Personal Relationships, 14 (2007), 1–23. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright Ó 2007 IARR. 1350-4126=07

DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR ARTICLE

Steps toward the ripening of relationship science

HARRY T. REIS The University of Rochester

Harry T. Reis is professor of psychology in the Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology at the Uni- versity of Rochester. He first studied human relationships at the City College of New York, where he received a B.S. in 1970. Reis subsequently received a Ph.D. from New York University in 1975. A former president of the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships (2000– 2001), he served as editor of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal and Group Processes (1986–1990) and is currently editor of Current Directions in Psychological Science. After 10 years as its executive offi- cer (1995–2004), the Society for Personality and Social Psychology awarded him the Distinguished Service Award (2006) and elected him as president (2007). Reis served as member or Chair of the American Psychological Associa- tion’s Board of Scientific Affairs from 2001 through 2003, is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and of the Association for Psychological Science, and was a Ful- bright Senior Research Fellow in the Netherlands in 1991. Reis’s research, which concerns mechanisms that regulate interpersonal processes, has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Abstract Recent decades have seen remarkable growth in research and theorizing about relationships. E. Berscheid (1999) invigorated this growth by proclaiming ‘‘The Greening of Relationship Science,’’ the emergence of a multidisciplinary science of interpersonal relationships with enormous potential to advance knowledge about human behavior and to provide an empirically informed framework for improving the human condition. Here I discuss several steps necessary to move the field from a green science toward a more mature, ripened one, including the need to be action oriented but in a theory-building way, to become more cumulative and collective, and to develop an integrated network of theories, constructs, and their observable manifestations. Perceived partner responsiveness is one possible central organizing theme for the diverse phenomena relationship scientists study.

I dedicate this article to those visionary scholars who laid the groundwork for including personal relationships as essential subject matter for the behavioral sciences. I wish to thank several individuals who commented on one or more drafts of this manuscript: the members of the Rochester Relationships Lab (Peter Caprariello, Cheryl Carmichael, Mike Maniaci, Shannon Smith, and Fen-Fang Tsai), Rebecca Adams, Art Aron, John Holmes, Mario Mikulincer, and Sue Sprecher. Their comments have been invaluable in helping me clarify my positions, though they should be held blameless for the ambiguities and contradictions that remain. I am especially grateful to Ellen Berscheid for the inspiration of her steadfast insistence, despite considerable obstacles, that relationships were simply too important for understanding human behavior to be ignored, for providing the metaphor and ideas that led to this paper, and for her personal encouragement of my life’s work. Correspondence should be addressed to Harry T. Reis, University of Rochester, Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, Rochester, NY 14627, e-mail: [email protected].

1 2 H. T. Reis

Science is built up of facts, as a house is in his Presidential Address to the American built of stones; but an accumulation of facts Psychological Association: is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. Poincare´ (1958, p. 141) Our assigned mission as psychologists is to analyze all facets of human and animal These are heady days for relationship scien- behavior into their component variables. tists. In the pantheon of sciences, relationship So far as love or affection is concerned, scholars no longer need to feel like visitors. psychologists have failed in this mission. Whereas once the study of relationships was The little we know about love does not tran- limited to a small segment of fields like soci- scend simple observation, and the little we ology and psychology, relationships now write about it has been written better by occupy the interest of many researchers in poets and novelists. But of greater concern a diverse array of specialties. Human commu- is the fact that psychologists tend to give nication is a specialty area with its own pro- progressively less attention to a motive grams and journals. The work of psychologists which pervades our entire lives. Psycholo- who study relationships is increasingly central gists . not only show no interest in the to clinical, developmental, personality, and origin and development of love or affec- social psychology. Economists and political tion, but they seem to be unaware of its very scientists take seriously the idea that relation- existence. (Harlow, 1958, p. 573) ships, and in particular their impact on such major life events as marriage, parenting, and The same could have been said about most divorce, have something important to contrib- other relationship phenomena. To be sure, re- ute to our understanding of microeconomics lationships had already appeared on the radar and political systems. Family studies programs screen in a few disciplines, such as sociology are a staple in many universities. Medicine is and anthropology, but this work was at a rudi- progressively more aware of the need to con- mentary stage. sider interpersonal circumstances, both for Less than 50 years later, and notwithstand- understanding the causes and sequelae of dis- ing the many gaps and omissions that remain, ease and for designing interventions and treat- the interests and awareness of our various home ment plans, in which families play an ever disciplines have changed. This article appears more central role. Major subsections of the in volume 14 of Personal Relationships. The law concern relationships, especially family Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, relationships. Human evolutionary biology the sister journal of Personal Relationships,is gives increasing importance to the study of in its 24th year. Moreover, and perhaps more how, and to what consequence, people interact tellingly, relationship science is no longer with relationship partners. Even behavioral ghettoized to the pages of specialty journals. neuroscience, with its emphasis on localizing It can be found in dozens of scholarly journals and describing the brain structures responsible spanning diverse disciplines, and the research for human behavior, has found interest in such reported therein is steadily working its way core relationship phenomena as love, empathy, into classrooms, practice, and the culture at attachment, facial recognition, acceptance and large. To be sure, this surge of scholarly activ- rejection, prejudice, and emotions. ity is spread out and often disparate. Relation- It has not always been this way, of course. ship science often seems to be composed of ‘‘a Not long ago, relationships were considered loose collection of researchers and practi- an improper topic for science, perhaps partly tioners interested in various particular types because the subject matter did not seem to lend of relationships,’’ but there is also something itself to unraveling by the scientific method more: ‘‘at a more basic level . [we are] but probably more so because relationship involved in the highly cooperative activity of phenomena did not seem all that important. identifying the phenomena and laws that cut For example, in 1958, Harry Harlow, by then across these various kinds of relationships’’ an eminent developmental psychologist, said (both quotes, Kelley, 1986, p. 7). The ripening of relationship science 3

The level of activity led Ellen Berscheid, in may be expected to arise from unconstrained, an address delivered in 1998, to announce open-minded pursuit of ever new and better ‘‘The Greening of Relationship Science.’’ By ideas. Nevertheless, and perhaps especially this she meant that a multidisciplinary science because relationship science is still more mul- of interpersonal relationships had begun to tidisciplinary than it is interdisciplinary, emerge, a science with the much less a distinct discipline in its own right, there is value to be gained from self- . potential to unite . social, behavioral conscious reflection on the direction of the and biological scientists, . to narrow the field. In other words, we might facilitate the gap between psychological researchers and field’s evolution by considering explicitly practitioners, and to extend our knowledge what sort of theorizing and research is most of human behavior to people’s daily lives likely to contribute to real progress in rela- and natural surroundings, [relationship sci- tionship science. ence] also has the potential to inform many issues of national concern. (Berscheid, Steps Toward the Ripening of 1999, p. 265) Relationship Science Berscheid’s proclamation was intended to Here I briefly highlight three general con- signal something more than a loose association siderations that I believe will be important in among scholars who read each other’s work helping relationship science become a mature and attended occasional multidisciplinary and influential discipline. Although other fac- meetings. Rather, it represented what she saw tors may also matter, these three seem partic- as the development of a new way of thinking ularly noteworthy in my personal observations about interpersonal relationships and their sig- about current directions in the field. nificance in human lives. This new discipline, she anticipated, would be a ‘‘cohesive force’’ Becoming more action oriented but in in fostering integrated cross-disciplinary theo- a theory-building way rizing and research, as well as in formulating theoretical approaches and methods better In an important article, Bradbury (2002) argued geared toward interpersonal, as opposed to that a problem-centered approach to relation- intrapersonal, analyses. Berscheid’s metaphor- ships research would increase the discipline’s ical use of the noun greening made plain her integrity and viability. Bradbury’s position was belief that this new synthesis was just begin- that because relationships are a vast and com- ning to materialize—that it represented plex topic, and given the early stage of our a promissory note—much as the first green theorizing, unfettered research activity runs buds of spring augur, with careful cultivation, the risk of yielding a ‘‘disjointed, superficial a blossoming into summer. body of information’’ (2002, p. 594). Thus, One of my goals in writing this article is to he argued that an applied, action-oriented ap- discuss a few key issues relevant to progress proach would force the field to focus on sev- from ‘‘greening’’ to ‘‘ripening,’’ moving our eral factors likely to ‘‘strengthen and elevate discipline from early spring to midsummer. the science of personal relationships’’ (2002, Although we can and should take justifiable p. 594). These factors include more representa- pride in having reached this point—it is hard to tive samples, better description, emphasis on imagine a scholar in any of the human sciences causality, replication, and clearer criteria for who is unaware of relationship science—we evaluating the effectiveness of research. ought not to lose sight of the difficult chal- I have no disagreement with Bradbury lenge ahead. To some readers, describing about the need for, or value of, action-oriented the path forward may seem unnecessary and research. Although contemporary marital inter- perhaps presumptive. After all, science is ventions tend to be effective, their benefits are a self-correcting enterprise, in the sense that limited in time and generality (Christensen & whatever is needed to advance knowledge Heavey, 1999; Christensen, Doss, & Atkins, 4 H. T. Reis

