The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships Edited by Anita L

Home , Personal Relationships

Cambridge University Press 0521826179 - The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships Edited by Anita L. Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman Frontmatter More information

The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships

The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relation- versity of Texas at Austin. Her work focuses ships serves as a benchmark of the current state of on the associations between communication and scholarship in this dynamic field, synthesizing the emotion in the context of close, personal rela- extant theoretical and empirical literature, trac- tionships. She has published numerous arti- ing its historical roots, and making recommenda- cles and chapters and has edited several books. tions for future directions. The volume addresses Vangelisti has served on the editorial boards a broad range of established and emerging topics, of over a dozen scholarly journals and has including theoretical and methodological issues received recognition for her research from the that influence the study of personal relationships; National Communication Association and the research and theory on relationship development; International Society for the Study of Personal the nature and functions of personal relation- Relationships. ships across the life span; individual differences and their influences on relationships; relationship Daniel Perlman is an academic psychologist processes such as cognition, emotion, and com- with broad, applied interests that cut across munication; relational qualities such as satisfac- social, developmental, and clinical psychology tion and commitment; environmental influences as focused on the study of close relationships. on personal relationships; and maintenance and He is a professor of Family Studies and also repair of relationships. The authors are experts teaches in the Department of Psychology at the from a variety of disciplines, including several University of British Columbia. He was presi- subfields of psychology, communication, family dent of the International Society for the Study studies, and sociology, who have made major con- of Personal Relationships and the Canadian Psy- tributions to the understanding of relationships. chological Association. He has authored more than 50 articles, edited or authored 15 books, Anita L. Vangelisti is a professor in the Depart- and been the editor or associate editor for four ment of Communication Studies at the Uni- journals.

© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521826179 - The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships Edited by Anita L. Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman Frontmatter More information

The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships

Edited by Anita L. Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman

cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao˜ Paulo

Cambridge University Press 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny 10011-4211, usa www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521826174

c Cambridge University Press 2006

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2006

Printed in the United States of America

A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships / edited by Anita L. Vangelisti, Daniel Perlman. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn-13: 978-0-521-82617-4 (hardcover) isbn-10: 0-521-82617-9 (hardcover) isbn-13: 978-0-521-53359-1 (pbk.) isbn-10: 0-521-53359-7 (pbk.) 1. Interpersonal relations – Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Interpersonal communication – Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Social psychology – Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Vangelisti, Anita L. II. Perlman, Daniel.

isbn-13 978-0-521-82617-4 hardback isbn-10 0-521-82617-9 hardback isbn-13 978-0-521-53359-1 paperback isbn-10 0-521-53359-7 paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Contents

Preface page ix 4. Research Methods for the Study Ellen Berscheid of Personal Relationships 51 Mahnaz Charania Contributors xvii William J. Ickes part i 5. Advances in Data Analytic INTRODUCTION Approaches for Relationships Research: The Broad Utility 1. Personal Relationships: An of Hierarchical Linear Introduction 3 Modeling 73 Daniel Perlman Deborah A. Kashy Anita L. Vangelisti Lorne Campbell David W. Harris part ii 6. Relationship Typologies 91 FOUNDATIONS FOR STUDYING C. Arthur VanLear RELATIONSHIPS Ascan Koerner 2 . The Seven Seas of the Study of Donna M. Allen Personal Relationships: From “The Thousand Islands” to part iii Interconnected Waterways 11 DEVELOPMENT OF Daniel Perlman RELATIONSHIPS Steve Duck 7. From Courtship to Universal 3. Theoretical Perspectives in the Properties: Research on Dating Study of Close Relationships 35 and Mate Selection, 1950 to 2003 113 John H. Harvey Catherine A. Surra Amy Wenzel Christine R. Gray v

vi contents

Tyfany M. J. Boettcher 16. The Intimate Same-Sex Nathan R. Cottle Relationships of Sexual Adam R. West Minorities 293 8. The Affective Structure of Lisa M. Diamond 131 Marriage 17. Family Relationships and John P. Caughlin Depression 313 Ted L. Huston Deborah J. Jones 9. Divorce and Postdivorce Steven R. H. Beach Relationships 157 Frank D. Fincham Marilyn Coleman Lawrence Ganong part vi Kim Leon BASIC PROCESSES 18. Communication: Basic part iv Properties and Their RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS THE Relevance to Relationship LIFE SPAN Research 331 10. Relationships in Early and Alan L. Sillars Middle Childhood 177 Anita L. Vangelisti Willard W. Hartup 19. Social Cognition in Intimate Relationships 353 11. Personal Relationships in Adolescence and Early Garth J. O. Fletcher Adulthood 191 Nickola C. Overall Myron D. Friesen W. Andrew Collins Stephanie D. Madsen 20. Emotion in Theories of Close Relationships 369 12. Close Relationships in Middle and Late Adulthood 211 Sally Planalp Julie Fitness Rosemary Blieszner Beverley Fehr 21. Physiology and Interpersonal part v Relationships 385 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Timothy J. Loving 13. Personality and Relationships: A Kathi L. Heffner Janice K. Kiecolt-Glaser Temperament Perspective 231 Jeffry A. Simpson Heike A. Winterheld part vii Jennie Y. Chen INTERACTIVE PROCESSES 14. Attachment Theory, 22. Self-Disclosure in Personal Individual Psychodynamics, Relationships 409 and Relationship Kathryn Greene Functioning 251 Valerian J. Derlega Phillip R. Shaver Alicia Mathews Mario Mikulincer 23. Close Relationships and Social 15. “His” and “Her” Relationships? A Support: Implications for Review of the Empirical the Measurement of Social Evidence 273 Support 429 Emily A. Impett Barbara R. Sarason Letitia Anne Peplau Irwin G. Sarason

