interdependence, an unconventional ideology, and high levels of conflict engagement. The
real difference is their unconventional values in what a marriage is and how it functions. Independents,
like their traditional counterparts, have high levels of interdependency within their marriages, so there is
a high degree of both sharing and companionship reported by these individuals. However, independents
tend to need more “me time” and autonomous space. Independents are also less likely to stick with a
clear daily family schedule. To these individuals, marriage is something that compliments their way of life
and not something that constrains it. Lastly, independents are also likely to openly engage in conflict and
report moderate levels of assertiveness and do not avoid conflicts.
Separates
The final relational definition that Fitzpatrick described was called separates. have low
interdependence, have a conventional ideology, and low levels of conflict engagement. “Separates
seem to hold two opposing ideological views on relationships at the same time. Although a separate is
as conventional in marital and family issues as a traditional, they simultaneously support the values of
independents and stress individual freedom over relational maintenance.” 68 Ultimately, these couples
tend to focus more on maintaining their individual identity than relational maintenance. Furthermore,
these individuals are also likely to report avoiding conflict within the marriage. These individuals
generally report the lowest levels of marriage satisfaction of the three.
Up to this point, the majority of the information discussed in this section has been based on research
explicitly conducted looking at heterosexual marriages. In one study, Fitzpatrick and her colleagues
specifically set out to examine the three relational definitions and their pervasiveness among gay and
lesbians. 69 Ultimately, the researchers found that among “gay males, there are approximately the same
proportion of traditionals, yet significantly fewer independents and more separates than in the random,
heterosexual sample. For lesbians, there were significantly more traditionals, fewer independents, and
fewer separates than in the random, heterosexual sample.” 70 However, it’s important to note that this
specific study was conducted just over 20 years before same-sex marriage became legal in the United
States.
The reality is that little research exists thus far on long-term same-sex marriages. The legalization
of same-sex marriages in July 2015 started a new period in the examination of same-sex relationships
for family and family communication scholars alike. 71 As a whole, LGBTQIA+ families, and marriages
more specifically, is an under-researched topic. In a 2016 analysis of a decade of research on family
and marriage in the most prominent journals on the subject, researchers found that only.02% of articles
published during that time period directly related to LGBTQIA+ families. 72 For scholars of interpersonal
communication, the lack of literature is also problematic. In an analysis of the Journal of Family
Communication, of the 300+ articles published in that journal since its inception in 2001, only nine articles
have examined issues related to LGBTQIA+ families. This is an area that future scholars, maybe even
395
Interpersonal Communication