2005), likely one factor (among many) contrib- principles that guide relationships, it also seems uting to the National Institute of Mental Health’s unlikely to yield interventions generalizable to decision to remove marital improvement from the highly varied circumstances of real-world its funding priorities. Relationship scientists relationship distress. have the responsibility to develop, evaluate, Karney and Bradbury (2005) provide an and disseminate theories and protocols that will excellent example of why the Pasteur approach improve the clinical work of practitioners every- may be better suited to relationship science where (Holmes & Boon, 1990; Reis, 2002). I than the Edison approach. Most contemporary also do not disagree with Bradbury about the marital and premarital interventions are based likely salutary effects of emphasizing the several on approaches developed for use with relatively factors listed above. (In passing, however, it affluent populations, commonly, communica- might be noted that the overwhelming majority tion skills and conflict resolution training. Their of action-oriented studies concern romantic, usu- analysis suggests, however, that these methods ally married, couples. A true relationship science may be largely irrelevant in low-income pop- approach to change would give equivalent atten- ulations, in which demands external to marital tion to processes of change in other important interaction, such as poverty, unemployment, dyad types, such as siblings, friends, coworkers, drugs, and infidelity, are more pressing and and leaders and their subordinates. With the family and neighborhood support is low exception of parent-child relationships, inter- (Cutrona, Wallace & Wesner 2006). Thus, a ventions systematically targeting other types rather different approach to intervention would of relationships are for the most part nonexis- be indicated. tent.) Nevertheless, in so doing, it is imperative Another example of the Pasteur-Edison that we not lose sight of the basic science of distinction is suggested by the work of relationships. Helgeson and colleagues on support-group In an influential book about science and interventions for cancer patients, which shows technological innovation, Stokes (1997) dis- that support groups are sometimes helpful, tinguished between applied research that was sometimes ineffectual, and sometimes harmful part of the quest for fundamental understand- (see Helgeson & Cohen, 1996, and Helgeson, ing, which he termed ‘‘use-inspired basic sci- Cohen, Schulz, & Yasko, 2001, for reviews). ence,’’ and applied research that had little aim Group-based supportive interventions for var- other than the creation of a product that did ious afflictions have been plentiful in the past something. Use-inspired basic science advan- two decades—Helgeson and Gottlieb (2000) ces knowledge at the same time as it creates call them ‘‘ubiquitous’’—spawned by a vast opportunities for testing that knowledge literature showing that perceived social sup- through application. Application and theory port is associated with emotional and physical provide reciprocal feedback, so that each is well-being. Most of these groups have been well situated within the other. For example, guided by intuitive principles about how to Pasteur’s search for a treatment for anthrax create feelings of support among persons and cholera was motivated by his desire to previously unknown to each other who share better understand the process of disease and little more than an illness or an unfortunate life led to far-reaching implications for under- circumstance. Some of these interventions standing basic microbiology. On the other were effective, others not so, but very few hand, Edison sought only to invent a lightbulb were designed to test theories or competing that worked; he had little interest in illuminat- hypotheses about what makes such groups ing the principles by which electrical energy effective with what type of individuals under became light energy. Both kinds of research what sort of circumstances (the key distinction are valuable, of course, but applied research between the Pasteurian and Edisonian that seeks outcome without concerted atten- approaches). Helgeson and Gottlieb discuss tion to questions about underlying mechanism, several problems that may contribute to the context, and moderators is not only unlikely failure of support-group interventions; for to advance understanding of the fundamental example, they may interfere with existing The ripening of relationship science 5 social relations, they may foster negative few long-term longitudinal studies of other social comparisons, they may be too short types of relationships. Moreover, among these, lived, or the group members may be unable to what might be called very long-term longitu- cope with the distress that is expressed. A dinal studies that include relationships (e.g., theory-focused program of interventions, that the Terman ‘‘gifted-children’’ sample, which is, interventions designed to pinpoint mecha- spanned a lifetime, Sears, 1977; the Minnesota nisms responsible for effects and to uncover Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children important moderators, is more likely to have [Sroufe, 2005], which began in infancy and is informative outcomes for theory and to provide currently moving into middle adulthood; and superior resources for the development of new the National Survey of Midlife Development and more effective applications. in the United States [Brim, Ryff, & Kessler, Let us become more action oriented, then, 2004]) tend to be rare and tend to ask fairly but let us be sure to do so in a Pasteurian man- general questions about relational circumstan- ner, informed by, and contributing to, the ces. Few would doubt that very long-term lon- advancement of basic theory and empirical gitudinal studies can help answer important knowledge about relationships. I offer sug- questions about relationships: To what extent gestions about how to enact a more theory- is the long-term success of relationships pred- oriented approach to applied research in icated on early experience? How does experi- my comments on Bradbury’s (2002) call for ence in one adult relationship affect later adult action-oriented research (Reis, 2002). relationships? To what extent does relation- ship experience contribute to the individual’s long-term health and well-being? Yet, we as Becoming more cumulative and collective a discipline have not taken steps to develop the The main criterion for receiving tenure in the necessary infrastructure for such efforts. departments in which relationship scientists Other ways in which relationship science typically live is well known: develop a new might embrace more cumulative and collec- theory, construct, or phenomenon; show how tive tactics include participation in the ever it helps predict and understand behavior; and growing (and for some funding sources, man- then pursue that line of research relentlessly. dated) register of data-sharing archives (in Although this model has stood the field in rea- which existing data sets become part of a data sonably good stead for developing individual bank freely available to all scholars; Johnson & scientists, it has inhibited our ability to partic- Sabourin, 2001), lessening the priority on ipate in the kind of cumulative team efforts first authorship in tenure and promotion deci- that science administrators uniformly assert sions, de-emphasizing the proclivity of re- will be the modus operandi of 21st century sci- searchers to posit their own mini theories ence. Cumulative and collective science takes with unique labels (which impedes accumula- many forms, but common to all of them is tion and integration, as discussed more fully in a departure from the ‘‘me and my own research the next section; cf, Kruglanski, 2001), and program’’ approach in favor of larger, longer, according greater recognition to replication.1 and more collaboratively integrated activity. Most of us agree about the value of these One element of cumulative science of endeavors, of course, although real progress particular interest to relationship scholars is is at best a glimmer on the horizon. longitudinal research. Relationships are intrin- Furthermore, relationship science has been sically longitudinal: they have beginnings, slow to join the trend toward ‘‘big science,’’ middles, ends, and aftermaths; they may differ, large-scale interdisciplinary projects with big often substantially so, depending on their cur- budgets, large staffs, and dedicated infra- rent stage; and what happens at one time is structure, including specialized technology almost always influenced by what has hap- pened earlier. Although the number of longi- tudinal studies of marriage is impressive (see 1. Gary King’s Web site is an excellent resource in this Bradbury, 1998, for an overview), there are regard: http://gking.harvard.edu/replication.shtml 6 H. T. Reis