contents vii

24. Understanding Couple Conﬂict 445 34. Intimacy in Personal Galena H. Kline Relationships 637 Nicole D. Pleasant Jean-Philippe Laurenceau Sarah W. Whitton Brighid M. Kleinman Howard J. Markman part x 25. Sexuality in Close Relationships 463 Susan Sprecher CONTEXT F. Scott Christopher 35. Social Networks and Personal Rodney Cate Communities 657 part viii Graham Allan THREATS TO RELATIONSHIPS 36. Relationships in Home and Community Environments: A 26. Loneliness and Social Isolation 485 Transactional and Dialectic Jenny de Jong Gierveld Analysis 673 Theo van Tilburg Barbara B. Brown Pearl A. Dykstra Carol M. Werner 27. Stress in Couples: The Process of Irwin Altman Dyadic Coping 501 37. Relationships, Culture, and Carolyn E. Cutrona Social Change 695 Kelli A. Gardner Robin Goodwin 28. Lying and Deception in Close Urmila Pillay Relationships 517 38. Personal Relationships: On and Mark L. Knapp Off the Internet 709 29 . Temptations and Threat: Jeffrey Boase Extradyadic Relations and Barry Wellman Jealousy 533 Abraham P. Buunk part xi Pieternel Dijkstra MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF 30. Violence and Abuse in Personal RELATIONSHIPS Relationships: Conﬂict, Terror, 39. Maintaining Relationships 727 and Resistance in Intimate Partnerships 557 Daniel J. Canary Marianne Dainton Michael P. Johnson 40. The Treatment of Relationship part ix Distress: Theoretical Perspectives 745 RELATIONAL QUALITIES and Empirical Findings Donald H. Baucom 31 579 . Relationship Satisfaction Norman B. Epstein Frank D. Fincham Susan Stanton Steven R. H. Beach part xii 32. Romantic Love 595 Arthur Aron CONCLUSION Helen E. Fisher 41. Bringing It All Together: A Greg Strong Theoretical Approach 769 33 615 . Commitment Patricia Noller Caryl E. Rusbult Michael K. Coolsen Author Index 791 Jeffrey L. Kirchner Jennifer A. Clarke Subject Index 828

Preface

For volumes that review the present state tionships was in doubt. As a consequence, of knowledge in dynamic, rapidly evolv- and to be on the safe side, many of us ing fields, the label handbook seems only adopted the convention of referring to the marginally appropriate. When one thinks of relationship field as “emerging,” a practice a handbook, one visualizes a person hold- noted with exasperation in the late 1980s ing a plumbing manual in one hand and a by Steve Duck, the editor of the first rela- wrench in the other and, after the leaky pipe tionship handbook, the Handbook of Per- has been fixed, putting the manual away for sonal Relationships (1988). In his introduc- use another day, confident that the princi- tory remarks, Duck took a deep breath ples of plumbing will not change substan- and dared to declare that the field had tially from one year to the next or even emerged, putting its birth about 10 years very much from one decade to the next. earlier, in the late 1970s. A second edition Relationship science, in contrast, is a large of that first handbook appeared 10 years and still loosely organized field that con- later (Duck, 1997) and only 3 years after tinues to expand rapidly in all directions, that a relationship “sourcebook” edited by its momentum fueled partly by the internal Clyde and Susan Hendrick (2000) was pub- combustion provided by the theorists and lished. In between and since, several edited researchers who form the core of the field topical “mini-handbooks” have been pub- and partly by scholars in other fields who rec- lished, each devoted to a subject of special ognize the relevance of relationship theory interest to relationship researchers, as Dan and research to their own problems. Rela- Perlman and Duck note in their historical tionship science is, in short, a nova in the review chapter in this book. heavens of the social, behavioral, and bio- The continuing high volume of activity logical sciences. in the relationship field places a heavy bur- Not so long ago, the future of a field den on relationship scholars. There is too devoted to understanding interpersonal rela- much to learn, and far too little time in

