Abstract
The three articles in this series comprised a dialectic. The first article (Indvik & Fitzpatrick, 1986) examined the thesis of individual‐level explanations for communication in relationships. Our critic's call for dyadic‐level explanations may be viewed as an antithesis. We responded by asserting the need for the synthesis of both conceptions of relational communication if the goals of behavioral science are to be met. The outcome of this dialectical process was to highlight the importance of the levels‐of‐analysis issue and to clarify the respective contributions made by individual‐ and dyadic‐level approaches.