(Galison & Hevly, 1992). Such projects are behavior. One need only compare a 10-year- increasingly the norm in many disciplines, for old textbook on emotion with one from the example, the Human Genome Project, NSF’s present era to see how profound this reorienta- Long-Term Ecological Research Centers, the tion can be. Unquestionably, these methods Next-Generation Cybertools Project at Chi- have much to offer relationship science, just cago and Cornell, the National Longitudinal as relationship science has much to offer to Study of Adolescent Health, or Michigan’s scholars looking to better understand the sub- long-standing Inter-University Consortium stantive problems under scrutiny. Perhaps for Political and Social Research. To some because the technical complexity of many of extent, the move toward ‘‘big science’’ is these methods requires special training, sub- encouraged by the increasing methodological stantial time commitments, and large budgets and technical complexity of research tools, for staff and equipment, their integration into which require greater expertise and time com- relationship science has been slow. (Ironically, mitments than solitary scholars can provide, at present, there is more relationship research in and therefore impel collaboration. Certainly, neuroscientific journals than there is neurosci- relationship science has already benefited entific research in relationship journals.) Disci- from collaboration with scholars expert in plines that have already incorporated these these methodological and statistical advances, methods reveal a more interdisciplinary, team- and certainly much more is possible (Reis, oriented approach to research. By adopting Collins, & Berscheid, 2000). a more collective orientation, the knowledge Relationship science is in many ways ideally base of relationship science could be expanded suited for a big-science approach. Consider to build stronger intellectual bridges with the what might be learned about marital success biological bases of interpersonal relating. and deterioration by targeting a very large, Bertenthal (2002) noted that although diverse, and genuinely representative national behavioral and social scientists typically sample of premarital couples; studying them endorse this research strategy at an abstract and their social networks in depth with obser- level, most are reluctant to commit wholeheart- vational, biological, interview, and self-report edly to such projects and to develop training measures; and following them at regular inter- models for preparing graduate students for vals to the end of life. Of course, many of these a career in big science. (UCLA’s NSF-funded couples would not stay together, so that we Interdisciplinary Relationship Science Training would also be studying development across dif- Program, led by Anne Peplau, Shelly Gable, ferent types of relationships. Instead of control- Sandra Graham, and Alan Fiske, illustrates ling away background variables such as age, what such training might look like.) Taylor ethnicity, and religion, these factors might be (2004) describes these changes, pointing out examined directly as moderator variables. Or that although they may be challenging, the consider what might be learned from a cross- search for new scientific syntheses adds excite- national project spanning dozens of countries ment to our enterprise. If Berscheid (1999) was and cultures simultaneously investigating the able to envision the greening of relationship nature and impact of different models of court- science in the appearance of relationship phe- ship, friendship, siblinghood, and parenting nomena across all the human sciences, then the (e.g., Schmitt’s, 2005, study of mating prefer- ripening of relationship science will be percep- ences in 48 nations). tible in the cross-participation of relationship Another benefit of a more collective scientists and scholars from those other disci- approach would allow relationship scientists plines in collaborative training and research. to take greater advantage of the rapid concep- tual advances and new technologies in human The importance of, and need for, central biology. From genomics to brain-imaging to organizing principles disease-monitoring tools, the development of new technologies has revolutionized paradigms To my mind, the progress of relationship sci- for conceptualizing and investigating human ence has been impeded by the absence of clear The ripening of relationship science 7 consensus about the core phenomena of the synthesized understandings of the unitary field: What are the fundamental problems that whole. we intend to solve? What do we know about the Relationship science has no shortage of dis- natural history and social ecology of these core tinct and imaginative ideas, or of theoretical problems? Which relationship problems have variety, conceptual nuance, moderator varia- what known consequences? What common bles, and specialized methods, assessment knowledge do we possess about these phenom- tools, and empirical protocols. This state of ena? Which major theories would most scholars affairs is fortunate. Relationships are complex agree represent dominant approaches to the phenomena, and our theoretical models ought core phenomena of relationship science? We to be increasingly complex and specialized often have difficulty weaving together theories (Hinde, 1997). Nevertheless, single-minded and findings from different research programs attention to conceptual and operational dis- into a cohesive account (an ironic difficulty, tinctions may obscure the central organizing considering Berscheid’s remarks, quoted principles that underlie the many and often above). Consider this typical scenario when seemingly dissimilar manifestations of rela- competing theories address a given phenome- tionship processes in real-world interactions non, obtaining variable results. Sooner or later, and relationships. If we do not attend to these a conclusion something like the following is central principles, our findings run the risk of offered: ‘‘Although these studies appear to becoming scattered and arcane, a tendency address the same phenomenon, in reality they Bowlby described as ‘‘knowing more and address different aspects of related phenomena. more about less and less’’ (1988, p. 41). Thus the results are not directly comparable and There are more established sciencesonwhose future research is needed to determine how they experience we might reflect. For example, ever fit together.’’ since James Clark Maxwell, in the mid-19th cen- This example is reminiscent of the Bud- tury, amalgamated electric and magnetic forces dhist parable of the Blind Men and the Ele- into a single set of equations, physicists have phant. In that parable, each blind man touches sought a ‘‘grand theory of everything,’’ a unified a different part of the elephant and thereby theory linking quantum mechanics, particle deduces something different about the nature physics, and cosmology to explain the workings of the beast. One feels the tusk, inferring that of everything in the universe. As Oerter (2006) elephants are hard and sharp-ended, like wrote, in his fascinating description of the Stan- a blade. Another touches the soft, flexible dard Model, ‘‘The Standard Model describes the ear, concluding that elephants are supple, ‘circuitry’ of the universe. We can’t understand resembling felt. A third imagines massive everything in the universe using the Standard strength from grasping the pillar-like struc- Model . but we can’t really understand any- ture of the leg. The perspective of each per- thing at the most fundamental level without the son touching the elephant is valid, as far as it Standard Model’’ (2006, p. 8). goes, but collectively they will comprehend The existence of the Standard Model does what an elephant is only when the various not imply that physicists do not have unan- elements have been integrated. Integrated, swered questions and continuing contro- not listed. In relationship research, we often versies about the elements of the theory; celebrate the diversity of our perspectives, as research and knowledge in physics are surely is appropriate and desirable, but we fail to evermore specialized. Rather, as Oerter ana- take the crucial next step of synthesizing logizes, whereas these endeavors are designed these multiple and diverse elements into a to flesh out the features and ornaments of portrait of the fully functional beast. In my a Christmas tree, the theory is the tree itself. judgment, a ripened interdisciplinary relation- By knowing what the tree is and what it does, ship science would devote less attention to scholars comprehend where the individual how its core phenomena appear different elements fit. Within the biological sciences, from different perspectives and more atten- evolutionary theory provides a similar exam- tion to the collective vision that emerges from ple. Although the details and mechanisms 8 H. T. Reis of evolutionary theory are evolving (as the not be surprising or even troubling. Neverthe- recent emergence of evolutionary develop- less, blossoming to a more ripened stage will mental biology compellingly demonstrates), necessitate that we at least begin looking, if not the basics of evolutionary theory provide for such a theory itself, for some of its precur- a set of central organizing principles around sors. And that will require attending to what I which the field’s cutting-edge research and am calling central organizing principles.3 Cen- theorizing are understood. tral organizing principles are not equivalent Or consider a field somewhat closer to to a ‘‘grand theory,’’ but rather may be de- our own, gerontology. Beginning in the late fined as highlighting key elements for such 1950s, Matilda White Riley advocated and a theory. An emphasis on central organizing worked tirelessly toward a conceptual model principles would have at least four general of aging that integrated perspectives from characteristics: sociology (the discipline in which she trained), psychology, biology, epidemiology, economics, 1. Commonalities among differentiated and anthropology. As Dannefer, Uhlenberg, constructs would be highlighted, Foner, and Abeles (2005) describe thereby identifying connections among constructs while at the same time Under Riley’s leadership, a multidisciplin- pointing out gaps. When an idea ary vision for research on aging that inte- appears and reappears in different grated the aging of individuals into social theories and research programs, that structures was developed and implemented. indicates that something fundamental The resulting research program emphasized is being called forth. the influence of social structures on the 2. Researchers would put less weight on lives of individuals and the lives of indi- establishing the uniqueness of a contri- viduals on social structures. This vision bution and more weight on clearly extended to the biological sciences, for defining constructs and findings, and Riley recognized the need for a biopsycho- showing how they fit parsimoniously social understanding. (pp. S302–S303) and coherently with existing con- structs and findings. Explicitly estab- Riley’s vision was not just to house these lishing incremental validity of new perspectives under a single roof but rather to work would have increasing impor- integrate them into a set of enduring principles tance. With such an approach, re- for understanding the effects of aging. More- searchers would be aware even over, as suggested earlier, Riley strongly before beginning a study how their believed that focus on what I am calling cen- work speaks to broader theoretical tral organizing principles required collective, models. If nothing else, this would cumulative research, and that it would foster facilitate generalization from one ‘‘scientifically grounded support for efforts in research program to another. policy, practice, and popular culture’’ (Dannefer 3. Applications would be grounded in et al., 2005, p. S296). Although gerontology a clear set of expectations about what has not achieved the level of theoretical inte- is likely to be effective with whom and gration that theoretical physics or evolutionary in what context. Unintended side biology has, it offers a model of what progress effects would be less likely. It has been might look like. suggested by some that the lack of Relationship science at this point has few a coherent, generally accepted concep- obvious candidates for a ‘‘grand theory of rela- tual model of relationships underlying tionships.’’2 Given our relative youth, this may