x preface

which to learn it, for most of us to feel that be omitted from their report because they we have anything but a tenuous grasp of promise to be a waste of time or, of course, the breadth and depth of the field or more that some researchers invest their resources than a dim appreciation of its current trajec- more wisely than others. Histories of disci- tory. There are too many books, too many plines, in fact, are simply accounts of schol- journal articles, and too many conferences, ars’ bets that paid off. Lost wagers are rarely preconferences, and workshops for anyone mentioned. to take in. Hence the need for volumes It is to the prediction of profitable future that periodically, comprehensively, and con- activities that I address the remainder of cisely describe current activities in the field – these prefatory remarks because, like it or handbooks, in other words, or perhaps more not, all scholars must be gamblers. To decide accurately, status reports – to help us fend where to invest their time, energy, and other off the feelings of defeat that precede retreat resources, they must make predictions about into more settled areas of inquiry. the kinds of theoretical, research, and service activities that are the surest bets to advance the field. This kind of gambling is a high- stakes activity, both for the individual and A Book of Bets for the field, which perhaps is why so many scholarly conferences devote at least one ses- In addition to surveying present activities sion to “future directions” or some variant on in areas of interest to relationship schol- that theme and so many journals periodically ars, many handbook contributors briefly publish “forecast” articles and issues. describe the history of the area and some also attempt to predict its future. Histori- cal remarks are useful to newcomers to the field who, entering the relationship movie The Wild Cards midstream, often wonder how the relationship field got to where it is (and why it took Making accurate predictions about a field’s so long to get here). Forecasts of profitable future, especially predictions about the spe- future activities are especially useful to new cific research paths that will yield a sig- recruits, many of whom are in the process of nificant payoff, is extraordinarily difficult. deciding where they might most profitably It is hazardous, in fact. My thesis here is invest their scholarly efforts. A “bookmaker’s that the wild cards that so often trump the book of bets” is, in fact, a secondary defini- most carefully considered forecasts are dealt tion of the word handbook (Webster’s Col- by powerful, pervasive, and slow-moving legiate Dictionary, 10th ed., p. 526). Indeed, macroforces. Because these forces intensify and apart from the explicit predictions of so gradually (think of a hand in a bucket of future activity that some handbook con- water in which the temperature is slowly tributors make, their descriptions of cur- and imperceptibly increased to the boiling rent activities in a specific problem area can point), they are hard to identify even as they be viewed as surveys of the bets individual are exerting their massive and inexorable researchers are currently making – where, in influence on scholars’ activities. I illustrate other words, one’s colleagues are gambling the point by describing some of the macro- their professional and personal resources in forces that, I now see in retrospect, were the expectation that their investments will beginning to gather strength when I became pay off by advancing relationship knowl- involved in relationship research more than edge. It perhaps does not need saying that half a century ago. in performing the triage necessary for a con- The seeds of at least three macroforces cise report, some surveyors are better than that would influence all of the social and others in identifying which current activi- behavioral sciences were beginning to ger- ties are likely to be rewarding and which can minate when, as an undergraduate English

preface xi

major vaguely intending to go on to law pedagogical reform, no less). Each individ- school, I impulsively enrolled in a new sem- ual’s slip listed certain other persons in the inar offered by the psychology department group who, supposedly as revealed by a per- titled Perception and Cognition. I signed up sonality test taken earlier, probably would for the seminar expecting it (don’t ask me like the individual. After their (embarrass- why) to be a course in extrasensory per- ingly desultory) discussion, I handed out ception and precognition. Although I spent questionnaires that asked each person whom much of the semester wondering when we he or she liked now that they had become were going to get to the interesting part, I acquainted with the other group mem- wisely refrained from asking the professor, bers. I learned later that the experiment Paul Secord, for clarification and, persever- had been stimulated by the proposition, ing to the very end, I did well enough that advanced independently by Renato Tagiuri Secord asked me if I would like a job as and Theodore Newcomb, that a fundamen- his research assistant. I had no idea what tal characteristic of the dyad is “congru- a research assistant did, but with another ency,” a prominent instance of which was boring secretarial job looming on the sum- believed to be the tendency for people to mer horizon, I was pleased to give it a like those who like them. Backman and Sec- whirl. ord’s (1959) results revealed that perception Secord could offer me a job as a research of another’s liking caused liking the other in assistant because during the semester in return at first but the effect evaporated upon which I was impatiently tapping my foot further interaction (and the additional infor- waiting to learn the secrets of clairvoyance, mation it provided). mind reading, and spoon bending, he had The seeds of the second macroforce, one received word that he was to receive a that was to transform research activities in research grant from the National Institute all of the sciences, were reflected in another of Health–Public Health Service. I learned of my initial tasks. Sitting by a window, I years later that both the topic of Secord’s was to take two cards from a box of rectan- seminar and his grant proposal had been gular cards on which someone had punched influenced by his recent participation in a lot of holes, sandwich them together, and the seminal symposium sponsored by the then hold the pair up to the light and count Office of Naval Research held at Harvard in the number of holes through which the sun March of 1957, resulting in the classic vol- shone. This took a very long time. A very, ume edited by Tagiuri and Petrullo, Person very long time. With his usual perspicac- Perception and Interpersonal Behavior (1958). ity, Secord had recognized the possibilities Secord’s grant was among the first federal that lie in the university’s purchase of a research grants ever made to the social and card-punching machine. Unfortunately, no behavioral sciences. The gradual infusion of machine was available to make the com- increasing amounts of federal research funds parisons he needed, nor was there available into the social and behavioral sciences that a machine that could compute the needed followed was to have enormous impact on statistics on the “similarity-of-holes” data what researchers in these disciplines did and (what it actually represented, I never knew). how they did it. I was to accomplish the latter by depressing Person perception and interpersonal the appropriate numbered keys on the top attraction are intimate companions that of a Friden calculating machine, which was together formed an important part of the about as large as a breadbox but consider- nucleus of relationship science. My first task ably heavier, and then pulling the crank on as a research assistant thus thrust me into its side almost 180 degrees to enter the num- relationship research. My job was to hand bers into the gizzards of the machine. Sev- out slips of paper to a group of students, eral days of frenzied crank-pulling to obtain all strangers to one another, sitting around what seemed an endless series of correlation in a circle about to begin a discussion (of coefficients later sent me to the orthopedic

