Relational framing theory describes how people make sense of interpersonal messages about their relationships with others. Sometimes it is easy to decipher the meaning behind a relational message (e.g., when a romantic partner says, “I love you”). Sometimes relational messages are not so clear. For example, if a friend asks you, “Hey! Are you using your car this weekend?” Do you consider this a friendly or unfriendly request to borrow your car? Do you feel coerced to lend your car or do you feel admired by a friend? According to relational framing theory, how you interpret your friend’s message depends on your judgment about the relationship. The theory provides two main frames through which people process messages about a relationship (Dillard, Solomon, & Samp, 1996). A dominance-submissive frame is about how much control or status one person has over the other. An affiliation-disaffiliation frame is about how much one person likes or dislikes the other. If you perceive that the interaction with your friend is about power, you might interpret such inquiry as a sign of dominance. If you perceive that the interaction is about liking, you may process a friend’s message as communicating closeness, friendliness, and positive regard. Relational framing theory has been used to understand factors that shape perceptions of sexual harassment in the workplace. For example, Solomon (2006) reported that social-sexual messages that were seen as dominating or controlling were more likely to be perceived as harassing, whereas messages that were seen as affiliative were more likely to be perceived as flirtatious. In essence, this theory highlights how people use interpretive frames to make sense of relational messages.  

References and other suggested readings:  

Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments. Communication Research, 23(6),703–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023006004 

Frisby, B. N., Vallade, J. I., Huber, C. J., Tristan, A., & Murphy, A. A. (2024). An analysis and comparison of the instructor-student relationship using relational framing theory. Western Journal of Communication, 88(1), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2023.2183364 

Hall, J. A. (2016). Interpreting social-sexual communication: Relational framing theory and social-sexual communication, attraction, and intent. Human Communication Research, 42, 138–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12071 

McLaren, R. M., & Solomon, D. H. (2021). Relational framing theory: Drawing inferences about relationships from interpersonal interactions. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.),  Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 76–88). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003195511-7  Solomon, D. H. (2006). A relational framing perspective on perceptions of social-sexual communication at work. In R. M. Dailey & B. A. LePoire (Eds.), Applied interpersonal communication matters: Family, health, and community relations (pp. 271–298). Peter Lang. 

Action assembly theory explains how an individual’s thought gets transformed into action. The theory aims to understand why and how people produce the verbal and nonverbal behaviors they exhibit when interacting with others, and it focuses specifically on how the thought process or mental system governs human action. In other words, the theory is concerned with what happens in our head when we formulate, produce, and rehearse verbal and nonverbal messages. According to the theory, we store an enormous number of thoughts and actions in our memory that we have acquired over the course of our lives. Things like how to ask someone for a date, how to apologize to a friend after an argument, and how to politely turn down someone’s request are all kept in our memory system. When a situation presents itself, such as meeting someone for the first time, thoughts and actions that are relevant to this particular event will be activated, prompting us to assemble all the pieces together regarding how to properly interact with a stranger. Once you’ve organized your thoughts and planned actions into a coherent manner, you know what to do and what to say in this scenario. For example, you may offer a handshake, put on a smile, engage in good eye contact, and/or state your name. The theory can be used to investigate any behavioral phenomenon, such as the experience of social anxiety, behavioral differences between lying and truth-telling, and behavioral (in)consistency from one situation to another (Greene, 1995). Because the theory focuses on the underlying cognitive process of message production, it offers insight into how to enhance the quality of communicative exchanges.  

References and other suggested readings:  

Greene, J. O. (1995). An action-assembly perspective on verbal and nonverbal message production: A dancer’s message unveiled. In D. E. Hewes (Ed.), The cognitive bases of interpersonal communication (pp. 51–85). Erlbaum.  

Greene, J. O. (1997). A second generation action assembly theory. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 151–170). Erlbaum.  

Greene, J. O. (2006). Have I got something to tell you: Ideational dynamics and message production. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X05284481 

Greene, J. O. (2014). Just looking around. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 398–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14536051 

Greene, J. O. (2015). Action assembly theory: Forces of creation. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 25–36). SAGE.  Greene, J. O., Kirch, M. W., & Grady, C. S. (2000). Cognitive foundations of message encoding: An investigation of message production as coalition formation. Communication Quarterly, 48(3), 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385596

Alcohol myopia theory explains the effects of alcohol consumption on social perception and behavior. The theory argues that alcohol causes people to limit their attention to salient and immediate cues in the environment, to take longer to process information, and to have trouble connecting immediate experience with past events. The theory claims that alcohol affects social behavior because it reduces people’s cognitive capacity to balance competing interests. According to the theory, social behaviors are guided by two cues: those that promote a response (provoking cues) and those that constrain a response (inhibiting cues). When those two cues are in opposition to each other, inhibition conflict occurs. For example, developing romantic feelings for a friend may motivate someone to disclose that information (provoking cues), but he/she may also recognize that doing so can make things awkward or even jeopardize the relationship (inhibiting cues). When sober, he/she is skilled at balancing those two competing interests and is able to act appropriately. When being alcohol intoxicated, however, the theory argues that he/she is more likely to act upon provoking cues rather than inhibiting cues, leading to behaviors that are often inappropriate and extreme. The theory has been used to understand the effects of alcohol consumption on risky sexual behaviors (e.g., unprotected sex; George et al., 2024), intimate partner violence (Parrott et al., 2025), memory (Compo et al., 2011), and perceptions of social self-esteem (Monahan & Lannutti, 2000), to name a few. The theory provides a framework for understanding how and why drinking alcohol leads to risky and excessive behaviors.  

References and other suggested readings:  

Compo, N. S., Evans, J. R., Carol, R. N., Kemp, D., Villalba, D., Ham, L. S., & Rose, S. (2011). Alcohol intoxication and memory for events: A snapshot of alcohol myopia in a real-world drinking scenario. Memory, 19(2), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.546802 

Evans, J. R., Mindthoff, A., LaBat, D. E., Sparacino, M., Schreiber Compo, N., Polanco, K., & Hagsand, A. V. (2025). The impact of alcohol intoxication and short-sighted decision making in the interrogation room. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 14(1), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000173 

George, W. H., Blayney, J. A., & Davis, K. C. (2024). Impact of Acute Alcohol Consumption on Sexuality: A Look at Psychological Mechanisms. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 20(1), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080921-075423 

Monahan, J. L., & Lannutti, P. L. (2000). Alcohol as social lubricant: Alcohol myopia theory, social self-esteem, and social interaction. Human Communication Research, 26(2), 175–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–2958.2000.tb00755.x

Parrott, D., Leone, R. M., Hequembourg, A., Shorey, R. C., Eckhardt, C., & Stuart, G. L. (2025). An integrative model of alcohol-facilitated intimate partner aggression perpetration in sexual and gender diverse couples. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs, 86(2), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.24-00008  Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45(8), 921–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003–066X.45.8.921