3. I use this somewhat cumbersome term rather than 2. My personal opinion is that interdependence theory a more formal theoretical or epistemological analysis (Kelley et al. 2003) may offer one such possibility, in the hope of being broader, less presumptive, and but my purpose here is not to initiate an opinion poll. more phenomenon centered. The ripening of relationship science 9

real-world applications is one reason the many empirical pieces interconnect. A rip- why relationship research tends to ened relationship science will look more like fare poorly at funding agencies and a spider web of theories and findings and less under public scrutiny. like a laundry list of topics, studies, and 4. This focus would inevitably induce the findings. field to pursue a rich descriptive data- base about relationships. The perils of Perceived Partner Responsiveness as ‘‘theorizing before the facts are in,’’ as a Central Organizing Principle for Sherlock Holmes put it, are evident, Relationship Science leading to wasted effort. Darwin spent years observing and cataloging zebra In this section, I provide an extended example mussels and finches before promulgat- of the prior section’s third point. I do not com- ing evolutionary theory (Bowlby, ment directly on the relevance of this material 1990). Although descriptive taxono- to the first two points, although attention to mies are common in the physical and central organizing principles has important biological sciences, no such catalog implications for action-oriented research and exists for the study of human re- for developing a collective and cumulative lationships, despite its probable utility approach to research. One sign of what I have (Hinde, 1997). Although taxonomies called central organizing principles is the without theory tend to be intellectu- recurrent appearance of similar concepts and ally unsatisfying, they are an impor- themes across different research areas and tant precursor to the development of programs. The more often scholars investigat- valid theories. ing different phenomena converge on related themes, the more likely it is that common pro- My conception of central organizing prin- cesses may underlie the varied manifestations. ciples draws upon Cronbach and Meehl’s To illustrate this idea, I will focus on one (1955) idea of a ‘‘nomological network.’’ A promising candidate for a central organizing nomological network refers to a theoretical principle, perceived partner responsiveness. framework for the interrelationship of con- (There are, of course, other possibilities, e.g., structs to be measured in a given study, artic- the degree and nature of interdependence and ulating both their shared effects (i.e., which influence inherent in the concept of closeness variables measure the same thing) and dif- [cf. Kelley et al., 1983] and the hospitability- ferential effects (i.e., which constructs assess hostility dimension of sentiment. I hope it is something new). To Cronbach and Meehl, con- evident that winning or losing the case for one struct validity required both the smallest or another particular principle matters less number of nomologicals—theoretical principles than the process of seeking suitable constructs linking observed variables to one another— and beginning to organize our theoretical, and showing how variables account for empirical, and descriptive data bases around something that prior observations had not them.) established (what is sometimes called incre- Perceived partner responsiveness refers to mental validity; Sechrest, 1963). the belief that relationship partners are cogni- In concluding this section, let me be clear. I zant of, sensitive to, and behaviorally support- do not suggest that relationship science needs ive of the self (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). a singular theory, nor that the field should Figure 1 displays several contemporary rela- abandon specialization and ever more detailed tionship phenomena that to some extent conceptual and empirical nuance, a trend that involve perceived partner responsiveness. By is doubtlessly essential in all science. Never- no means is the list exhaustive. It spans dis- theless, to ripen relationship science, the field ciplines and levels of analysis. It includes will need a clearer vision of its core ideas, the personality dispositions (e.g., attachment secu- principles that make them cohere, and an orga- rity, rejection sensitivity), partner-specific attri- nizational framework for understanding how butions (e.g., trust), attributes of communication 10 H. T. Reis

rapport communal sharing social support

partner affirmation forgiveness perceived regard felt security sense of belonging self-verification positive illusions empathic understanding

trust autonomy support attachment security intimacy responsive communication patient-centered communication friendship-based marriage emotional acceptance

explicit recognition and shared meaning systems elaboration of perspective

Figure 1. Specific constructs related to the central organizing principle of perceived partner responsiveness. and interaction process (e.g., explicit recogni- 2003; Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, tion and elaboration of perspective, empathic 1998; Laurenceau, Barrett, & Rovine, 2005; understanding, rapport, communal sharing), see Reis, 2006, for a review), that although self-regulatory processes (e.g., self-verifica- self-disclosure often triggers intimate interac- tion, partner affirmation), and meta-cognitions tion, in itself self-disclosure is insufficient to (e.g., felt security, sense of belonging). It fea- instill a sense of intimacy between two people. tures some phenomena that are the subject of At least two important considerations guided an extensive, multifaceted literature (e.g., inti- this reasoning. First, research has shown that macy) and others that are relatively limited self-disclosure may backfire, such as when it (e.g., shared meaning systems). Although is situationally inappropriate, unwanted by the space does not allow description of each term, target, or used exploitatively (Derlega, Metts, my premise implies that this may not be Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). Second, we needed: To varying degrees, all represent pop- believed then, as has become more common- ular concepts in the literature with which most place now, that interpersonal processes such as readers of this journal will be at least somewhat intimacy should be conceptualized as dyadic familiar. In this way, perceived partner respon- and interdependent, as Kelley et al. (1983) siveness illustrates how a central organizing explain, the manner in which person A influen- principle appears and reappears throughout ces person B, who then influences person A, and the literature. To be sure, I do not suggest that so on. This pattern of mutual influence, and not these processes are identical or even substan- just the act of self-disclosure, seemed intrinsi- tially similar. Although they differ among cally germane to generating the relevant inter- themselves, often in conceptually important personal sentiments, which led us to theorize respects, they are not as disparate and unre- that the partner’s response was critical to the lated as it must sometimes seem to readers of process: A listener’s supportive response would our journals and textbooks. The need to under- facilitate the development of intimacy, whereas stand the nature of their linkage, both concep- a disinterested or disparaging response would tually and in the ebb and flow of interaction, is hinder it. Shaver and I described this pattern of the point I wish to highlight. interaction as producing three qualities: a sense My interest in perceived partner responsive- of felt understanding (believing that partners ness grew out of the intimacy model (Reis & are aware of core features of the self), valida- Shaver, 1988) that Phil Shaver and I developed tion (feeling that partners see value and mean- in part as an antidote to models that equated ing in the self’s attributes and aspirations), and intimacy with self-disclosure. We thought, as caring (recognizing that partners support one’s subsequent research has shown (e.g., Burleson, important needs). The ripening of relationship science 11

As this work evolved, for several reasons, it 1998). Acknowledging the significance of became clear that a broader construct was actual support transactions, however, percep- needed, two of which apply here. The first, tions may be more proximal to relationship emphasizing the importance of the perceiver’s outcomes, in the sense that actual support cre- own interpretations, arose from the fundamen- ates the perception of support. Identifying tal ambiguity of knowing what interaction a partner’s genuine indications of positivity partners are thinking, particularly about our- and support can be difficult, of course, given selves. People do not have direct access to the ‘‘noise’’ inherent in everyday social inter- their partners’ thoughts and feelings, of course, action (Bernieri, Gillis, Davis, & Grahe, making this task inferential and subjective. 1996). Nevertheless, most people are ‘‘tolera- Most researchers agree that people are influ- bly’’ accurate at knowing how others feel enced by their partners’ behavior toward them, about them (Kenny, 1994), and there is evi- but there is less consensus about whether the dence that these perceptions play a mediating critical variable is the partner’s actual, objec- role in benefiting from partner positivity. For tive behavior or the perceiver’s idiosyncratic example, Reis and Carmichael (2002, 2005) perception of that behavior, what is sometimes examined the impact of spouses’ regard for called social construction or motivated con- each other on marital well-being. Replicating strual. This distinction has been investigated results reported first by Murray, Holmes, and extensively in studies of social support, which Griffin. (1996a, 1996b), we found that hus- I use illustratively. A significant number of bands’ positivity predicted wives’ well-being, studies demonstrate that perceived support and wives’ positivity predicted husbands’ availability predicts well-being, adjustment, well-being. As Figure 2 shows, these effects and the sense of felt security better than do were mediated by each spouse’s perception objective indicators of actual transactions or of how positively the other regarded oneself. partner intentions (e.g., Cohen, 1992; Collins In other words, one spouse’s actual positive & Feeney, 2000; Gable, Reis, & Downey, regard contributed to the other’s relationship 2003; Sarason, Sarason, & Gurung, 2001). In happiness only to the extent that the other other words, feeling supported is more impor- spouse felt positively regarded. These argu- tant than being supported. Part of the reason ments led us to emphasize perceived partner for this stems from the role of perceptual bias. responsiveness. Compelling evidence demonstrates that rela- A second factor signifying the need for tionship insecurity may lead people to defen- a broader definition of responsiveness con- sively overlook or dismiss their partners’ cerns just to what the partner is being respon- expression of warmth and acceptance (e.g., sive. Not all aspects of the self matter to the Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006; Murray, same extent. Knowing that a partner admires Holmes, & Griffin, 2000). one’s passion for sushi is probably less conse- This reasoning does not deny a correspond- quential than knowing that a partner esteems ingly meaningful role for interaction reality one’s commitment to raising children with (Reis et al., 2004). Many studies show that a strong social conscience. Perceived partner objectively verified reports of actual support responsiveness pertains to the central defining and acceptance also influence perceptions of features of the self—in other words, the needs, social support. For example, perceptions of goals, values, traits, abilities, attributes, and support and nonsupport can be traced to docu- affects that best describe who one is and what mented reality in interpersonal exchanges is important to the self. Just how this core self (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2000; Cutrona, ought to be characterized is a matter of con- Hessling, & Suhr, 1997; Simpson, Rholes, siderable research and theory (see Sedikides & Nelligan, 1992). Observational studies and Strube, in press, for an overview). For of marital interaction have made a similar present purposes, it matters less just what the point, to the extent that objective exchanges self is and more that partners be perceived to are often substantially consistent with self- be aware of and supportively responsive to that reported affects and attitudes (Gottman, core self. 12 H. T. Reis

Husband: “My partner sees r = .65** b = .47** me as …”

Wife: “My Husband partner is …” b = .08 Daily RWB (r = .39**)

Wife: “My partner sees r = .65** b = .37** me as …”

Husband: “My Wife partner is …” b = .26 Daily RWB (r = .50**)

Figure 2. Mediational model of the role of perceived regard, showing that the benefits of a partner’s positive illusions are mediated by perceived regard.