xii preface

surgeon with what was diagnosed as “tennis ence is rarely acknowledged even in retro- elbow.” spect. Their monumental impact illustrates Along with what has been called the that relationship science, like a relationship golden age of federal research funding and itself, is an open system sensitive to pertur- the advent of the computer age, the seeds of bations not only in the systems that relation- the third potent macroforce were reflected ship science encompasses (e.g., the scholars in my own gender, which turned out to be a working in each of the problem areas that harbinger of the great migration of women comprise relationship science) but also in into the sciences. Redress of the lopsided sex the larger, societal systems in which relation- ratio of researchers in the social and behav- ship science is nested. It is the forces gener- ioral sciences almost surely influenced the ated within these larger systems that so often development of relationship research, for crush the individual researcher’s bets on the researchers usually enjoy working on prob- future. lems they personally care about; women, it has been documented, are more inter- ested in personal relationships than men are. The entry of the other half of the human Variegated Effects of Macroforces population into competition for graduate training and for jobs had another effect: Each of the individual macroforces I have It almost surely increased the quality of named as influencing the relationship field researchers in the disciplines that were to over the past half century (and I make contribute to relationship science. Com- no claim the list is exhaustive) repre- petition for admission to graduate schools sents a broad category of the types of became increasingly intense, and today most changes that may forever alter the course applicants’ vitas are brimming with research of a research discipline – namely, changes publications, computer and statistical exper- in researchers’ monetary, time, or other tise; perfect grade point averages; outstand- resources to do what they do; changes in ing GRE scores; extensive undergraduate technology that affect how they do it; and coursework in psychology, sociology, and changes in the number and characteristics allied fields; and incredible (sometimes lit- of the researchers themselves. Each macro- erally) letters of recommendation. Many of force has had variegated effects; most have my age cohort (including yours truly) sus- facilitated the field’s advance, but some have pect they would not be let in the door impeded it and are continuing to do so. today. For example, the effects of federal research Reflecting on the changes that have funding for social and behavioral research occurred over the past 50 years in the study have not been wholly beneficial. One of of interpersonal relationships, it thus seems its most unfortunate effects is that as uni- to me that the major transforming agents versities have become increasingly depen- have been only secondarily individual the- dent on federal monies, many have come orists and researchers. Rather, the prime to see their researchers more as revenue- movers in any field that influence who the generating agents than as knowledge- theorists and researchers are (their personal generating scholars. Their employers’ view characteristics and, indeed, their very num- not only influences researchers’ choice of ber), what these theorists and researchers problem (increasingly determined by the do, and how they do it – and, therefore, the vagaries of politics and the federal “social number, nature, and quality of the advances problem du jour” as opposed to research made in a field – are powerful, pervasive, addressed to fundamental problems in the slow-moving macroforces. These are almost field) but also researchers’ approach to the impossible to identify in prospect and diffi- problem (e.g., a quick return to be itemized cult to identify even when they are quietly in the next “progress report” to ensure con- exerting their vast power. Indeed, their influ- tinued support).

preface xiii

Changes in technology are, of course, par- uation social psychologist William McGuire ticularly potent forces. The increasing power (1973) described some time ago: and sophistication of the computer not only The affluent senior researcher often has dramatically facilitated complex statis- [carries] out his work through graduate tical analyses of data, it has also made pos- assistants and research associates, who, in sible the development of new methods to turn, often have the actual observations investigate both new and old hypotheses. done by parapsychological technicians For example, a decade or so after Backman or hourly help, and the data they collect and Secord’s (1959) experiment, the failure go to card-punchers who feed them into to find evidence of liking reciprocity in a computers, whose output goes back to the data set led a graduate student named David research associate, who might call the Kenny to develop what he called the social more meaningful outcomes to the attention relations modeling (SRM) method (Kenny, of the senior researcher, who is too busy 1994,p.101); the liking reciprocity hypothe- meeting the payrolls to control the form of the printout or look diligently through it sis was the first he investigated with the new when it arrives. (p. 555) method (Kenny & La Voie, 1982, 1984). The availability of the computer surely played Or, it should be added, too busy to certify a silent role, for one does not like to think that the data shoveled into the computer’s about analyzing SRM data on a Friden furnace meet each statistic’s assumptions. calculator. The need to meet a statistic’s assumptions One especially does not like to think was brought home to me early in a sear- about performing the multiple regres- ing experience. After doing exactly what sion analyses now endemic in relationship students are warned never to do – collect- research on a Friden calculator, although it ing data without first determining how they must be said that the old iron breadbox would be analyzed – Marshall Dermer and had its virtues. Because calculating a cor- I belatedly discovered there were no time- relation coefficient was laborious, one did series statistics available at that time to ana- not undertake the task unless one had ascer- lyze our activation-level diary data (Dermer tained, first, that the data met the necessary & Berscheid, 1972). Happily, Marshall found assumptions and, second, that one really, a team of biological rhythm statisticians truly needed those coefficients, which meant working in the rabbit warren of rooms under that one knew exactly what one was going the football stadium; taking pity on us, they to make of them. Moreover, by the time agreed to make us some statistics (and thus one had finished calculating all the necessary act as our technical advisors). Unhappily, statistics on a data set, one had gained great when we got around to looking these sta- familiarity with it, including its warts and tisticans’ gift horse in the mouth, we discov- anomalies, which often tempered interpre- ered that one of the mathematical assump- tation of those statistics and sometimes even tions underlying their statistics required our precluded their report. Today, extraordinary human subjects to be dead at least once a amounts of data are automatically fed into a day. Even more unhappily, we made this dis- statistical software program (often selected covery after we had interpreted our results by what is now commonly called a techni- to our satisfaction and were on the brink of cal advisor) that effortlessly but mindlessly publishing our report – yet another illustra- churns out cornucopias of statistics, some of tion that a researcher’s facile and creative which have little or no real meaning but are mind usually can see a rational pattern in interpreted as though they did. any random display. The effects of one macroforce often inter- The fact that violation of a statistic’s act with the effects of another. For exam- assumptions is hard to discern in the ple, the researcher’s need for federal research obtained statistic represents a special danger funding often interacts with the computeri- for relationship researchers who often find zation of statistical analysis to produce a sit- themselves in the uncomfortable position of