My aim in this section is not to propose tiple and diverse phenomena in relationship a formal theory of perceived partner respon- science by selectively describing research on siveness. Rather, consistent with the aim of three popular and general themes. Other topi- discussing steps that will contribute to the rip- cal areas might have been selected, and within ening of relationship science, I wish to show each theme, other studies might have been dis- how this general concept may characterize or cussed. I discuss these particular themes, and underlie many important constructs in rela- some of my own research relevant to them, tionship science (as depicted in Figure 1). It because they demonstrate the broad relevance will be useful to begin this section by briefly of perceived partner responsiveness across re- summarizing the above, as a general descrip- lationship science. These three themes are per- tion of what perceived partner responsiveness sonal well-being correlates, perceived partner entails: responsiveness to needs, and self-regulation in relationships. 1. the belief that relationship partners understand and appreciate what is Personal well-being correlates of perceived important to the self partner responsiveness 2. the experience during social inter- action that relationship partners are Investigations of the correlation between aware of, and responsive to, core at- personal well-being and relationship success tributes of the self represent something of a cottage industry. 3. a sense of feeling cared for, that is, if Many and strong associations have been docu- and when needs arise, partners will mented, spanning outcomes as diverse as take active and supportive steps to mortality, morbidity, happiness, emotional dis- help the self address those needs tress, psychological development, and eco- 4. feelings of warmth and connection nomic success. Similar diversity is evident in with partners, even when they are the range of relationship measures studied. not present. Presently, my focus is on those constructs that relate most closely to perceived partner In the remainder of this article, I illustrate responsiveness. how perceived partner responsiveness may Consider the traits and trait-like attributes serve as a central organizing principle for mul- included in Figure 1. Attachment security, or The ripening of relationship science 13 in other words a set of mental representations esteem, and emotional well-being. Birnbaum indicating that the self is worthy of love and and Reis (2006) used a version of this measure support and that significant others can be to investigate sexual working models in two trusted to provide such support if needed, is large samples of adult women in the United correlated with many indicators of emotional States and Israel. Perceived partner respon- well-being, for example, better coping in siveness was associated with more positive stressful circumstances, less frequent and affects, and more relationship boosting and intense levels of depression, loneliness, anxi- less shameful beliefs about sex. ety, better anger regulation, higher levels of It is sometimes suggested that the benefits life satisfaction, more positive moods both in of constructs such as perceived partner respon- general and during social interaction, and siveness are limited to close, affect-based fewer sleep problems (e.g., Carmichael & relationships. Existing evidence, however, Reis, 2005; Dozier, Stovall, & Albus, 1999; suggests that these benefits also apply in other Shaver, Collins, & Clark, 1996). Holmes and types of relationships. For example, a growing Cameron’s (2005) sophisticated conceptual literature indicates that patient-centered health analysis interprets such attachment effects in care is associated with higher quality treat- terms of anticipated responsiveness. They also ments, improved patient outcomes, and lower propose that anticipated responsiveness is health care costs (e.g., Epstein, Alper, & Quill, closely related to perceived regard (the belief 2004; Kaplan, Greenfield, & Ware, 1989; that partners think highly of oneself). Per- Williams et al., 2004). Patient centeredness ceived partner regard, when generalized, is refers to several features of the doctor-patient conceptualized by Leary and Baumeister relationship, including feeling treated as a per- (2000) as the primary determinant of self- son more than as a patient, patients’ experienc- esteem. Founded on an innate ‘‘need to ing shared responsibility for decisions and belong,’’ in their sociometer theory, self- treatments, and an empathic, caring relation- esteem represents an ongoing assessment of ship with the provider (Mead & Bower, 2004). success and failure in making oneself be- We used a version of the perceived partner longing worthy. (For example, academic responsiveness questionnaire in a survey of competence raises self-esteem because aca- 819 individuals in the United States, Canada, demically competent people are more valued and the United Kingdom (Reis et al., 2004). as group members and relationship partners.) These three countries have diverse health care Extensive evidence documents the correlation delivery systems, particularly in regard to the between self-esteem and diverse indicators of relationship between patients and primary care personal well-being (Baumeister, 1998). physicians. Nevertheless, in each country, Our lab has been working on a questionnaire patients’ perceptions of their physicians’ measure of partner-specific perceived respon- responsiveness was associated with better sub- siveness. This measure is predicated on the jective health status, even after controlling for three components of understanding, valida- general satisfaction with medical care tion, and caring, as mentioned above. Sample received, years as a patient of that physician, items are ‘‘My partner is aware of what I am age, gender, and marital status. thinking and feeling,’’ ‘‘My partner values my A different way of examining the role of abilities and opinions,’’ and ‘‘My partner perceived partner responsiveness in personal expresses liking and encouragement for me.’’ well-being is suggested by life span develop- The measure focuses on positive responsive- ment theories. Nearly all such theories posit ness in contrast to both negative responsive- basic needs whose fulfillment defines success- ness and nonresponsivness, both of which ful growth and adjustment, and relationship- convey nonunderstanding, invalidation, and related needs are almost without exception a lack of caring, albeit with very different lev- prominent in such models (e.g., Erikson, els of associated negative affect. In several 1950; Ryff, 1989). For example, Deci and studies, this measure has yielded significant Ryan (1991) posited relatedness, a sense of correlations with attachment security, self- closeness and connection with others, as one 14 H. T. Reis of three nutriments essential for human ships (Carmichael, Tsai, Smith, Caprariello, & growth, integrity, and well-being (the other Reis, in press). It might be asked, then, to what two are autonomy and competence). From aspects of the self do we expect our partners to the perspective of relationship science, it be responsive? Among many relevant dimen- might be asked what sort of social interactions sions, one that has received considerable atten- facilitate the experience of relatedness. Reis, tion is responsiveness to needs. People have Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, and Ryan (2000) con- needs, of course – some needs are probably ducted a diary study in which participants innate parts of human biological and psy- described their social activities every day for chological architecture (e.g., food, shelter, 2 weeks while also reporting their overall sat- belongingness), whereas others derive from isfaction of relatedness needs on each day. circumstances (e.g., assistance, comfort). One Although several types of socializing were of the defining features of close relationships associated with daily increases in relatedness is the expectation that partners will monitor (e.g., meaningful talk, doing pleasant or fun and respond appropriately to these needs. For things, hanging out with others, avoiding self- present purposes, it is instructive to consider consciousness), by far the most influential pre- how this principle is central to several lines of dictor was feeling understood and appreciated relationship research. by one’s partner during social interaction. Clark and her colleagues define communal (Interestingly, two types of interactions— relationships in terms of the expectation that activities or concrete tasks and quarrels, argu- partners will help each other address important ments, and conflicts—were unrelated to daily personal needs (Clark, Fitness, & Brissette, variations in relatedness. Although the latter are 2001; Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills & Clark, often conceptualized as destructive, they may 1982, 1994). In communal relationships, aware- foster responsiveness as well as impair it.) A ness of and concern about a partner’s difficul- noteworthy methodological point is that these ties provide the primary motive for feelings of findings come from within-person analyses. In responsibility and helpful behavior, whereas many studies, it is difficult to distinguish selec- the help or caring expressed to casual friends tion effects (what sort of person participates or strangers would reflect other motives. This in what sort of interaction) from interaction distinction implies that expectations about re- effects (what effects do particular types of inter- sponsiveness to needs, in both the giver and action have, independent of person differences). recipient roles, vary as a function of the com- Although both are important, the latter seem munal strength of relationships (Clark & particularly relevant to relationship science. Mills). For example, we expect both to give This sampling of research is admittedly and to get more help from spouses and best self-centered and selective. Nevertheless, it friends than from neighbors and acquaintances. illustrates my more general points: That there These expectations play an important role in may be a common principle underlying the evaluating our experiences. As with most well-documented association between subjec- social judgments, perceived responsiveness is tive relationship status and personal well- appraised by comparing outcomes with expec- being; that perceived partner responsiveness tations. Thus, and somewhat ironically, the may be a useful way of conceptualizing that same behavior enacted by a casual acquain- common principle; and that relationship sci- tance may be perceived as more responsive than ence may move forward by identifying these when enacted by a close friend. Similarly, the common principles as well as their more spe- failure to provide a comforting shoulder might cific manifestations. be perceived as unresponsive in a spouse but unremarkable in a neighbor (Reis et al., 2004). Expectations about responsiveness to needs Perceived partner responsiveness to needs derive from at least two sources: normative The self is a multifaceted and broad construct definitions of social roles (e.g., most people (Sedikides & Strube, in press) interwoven expect parents and spouses to be highly respon- diversely and complexly with close relation- sive to needs) and prior experience. Attachment The ripening of relationship science 15 theory posits that early experience with care- emotional needs (Mayseless, Bartholomew, givers forms the basis of expectations about Henderson, & Trinke, 2004). Both failing to the perceived availability and willingness of provide needed support and providing high close relationship partners to be responsive to levels of noncontingent care (i.e., when and personal needs (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). how the caregiver wishes to help, as opposed Secure individuals trust partners to be avail- to when and what the child needs) may con- able and caring when needed; on the other tribute to perceived partner unresponsiveness. hand, insecure persons have less confidence Perceived responsiveness to needs is cen- in their partners’ dependability and support. tral to social support. Although extensive evi- As mentioned earlier, this may undermine dence indicates that the perceived availability their ability to obtain helpful support in close of support is associated with relational, emo- relationships. For example, insecure individu- tional, and physical health (e.g., Cohen, 2004; als tend to perceive their partners’ caregiving Dunkel-Schetter & Bennett, 1990; Stroebe & efforts as less responsive and helpful than Stroebe, 1996), the effects of actual receipt of independent observers do, which may then support is more unreliable, with many studies lead them to feel less supported and more showing no effects or even negative effects conflicted about the relationship (Campbell, (e.g., Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000; Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005; Collins & Sarason et al., 2001). These negative effects Feeney, 2004; Simpson et al., 1992, Simpson, have been attributed to several factors, one of Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). which is relevant here: That the support trans- Attachment anxiety and avoidance also action may make salient to the recipient that he may interfere with people’s ability to provide or she has been unable to cope independently responsive caregiving to their partners (e.g., with a significant problem (Bolger et al., Collins & Feeney, 2000; Feeney & Collins, 2000). Yet, perhaps paradoxically, awareness 2001, 2003). To be sure, insecure persons of being helped may be necessary for per- (especially the anxious-ambivalent type) ceived partner responsiveness. After all, per- sometimes provide equivalent or even greater ceived partner responsiveness by definition levels of caregiving than secure persons do. includes recognition that a partner understands However, their helping activities reflect rela- and supportively reacts to one’s needs and tively more egoistic and self-enhancing goals. Partners are, therefore, less likely to be motives (e.g., to reduce their own personal seen as responsive if recipients are unaware of anxiety about another’s plight, to create their intent to alleviate the recipient’s distress. indebtedness, or to foster a public image of Of course, responsive intent may or may not be helpfulness and caring), whereas helping by sufficient to resolve the problem, but if this secure persons tends to reflect a more other- reasoning is correct, competently delivered focused, altruistic orientation (e.g., compas- support, when perceived, should have ben- sionate concern about lessening the other’s eficial relationship effects regardless of its distress) (e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2003; Gillath problem-solving effectiveness (see Burleson, et al., 2005; Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & 2003, for discussion of social support compe- Nitzberg, 2005). Over time, it seems likely that tence). For example, sharing one’s apprehen- egoistically oriented caregiving would be rec- sions with a partner about tomorrow’s job talk ognized by partners as less than responsive to may not make the talk any less worrisome, but their own actual needs. This prediction follows it can foster appreciation of the partner’s sup- directly from developmental research, which port of the self. characterizes responsive parenting as care that We have conducted several analyses of this sensitively and accurately assesses the needs question using what we call a quasi-signal- of the child, and that simultaneously provides detection paradigm. This paradigm simulta- a secure base while encouraging autonomy neously uses reports from both partners to striving (e.g., Dix, 1991; Stern, 2002). It also classify daily supportive activities as hits (sup- follows from research showing that excessive portive behaviors enacted and perceived), caregiving may denote the helper’s unmet misses (supportive behaviors enacted but 16 H. T. Reis not perceived), false alarms (behaviors not Tsai, & Brissette, 2004) first asked people to enacted but nonetheless perceived), and non- categorize 12 different relationship partners in events. In both studies (Gable et al. 2003; terms of expected mutual responsiveness to Reis & Carmichael, 2006), we collected daily needs. We then asked them to imagine their diary reports of supportive interactions for willingness to express a series of emotions to several weeks in adult married or cohabiting that person, both if the emotion had been samples. Findings in both studies revealed that caused by that person and if it had been caused for supportive behaviors, hits and false alarms by something or someone else. In all cases, the predicted increases in relationship well-being greater the expected need responsiveness, the from the previous day. These effects were not greater was the willingness to express emo- systematically related to mood, probably tions. Interestingly, this pattern was stronger because supportive interactions often take for negative than for positive emotions place in the context of stressful or otherwise (although still highly significant for both). unpleasant events. Often, these interactions Vulnerability and perceived support may be may not solve the underlying problem, even more closely linked to responsiveness than at the same time as they have relational the desire to share happiness. Clark et al. benefits, as mentioned above. Similar results (2001) describe a series of experiments further were reported by Gleason, Iida, Bolger, and documenting the close connection between Shrout (2003, 2005), who found that visible emotional openness and a partner’s perceived support tended to increase relationship inti- responsibility for one’s welfare. macy, even if it did not improve mood. These In sum, this research highlights a common findings suggest that the perception of partner theme running through research on social sup- responsiveness to needs is central to the rela- port, attachment caregiving, communal relat- tional benefits of enacted social support. Over ing, and emotional expression in relationships, the long term, hits in actual support transac- the importance of perceiving that partners will tions should foster the perception of support be responsive to one’s needs. In each case, availability. perceived responsiveness is associated with Finally, perceived responsiveness to needs relationship-enhancing behaviors (e.g., giving may also help clarify why people are generally appropriate and effective support, being emo- more willing to express emotions to close than tional open), whereas perceived unresponsive- to distant others. Clark et al. (2001) explain that ness is associated with relationship-impairing behaviors. In all likelihood, the causal arrows Emotional expression carries information in these associations are bidirectional: per- about needs. Sad people have generally lost ceived responsiveness both follows from and something. They may need help in regain- fosters relationship well-being. Recognizing ing it or in coping with the loss. Angry peo- the common principle that underlies these ple feel unjustly treated. They may need somewhat disparate effects facilitates identifi- help in ascertaining whether their feelings cation of correspondences and connections are justified or help in figuring out a way to across these seemingly disparate research rectify the situation. (p. 255). topics, a spider’s web of constructs, as it were. In turn, this recognition illustrates the value of Clark et al. (2001) further theorize that emo- stepping back from domain-limited studies to tional expressions make the self vulnerable to deduce larger themes running through and the other. To the extent that one trusts the other across relationship research. to be responsive and concerned with protect- ing one’s welfare, one may feel comfortable Perceived partner responsiveness and revealing emotions. On the other hand, self-regulation expressing emotions to interaction partners perceived to have little or no concern for one’s One of the major functions of the self is its needs should engender a more cautious executive role: to determine and guide goal- approach. In a pair of studies, we (Clark, Reis, directed activities. Although research typically The ripening of relationship science 17 considers self-regulation from the perspective ment one another in fostering coherent self- of the individual, life is lived in the ‘‘causally knowledge and behavior directed at fulfilling potent context of relationships’’ (Berscheid, basic goals?’’ Recognition of the manner in 1999, p. 265), and few factors are as potent which perceived partner responsiveness con- in influencing self-regulation as the behavior tributes to each self-regulatory motive may of relationship partners (Reis, Berscheid, & help elucidate this dynamic interplay. Collins, 2000). Partners influence the goals First, consider self-enhancement. All other we set, the strategies we choose to pursue things being equal, people pursue events and them, the likelihood of success or failure in information with positive self-evaluative goal attainment, and the affects that are gener- implications and avoid events and information ated. The capacity of the self to regulate its with negative connotations. Self-enhancement goal-directed activities is intrinsically linked is typically demonstrated by self-serving judg- to the ways in which partners contribute, and mental biases, and numerous studies have are perceived to contribute, to these processes. demonstrated this tendency in relationships. Another way of saying this is that self-regulation For example, people tend to believe that their is inextricably linked to the processes of rela- romantic relationships are superior to other’s tionship initiation, development, maintenance, relationships (Van Lange & Rusbult, 1995). and deterioration. Self-serving judgmental biases are likely to Among the various taxonomies of self- contribute to judgments about a partner’s regulatory motives that have been proposed, responsiveness. Furthermore, and more inter- the fourfold scheme offered by Sedikides estingly, positive illusions, the tendency to and Strube (1997) is representative: self- perceive partners more positively than partners enhancement (people strive to feel good about see themselves or mutual friends do (Murray themselves), self-verification (people seek con- et al., 1996a, 1996b), and other forms of ide- sistency between their self-assessments and alization tend to foster constructive, positive feedback from others), self-assessment (people behaviors, which actually do improve relation- try to obtain accurate assessments of their at- ship outcomes for both self and partner. Thus, tributes), and self-improvement (people attempt two mechanisms may be operative here, both to cultivate positive attributes). Here I add derivative of self-enhancement motives: the a fifth motive to their list, a motive to feel first a tendency to perceive partners in a posi- secure and accepted in social relationships tive light, and the second a tendency to treat because of its special relevance to close partners in a manner that displays responsive- relationships. ness and benefits both. That the display of Perceived partner responsiveness contrib- responsiveness is part of this process is consis- utes to the enactment of all five motives. At tent with the findings discussed earlier, and first glance, this suggestion may seem simplis- shown in Figure 2, that a spouse’s positive tic or overly reductionistic, inasmuch as these regard contributes to the recognition of being motives are often portrayed as conflicting, valued, which in turn is linked to relationship mutually exclusive, and theoretically distinct. satisfaction and self-evaluation (Holmes & However, Sedikides and Strube (1997) offer Cameron, 2005; Murray & Holmes, 1999). In a more integrative account: That these motives short, self-enhancement motives may facilitate are part of a dynamic, complementary system, perceived partner responsiveness for both the in which each motive serves a somewhat self and one’s partner. different pragmatic purpose, contributing Because a stable view of self provides together to the individual’s attempt to act a sense of predictability in social life, self- adaptively in the world. Thus, it is not a ques- verification research emphasizes the value of tion of which motive is most correct or impor- feedback from others that is consistent with tant, but rather ‘‘under what circumstances is existing self-conceptions. In the case of per- each motive active,’’ ‘‘for which persons do sons with negative self-views, this means which motives predominate’’ (Sedikides & engaging in behavior that preferentially elicits Strube), and ‘‘how do these motives comple- negative evaluations (e.g., Giesler, Josephs, & 18 H. T. Reis