xiv preface

trying to make causal inferences from regres- an even greater potential to contribute to sion analyses performed on nonexperimen- neuroscience. His arguments may even be tal data. Many of the variables of interest understated because it has become increas- in relationship research are causally bidirec- ingly clear that the operations of the brain tional and highly correlated with each other cannot be understood without significant (e.g., trust, love, commitment; see Attridge, advances in affective neuroscience; advances Berscheid, & Simpson, 1995). This highly in affective neuroscience, in turn, require the glutinous mass often makes it difficult for development of a robust social neuroscience, relationship researchers to meet the assump- which requires advances in relationship sci- tions that causal inference from such data ence because it is within our relationships requires (see Berscheid & Regan, 2005,pp. with others that we humans most frequently 79–81; McKim & Turner, 1997). Thus, my and intensely experience emotion and pro- first prediction for relationship science is cess stimuli heavily saturated with affect. that making causal inferences from nonex- The methods of neuroscience are only perimental data will continue to be a prob- one way to understand the unconscious lematic activity, barring the emergence of an mind; the methods of cognitive social psy- statistical alchemist and the services of a sta- chology are another. Unfortunately, the lat- tistical auditing firm to weed out spurious ter have yet to exert much influence on results in previously published reports. the relationship field. For example, social cognitive psychologist James Uleman (2005) observes that contemporary theory of mind Some Other Predictions “is remarkably absent from most research on person perception” (p. 11), which remains My other predictions about the future of as important to the understanding of rela- the relationship field and profitable avenues tionships as it was 50 years ago. Even well- of research follow from consideration of established research findings on the nature of the three broad categories of macroforces the human mind have yet to be recognized I have named. First, and with respect to by many relationship scholars. Psycholo- resources, one can predict that threats to fed- gist and computer scientist Roger Schank eral funding for the social and behavioral sci- (“God ...,” 2005) opined, for example: ences will increase in frequency and severity as the nation’s financial solvency deterio- I do not believe that people are capable of rates and its financial obligations increase. rational thought when it comes to mak- Indeed, funding from the National Insti- ing decisions in their own lives. People tutes of Health for much basic social sci- believe they are behaving rationally and have thought things out, of course, but when entific research, including research vital to major decisions are made – who to marry, an understanding of relationships, is in jeop- where to live,...people’s minds simply can- ardy as this Handbook goes to press (see not cope with the complexity. When they try Carpenter, 2005; Fiske, 2005). to rationally analyze potential options, their Second, and with respect to technologi- unconscious, emotional thoughts take over cal changes, my predictions are more pos- and make the choice for them. (p. F3) itive. Advances in neuroscience as a result of the development of functional magnetic If Schank and the conclusions of many cog- resonance imaging (fMRI) and the increas- nitive social psychologists are correct (see ing availability of the necessary magnets Hassin, Uleman, & Bargh, 2005, who represent enormous opportunities for rela- described the new unconscious), we relation- tionship researchers (see Berscheid, 2004). ship scholars are trying to identify and under- These are only now beginning to be mined stand the determinants of a person’s “major (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003). Aron (in press) decisions,” such as mate selection or whether detailed several contributions that fMRI can to maintain or dissolve a relationship, make to relationship science and asserted primarily through self-report even though that, in turn, relationship science may have the answers to many of our questions are

preface xv

not available to our respondents to report References (although they always do report something). New understandings of the human Aron, A. (in press). Relationship neuroscience: mind have additional implications for us Advancing the social psychology of close researchers; that is, we ourselves are not relationships using functional neuroimaging. immune from the limitations of our con- In P. A. M. Van Lange (Ed.), Bridging scious minds when thinking about the social psychology: Benefits of transdisciplinary highly complex system in which people’s approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. relationship decisions and other behaviors Attridge, M., Berscheid, E., & Simpson, J. A. 1995 are embedded. More than 30 years ago, ( ). Predicting relationship stability from McGuire called for new conceptual mod- both partners versus one. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 69, 254–268. els “that involve parallel processing, nets of 1959 causally interrelated factors, feedback loops, Backman, C. W., & Secord, P.F. ( ). The effect of perceived liking on interpersonal attraction. bidirectional causation, etc.” (p. 452) to deal Human Relations, 12, 379–384. with complex cognitive and social systems Berscheid, E. (2004). Lighting up the brain to in which multiple causes interact with each illuminate the mind [Review of Foundations in other to produce an effect and in which social neuroscience]. Contemporary Psychology: effects act to change their original causal APA Review of Books, 49, 713–716. conditions. McGuire also warned, however, Berscheid, E., & Regan, P. (2005). The psychol- that “We shall all shy away from the men- ogy of interpersonal relationships. New York: tal strain of keeping in mind so many vari- Prentice-Hall. 452 ables, so completely interrelated” (p. ). Carpenter, S. (2005, February). Hitting the bricks. He was right; we relationship scholars do shy Aps Observer, 18(2), pp. 12–19. away from the exercise. But he was wrong Dermer, M., & Berscheid, E. (1972). Self-report to blame “mental strain” for our avoidance; of arousal as an indicant of activation level. our conscious minds can strain until our Behavioral Science, 17, 420–429. noses bleed, but most of us still can’t do Duck, S. (Ed.). (1988). Handbook of personal it. Perhaps the epistemology of relationship relationships: Theory, research and interventions. research could use some attention. Oxford, England: Wiley. Finally, with respect to macroforces that Duck, S. (Ed.) (1997). Handbook of personal rela- result in changes in the characteristics of tionships (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley. research personnel, one can confidently Fisher, H., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Strong, G., Li, predict that relationship researchers will H., & Brown, L. L. (2003, November). Early become more racially and culturally diverse state intense romantic love activates cortical- for a variety of reasons and that fewer will basal-ganglia reward/motivation, emotion and be men (if recently reported sex ratios of col- attention systems: An fMRI study of a dynamic lege undergraduates is any indication), all of network that varies with relationship length, pas- which will influence the kinds of relation- sion intensity and gender. Paper presented at Society for Neuroscience, New Orleans. ship problems that receive attention. One 2005 might also predict that as present researchers Fiske, S. ( , March). Advice to social psychology grant writers. APS Observer, 18,p.14. God grow older, their interest in phenomena asso- (or not), physics and, of course, love: Scientists ciated with young relationships (e.g., roman- take a leap (January 4, 2005). New York Times, tic love) will wane and the joys and prob- p. F3. lems of older relationships will gain more Hassin, R. R., Uleman, J. S., & Bargh, J. A. (2005). representation in relationship theory and The new unconscious. New York: Oxford Uni- research. versity Press. Only time will tell what the future holds Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (Eds.). (2000). for relationship research. We can all bet on Close relationships: A sourcebook. Thousand that – and pray that the forces be with us. Oaks, CA: Sage. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A Ellen Berscheid social relations analysis. New York: Guilford University of Minnesota Press.

xvi preface

Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1982). Reciprocity McKim, V. R., & Turner, S. P. (Eds.). (1997). of interpersonal attraction: A conﬁrmed Causality in crisis? Statistical methods and the hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, search for causal knowledge in the social sciences. 54–58. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press. Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The Tagiuri, R., & Petrullo, L. (Eds.). (1958). Person social relations model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford, Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. CA: Stanford University Press. 18,pp.142–182). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Uleman, J. S. (2005). Introduction: Becoming McGuire, W. J. (1973). The yin and yang of aware of the new unconscious. In R. R. Has- progress in social psychology: Seven koan. Jour- sin, J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The new nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 446– unconscious (pp. 3–15) New York: Oxford Uni- 456. versity Press.

Contributors

Graham Allan Steven R. H. Beach School of Social Relations Institute for Behavioral Research Keele University 157 Psychology Staffs ST55BG University of Georgia [email protected] Athens, GA 30602-3013 Donna M. Allen [email protected] Department of Business Ellen Berscheid Northwest Nazarene University 623 Holly Street Department of Psychology Nampa, ID 83686-5897 University of Minnesota 75 [email protected] East River Road 55455 Irwin Altman Minneapolis, MN [email protected] Department of Psychology University of Utah Rosemary Blieszner 390 S. 1530 E. Department of Human Development Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0251 (0416) [email protected] Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Arthur Aron University Department of Psychology Blacksburg, VA 24061 SUNY at Stony Brook [email protected] Stony Brook, NY 11794-2500 [email protected] Jeffrey Boase Donald Baucom Department of Sociology 259 Davie Hall, CB #3270 University of Toronto Psychology Department 725 Spadina Ave. UNC-CH Toronto, ON, M5S 2J4 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270 Canada don [email protected] [email protected]