Swann, 1996; Swann, 1990). Swann, De La obtaining potentially informative feedback Ronde, and Hixon (1994) found that married about their poor performance on an important couples, but not dating couples, were more intellectual task than were participants primed satisfied when partners verified each other’s with the names of distant or negative relation- self-view, even if negative. Swann et al. ship partners. Emotional openness, which speculate that as relationships become more increases when partners are expected to be con- intimate, the need to be seen positively dimin- cerned with one’s welfare, as discussed ear- ishes, while the need to be seen authentically lier, likely would also facilitate self-assessment grows (consistent with the idea that shared motives. mental representations of self and other are The fourth self-regulatory motive, self- essential to harmonious functioning as an improvement, differs from self-enhancement interdependent dyad). Believing that a partner in that it encompasses a desire to change for is aware of one’s true self, or more precisely, the better, rather than to see things in a positive of how one sees oneself, is central to the con- light. Close relationship partners are often cept of perceived responsiveness. Rather than part of this growth process, by promoting, emphasizing agreement, however, the under- encouraging, and generally facilitating move- standing component of perceived responsive- ment toward valued goals and ideals. Self- ness suggests that people desire close others to improvement complements existing research be cognizant of their self-conceptions. Thus, in in that responsiveness is usually studied in seeking understanding, people may not desire relation to problem solving (i.e., social sup- agreement so much as the empathic awareness port) or conflict resolution. Personal aspira- that is necessary for partners to be responsive tions represent the appetitive side of the self to each other’s needs (Ickes & Simpson, (e.g., Markus and Nurius, 1986, included aspi- 1997). rations as part of the possible self), a side Self-assessment in the context of close rela- underemphasized in relationship research tionships likewise depends on perceived (Reis & Gable, 2003). A good example of understanding. After all, if the partner from self-improvement is the Michelangelo Phe- whom feedback is obtained is perceived to nomenon (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & possess erroneous understanding of the self, Whitton, 1999), a process in which partners regardless of whether those errors are flatter- elicit from each other behavior that supports ing or critical, that feedback is likely to be less movement toward ideals. This sculpting pro- credible and is more likely to be discounted.4 cess involves perceptual and behavioral affir- Reis (2006) reported a pair of experiments mation: perceiving that partners recognize demonstrating that positive feedback tends to one’s goals and believing that they are actively be dismissed if its source is perceived to engaged in helping one attain them. Another misunderstand the self. Similarly, Schimel, example of self-improvement is capitaliza- Arndt, Pyszczynski, and Greenberg (2001) tion, a means of savoring positive experiences showed that being liked for qualities of the by recounting them with others. Gable, Reis, intrinsic self yielded lesser defensiveness than Impett, and Asher (2004) showed that personal more extrinsic types of feedback (e.g., being and relational well-being is associated with praised for accomplishments). Kumashiro and perceived enthusiastic responses from part- Sedikides (2005) showed that participants ners, rather than disinterest or disparagement. experimentally primed with the name of a In subsequent experiments, Reis and colleagues responsive, close friend were more open to have shown that enthusiastic responses5 from interaction partners foster personal apprecia- tion of the events in question (Reis, Carmi- 4. Just how much deviation from an exact self-under- chael, & Rodrigues, 2003; Reis & Smith, standing counts as noncredible depends not only on the feedback provided but also on the self’s ‘‘latitude of acceptance’’ (Sherif & Hovland, 1961), creating an interesting tension between tendencies to accept feed- 5. It is interesting to note that in common language, this back and tendencies toward stability of self-evaluation. kind of enthusiasm is often called ‘‘responsiveness.’’ The ripening of relationship science 19