xvii

xviii contributors

Tyfany M. J. Boettcher F. Scott Christopher Human Development and Family Sciences Department of Family Resources The University of Texas at Austin Arizona State University 1 University Station A2700 Tempe, AZ 85287-2502 Austin, TX 78712-0141 [email protected] [email protected] Jennifer A. Clarke Barbara B. Brown Department of Behavioral Sciences and University of Utah Leadership Department of Family and Consumer Studies HQ USAF/DFBL 225 1400 228 South East, Room AEB 2354 Fairchild Drive, Suite 6J133 84112 0080 Salt Lake City, UT - USAFA CO 80840-6228 [email protected] [email protected] Abraham P. Buunk Marilyn Coleman Department of Psychology University of Groningen Department of Human Development and Grote Kruisstraat 2/1 Family Studies 411 9712 TS Groningen Gentry The Netherlands University of Missouri 65211 [email protected] Columbia, MO [email protected] Lorne Campbell Department of Psychology W. Andrew Collins University of Western Ontario Institute of Child Development London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2 University of Minnesota [email protected] 51 E. River Road 55455 0345 Daniel J. Canary Minneapolis, MN - [email protected] Hugh Downs School of Human Communication Arizona State University Michael K. Coolsen 85287 1205 Tempe, AZ - Department of Management and [email protected] Marketing Rodney Cate The John L. Grove College of Business Department of Family Studies and Human Shippensburg University Development 1871 Old Main Drive University of Arizona Shippensburg, PA 17257-2299 Tucson, AZ 85721-0033 [email protected] [email protected] Nathan R. Cottle John P. Caughlin Development of Family Studies and Early Department of Speech Communication Childhood Education University of Illinois Matthews Hall 119A 702 127 S. Wright Street, Lincoln University of North Texas 61801 Urbana, IL PO Box 310829 [email protected] Denton, TX 76203-0829 Mahnaz Charania [email protected] Department of Psychology Carolyn E. Cutrona Box 19528 University of Texas at Arlington ISBR 2625 500 Arlington, TX 76019-0528 N. Loop Drive Suite 50010 [email protected] Ames, IA [email protected] Jennie Y. Chen Department of Psychology Marianne Dainton Texas A&M University Associate Professor of Communication 4235 TAMU La Salle University College Station, TX 77843-4235 Philadelphia, PA 19141 [email protected] [email protected]

contributors xix

Valerian J. Derlega Julie Fitness Department of Psychology Psychology Department Old Dominion University Macquarie University Norfolk, VA 23529-0267 Sydney 2109, Australia [email protected] Jfi[email protected] Lisa M. Diamond Garth G. O. Fletcher Department of Psychology Department of Psychology University of Utah University of Canterbury 380 South 1530 East, Room 502 Christchurch, New Zealand Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0251 g.fl[email protected] [email protected] Myron D. Friesen Pieternel Dijkstra Department of Psychology 44 Slochtermeenteweg University of Canterbury 9621 CP Slochteren, Private Bag 4800 The Netherlands Christchurch 8020, New Zealand [email protected] [email protected] Steve Duck Lawrence Ganong Department of Communication Studies Sinclair School of Nursing and Department 151 BCSB of Human Development and Family University of Iowa Studies 52242 1498 Iowa City, IA - 409 Gentry [email protected] University of Missouri Pearl A. Dykstra Columbia, MO 65211 NIDI, P.B. 11650 [email protected] 2502 AR The Hague Kelli A. Gardner The Netherlands Psychology Department [email protected] Iowa State University Norman B. Epstein Ames, IA 50011-3180 Department of Family Studies [email protected] University of Maryland Jenny de Jong Gierveld College Park, MD 20742 The Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic [email protected] Institute Beverley Fehr Lange Houtstraat 19 Psychology Department P.O. Box 11650 University of Winnipeg NL-2502 AR The Hague 515 Portage Avenue The Netherlands Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [email protected] [email protected] Robin Goodwin Frank D. Fincham Department of Human Sciences FSU Family Institute Brunel University Department of Child and Family Science Uxbridge, Middlesex Florida State University London UB83PH 211 Sandels Building United Kingdom Tallahassee, FL 32306-1491 [email protected] ffi[email protected] Christine R. Gray Helen E. Fisher Human Development and Family Department of Anthropology Sciences Rutgers University The University of Texas at Austin Office: 4 East 70th Street 1 University Station A2700 New York City, NY 10021 Austin, TX 78712-0141 [email protected] [email protected]