2004). Because personal good fortune is often responsiveness. Perceived partner responsive- associated with the fulfillment of valued goals, ness underlies successful self-regulation in positive responses to capitalization attempts relationship contexts, whereas perceived part- signal appreciation for, and responsiveness ner unresponsiveness typically undermines to, the self. self-regulation. Identifying common elements The final motive to be discussed here, the across different strategies, as well as discover- motive to attain a sense of felt security, is ing differences in their instantiation, will fos- closely related to the studies of social support ter development of a comprehensive theory of and need responsiveness discussed earlier. how relationships contribute to self-regulation. Feeling secure in one’s relationship with close others is a key mechanism involved in the reg- Conclusion ulation of attachment-related behaviors in humans (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). When Perceived partner responsiveness may or may attachment figures are perceived to be respon- not be a useful candidate for one of the central sive to – that is, aware of, sensitive to, and organizing principles that will help advance appropriately supportive of – needs, secure relationship science to a more ripened stage. attachment is most likely (Shaver & Miku- If it is, I suggest that it will help address the lincer, 2002). Feeling secure is an important three general concerns discussed in the first mechanism for successfully managing the risk section of this paper. That is, it will generate that committed close relationships inherently action-oriented research that is integrated with entail, and perceiving that partners will be sup- theoretical innovation, foster collective ener- portive and responsive to the self provides gies, and help organize diverse phenomena reassurance that the other can be trusted (Mur- and theories into a nomological net around ray et al., 2006). On the other hand, the per- which many concepts and findings might be ception of nonresponsiveness, regardless of integrated. Of course, other constructs may whether it originates from a partner’s behavior turn out to be more constructive, in providing or the self’s motivated construals, undermines better explanations of relationship processes the sense of felt security and is likely to spawn and phenomena, in allowing fuller accounting defensive strategies for protecting the self of what our studies observe, and in fostering from exploitation or harm (Downey, Freitas, more compelling generalizations, richer in- Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998; Murray, Holmes, sights, and better ideas for new research and Bellavia, Griffin, & Dolderman, 2002). applications. Regardless of which particular Because these five self-regulatory motives principles turn out to be best, I suggest that differ from one another in important ways, the this enterprise of ensuring not only that we particular mechanisms involving perceived see the forest and the trees, but also that we partner responsiveness are likely to differ in strive to understand how trees make a forest, their details. It would of course be unwise to will be an essential step in the ripening of rela- gloss over these details as theory and research tionship science. develop. Nevertheless, it would also be unwise As relationship science moves past the to fail to notice the common elements that greening stage, we might be said to be blos- highlight important connections among pro- soming into adolescence. Like all adolescents, cesses and thereby suggest organizing con- the field is active, vibrant, and full of possibil- cepts and principles. Sedikides and Strube ities; also like adolescents, it is sprawling, at (1997) theorize that different motives ‘‘are times unruly, and perhaps more mysterious dynamically interrelated; they do not usually than we might wish. Maturing from adoles- operate independently. Instead, the motives cence to adulthood will require something typically serve complementary purposes . more from those who enter our discipline. It and understanding this dynamic interplay will will not be sufficient to declare the importance be one of the most important tasks for future of relationships to the human condition with- research’’ (p. 225). The same point might be out demonstrating why, how, and to what made about the role of perceived partner effect. Instead, we will need to capitalize on 20 H. T. Reis our early successes to build the conceptual, Bowlby, J. (1990). Charles Darwin: A new life. New York: empirical, and methodological infrastructure W.W. Norton & Co. Bradbury, T. N. (1998). The Developmental Course of of a mature science. To be sure, this will Marital Dysfunction, xviii (pp. 473). New York: be challenging. The intrinsic complexities of Cambridge University Press. investigating complex, multiperson, multiply Bradbury, T. N. (2002). Research on relationships as a prelude to action. Journal of Social and Personal determined dynamic processes are familiar to Relationships, 19, 235–263. all relationship scientists. But with challenge Brim, O. G., Ryff, C. D., & Kessler, R. C. (2004). How comes opportunity, and relationship science healthy are we? A national study of well-being at mid- life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. has no shortage of opportunities for making Burleson, B. R. (2003). The experience and effects of significant contributions to knowledge and emotional support: What the study of cultural and gen- well-being. der differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion, and interpersonal communication. Personal Across our various home disciplines and Relationships, 10, 1–23. institutions, there is a discernible appreciation Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J. G., & Kashy, D. of relationships as an increasingly vital factor (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal in most of the social, behavioral, and health of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531. sciences. Just how we capitalize on that rec- Carmichael, C. L., & Reis, H. T. (2005). Attachment, sleep ognition is the central task of the field’s in- quality, and depressed affect. Health Psychology, 24, 526–531. tellectual development. We have a worthy Carmichael, C. L., Tsai, F., Smith, S. M., Caprariello, foundation of substantial theories and empiri- P. A., & Reis, H. T. (in press). The self and intimate cal facts to provide promising seed corn for relationships. In C. Sedikides & S. Spencer (Eds.), The self. New York: Psychology Press. better theories and more accurate facts. Just Christensen, A., Doss, B. D., & Atkins, D. C. (2005). A as importantly, recent methodological, tech- science of couple therapy: For what should we seek nological, and statistical advances, advances empirical support? In W. M. Pinsof & J. L. Lebow (Eds.), Family psychology (pp. 43–63). New York: occurring at a rate that by all appearances Oxford University Press. promises to accelerate, offer unprecedented Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1999). Interventions opportunities for relationship scientists to ask for couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 165–190. Clark, M. S., Fitness, J., & Brissette, I. (2001). Under- ever more complex and sophisticated ques- standing people’s perceptions of relationships is cru- tions, and to obtain verified insights unimagin- cial to understanding their emotional lives. In able in previous eras. As relationship science M. Hewstone & M. Brewer (Eds.), Blackwell hand- book of social psychology: Vol. 2 interpersonal pro- engages its task of ripening, there is much on cesses (pp. 253–278). Oxford, England: Blackwell our side and much to be done. Publishers. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and References is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684–691. Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Clark, M. S., Reis, H. T., Tsai, F. F., & Brissette, I. (2004). Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psy- The willingness to express emotions in relationships. chology (4th ed., pp. 680–740). New York: Random Manuscript in preparation, New Haven, CT: Yale House. University. Bernieri, F., Gillis, J., Davis, J., & Grahe, J. (1996). Dyad Cohen, S. (1992). Stress, social support, and disorder. In rapport and the accuracy of its judgments across sit- H. O. Veiel & U. Baumann (Eds.), The meaning and uations: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality measurement of social support (pp. 109–124). New and Social Psychology, 71, 110–129. York: Hemisphere. Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. Ameri- American Psychologist, 54, 260–266. can Psychologist, 59, 676–684. Bertenthal, B. (2002). Are we prepared for big science? Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An Association for Psychological Science Observer, attachment theory perspective on support seeking and 15, 10. caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Per- Birnbaum, G. E., & Reis, H. T. (2006). Women’s sexual sonality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053–1073. working models: An evolutionary-attachment perspec- Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of tive. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 328–342. attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evi- Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invis- dence from experimental and observational studies. ible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953–961. 363–383. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment Cronbach, L., & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity and healthy human development. New York: Basic in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, Books. 281–302. The ripening of relationship science 21