xx contributors

Kathryn Greene Deborah J. Jones Department of Communication CB #3270, Davie Hall Rutgers University Psychology Dept. UNC-CH New Brunswick, NJ 08091-1071 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270 [email protected] [email protected] David W. Harris Deborah A. Kashy Department of Psychology Department of Psychology Michigan State University Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824 [email protected] [email protected] Willard W. Hartup Janice Kiecolt-Glaser Institute of Child Development Department of Psychiatry University of Minnesota Ohio State University College of Medicine 1670 51 E. River Road Upham Drive 43210 1228 Minneapolis, MN 55455 Columbus, OH - 1 [email protected] kiecolt-glaser. @osu.edu John H. Harvey Jeffrey L. Kirchner 308 Ell Seashore Hall Davie Hall University of Iowa Psychology Department Iowa City, IA 52242 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 27599 3270 [email protected] Chapel Hill, NC - [email protected] Kathi L. Heffner Brighid M. Kleinman Department of Psychology University of Miami Ohio University Department of Psychology 209 Porter Hall P.O. Box 248185 Athens, OH 45701 Coral Gables, FL 33124-0751 [email protected] [email protected] Ted L. Huston Galena H. Kline Department of Human Ecology University of Denver 117 Gearing Department of Psychology University of Texas at Austin Frontier Hall, 2155 S. Race St. 78712 Austin, TX Denver, CO 80208 [email protected] [email protected] William J. Ickes Mark L. Knapp Department of Psychology Department of Communication Studies University of Texas at Arlington University of Texas at Austin 76019 0528 Arlington, TX - 1 University Station A1105 [email protected] Austin, TX 78712-0115 Emily A. Impett [email protected] Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality Ascan Koerner San Francisco State University Department of Communication Studies 2017 Mission Street #300 244 Ford Hall San Francisco, CA 94110 University of Minnesota [email protected] Minneapolis, MN 55455 011 Michael P. Johnson koern @umn.edu Associate Professor of Sociology, Women’s Jean-Philippe Laurenceau Studies, and African and African American University of Delaware Studies, Department of Sociology Department of Psychology The Pennsylvania State University 108 Wolf Hall University Park, PA 16802-6207 Newark, DE 19716-2577 [email protected] [email protected]

contributors xxi

Kim Leon Daniel Perlman Human Development & Family Studies School of Social Work and Family Studies College of Human Environmental Sciences University of British Columbia University of Missouri-Columbia Vancouver, BC 407 Gentry Hall Canada V6T 1Z2 Columbia, MO 65211-7040 [email protected] [email protected] Sally Planalp Timothy J. Loving Department of Communication University of Texas at Austin The University of Utah Department of Human Ecology 255 S. Central Campus Drive, Room 2400 1 University Station A 2700 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Austin, TX 78712-0141 [email protected] [email protected] Urmila Pillay Stephanie D. Madsen 54 Ratcliffe Close Psychology Department Uxbridge UB82DD McDaniel College U.K. Westminster, MD 21157-4390 [email protected] [email protected] Nicole Pleasant Howard J. Markman University of Denver University of Denver Department of Psychology Department of Psychology Frontier Hall Frontier Hall, 2155 S. Race St. Denver, CO 80208 Denver, CO 80208 [email protected] [email protected] Caryl E. Rusbult Alicia Mathews Department of Social Psychology Old Dominion University Vrije Universiteit Department of Psychology Van der Boechorststraat 1 Norfolk, VA 23529-0267 Amsterdam 1081 BT [email protected] The Netherlands Mario Mikulincer [email protected] Department of Psychology Barbara R. Sarason Bar-Ilan University Department of Psychology Ramat Gan 52900 Box 351525 Israel University of Washington [email protected] Seattle, WA 98195 Patricia Noller [email protected] Department of Psychology Irwin G. Sarason University of Queensland Department of Psychology Brisbane, QLD 4072 Box 351525 Australia University of Washington [email protected] Seattle, WA 98195 Nickola C. Overall [email protected] Department of Psychology Phillip R. Shaver University of Auckland Department of Psychology Private Bag 92019 University of California Auckland, New Zealand One Shields Avenue [email protected] Davis, CA 95616-8686 Letitia Anne Peplau [email protected] Department of Psychology Alan L. Sillars Box 951563 Department of Communication Studies University of California, Los Angeles University of Montana Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 Missoula, MT 59812 [email protected] [email protected]

xxii contributors

Jeffry A. Simpson Theo van Tilburg Department of Psychology Faculty of Social Sciences University of Minnesota Vrije Universiteit Minneapolis, MN 55455-0344 De Boelelaan 1105 [email protected] Amsterdam NL-1081HV Susan Sprecher The Netherlands [email protected] Department of Sociology-Anthropology Illinois State University Barry Wellman Normal, IL 61790-4660 Centre for Urban & Community Studies [email protected] University of Toronto 455 Susan Stanton Spadina Avenue Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 2G8 238 Davie Hall [email protected] Psychology Dept. UNC-CH Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270 Amy Wenzel [email protected] Psychopathology Research Unit Department of Psychiatry Greg Strong University of Pennsylvania Department of Psychology 3535 Market St., Room 2032 SUNY at Stony Brook Philadelphia, PA 19104 11794 2500 Stony Brook, NY - [email protected] [email protected] Carol M. Werner Catherine Surra Department of Psychology University of Texas at Austin University of Utah Department of Human Ecology 380 South 1530 East, Room 502 115 Gearing Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0251 78712 Austin, TX [email protected] [email protected] Adam R. West Laura Sullivan The University of Texas at Austin 263 Davie Hall Division of Human Development and Family Psychology Dept. UNC-CH Sciences Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270 SEA 2.412/A2700 [email protected] One University Station Anita L. Vangelisti Austin, TX 78712 Department of Communication Studies [email protected] College of Communication Sarah W. Whitton 1 University Station A1105 Judge Baker Children’s Center Austin, TX 78712 53 Parker Hill Avenue [email protected] Boston, MA 02120 C. Arthur VanLear [email protected] Department of Communication Heike A. Winterheld Sciences Department of Psychology University of Connecticut N307 Elliott Hall Box U-85 University of Minnesota Storrs, CT 06269-1085 Minneapolis, MN 55455 [email protected] [email protected]