Cutrona, C. E., Wallace, G., & Wesner, K. A. (2006). Giesler, R. B., Josephs, R. A., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1996). Neighborhood characteristics and depression. Current Self-verification in clinical depression: The desire for Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 188–192. negative evaluation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Cutrona, C. E., Hessling, R. M., & Suhr, J. A. (1997). The 105, 358–368. influence of husband and wife personality on marital Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., Nitzberg, R. E., social support interactions. Personal Relationships, 4, Erez, A., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2005). Attachment, 379–393. caregiving, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in Dannefer, D., Uhlenberg, P., Foner, A., & Abeles, R. P. an attachment-theoretical framework. Personal Rela- (2005). On the shoulders of a giant: The legacy tionships, 12, 425–446. of Matilda White Riley for gerontology. Journal of Gleason,M.E.J.,Iida,M.,Bolger,N.,&Shrout,P.(2003). Gerontology: Social Sciences, 60B, S296–S304. Daily supportive equity in close relationships. Personality Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1036–1045. approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Gleason, M. E. J., Iida, M., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: (2005). Is receiving a mixed blessing? Evidence for Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). dual effects of support on psychological outcomes. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Manuscript submitted for publication. Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of the (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, Publications. 169–197. Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Harlow, H. (1958). Presidential address. American Psy- Adaptive and maladaptative processes. Psychological chologist, 13, 573–685. Bulletin, 110, 3–25. Helgeson, V. S., & Cohen, S. (1996). Social support and Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. adjustment to cancer: Reconciling descriptive, corre- (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relation- lational, and intervention research. Health Psychol- ships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic ogy, 15, 135–148. partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Helgeson, V. S., Cohen, S., Schulz, R., & Yasko, J. (2001). ogy, 75, 545–560. Group support interventions for people with cancer: Dozier, M., Stovall, K. C., & Albus, K. (1999). Attachment Benefits and hazards. In A. Baum & B. L. Andersen and psychopathology in adulthood. In J. Cassidy & (Eds.), Psychosocial interventions for cancer (pp. P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment theory 269–286). Washington, DC: American Psychological and research (pp. 497–519). New York: Guilford. Association. Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, Helgeson, V. S., & Gottlieb, B. H. (2000). Support groups. S. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: In S. Cohen, L. Underwood, & B. Gottlieb (Eds.), Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenom- Social support measurement and intervention: A guide enon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, for health and social scientists (pp. 221–245). New 77, 293–323. York: Oxford University Press. Dunkel-Schetter, C., & Bennett, T. (1990). Differentiating Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspec- the cognitive and behavioral aspects of social support. tive. East Sussex, England: Psychology Press. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. Pierce (Eds.), Holmes, J. G., & Boon, S. D. (1990). Developments in the Social support: An interactional view (pp. 267–296). field of close relationship. In W. H. Jones & D. Perl- New York: Wiley. man (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. Epstein, R., Alper, B., & Quill, T. (2004). Communicating 2, pp 57–106). London: Jessica Kingsley. evidence for participatory decision making. Journal of Holmes, J. G., & Cameron, J. (2005). An integrative the American Medical Association, 291, 2359–2366. review of theories of interpersonal cognition: An inter- Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society.NewYork: dependence theory perspective. In M. W. Baldwin Norton. (Ed.), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 415–447). New Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of care- York: Guilford. giving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment Ickes, W., & Simpson, J. A. (1997). Managing empathic theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and accuracy in close relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Social Psychology, 80, 972–994. Empathy accuracy (pp. 218–250). New York: Guil- Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2003). Motivations for ford. caregiving in adult intimate relationships: Influences Johnson, D. H., & Sabourin, M. E. (2001). Universally on caregiving behavior and relationship functioning, accessible databases in the advancement of knowledge Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, from psychological research. International Journal of 950–968. Psychology, 36, 212–220. Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Downey, G. (2003). He said, Kaplan, S., Greenfield, S., & Ware, J. E. (1989). Assess- she said: A quasi-signal detection analysis of daily ing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the interactions between close relationship partners. Psy- outcomes of chronic disease. National Center for chological Science, 14, 100–105. Biotechnology Information, 27(3, Suppl.): S110– Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E., & Asher, E. R. (2004). S127. What do you do when things go right? The intraper- Karney, B., & Bradbury, T. (2005). Contextual influences sonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive on marriage. Current Directions in Psychology, 14, events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 171–228. 87, 228–245. Kelley, H. (1986). Personal relationships: Their nature and Galison, P., & Hevly, B. (1992). Big science: The growth significance. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), The of large-scale research. Stanford: Stanford University emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 3–19). Press. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 22 H. T. Reis

Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996a). H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., et al. (1983). Close The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the relationships. New York: Freeman. construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Per- Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 70, 79–98. Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). An atlas Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996b). of interpersonal situations. New York: Cambridge The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in University Press. romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but pre- Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social scient. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, relations analysis. New York: Guilford. 71, 1155–1180. Kruglanski, A. W. (2001). That ‘‘vision thing’’: The state Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). of theory in social and personality psychology at the Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How per- edge of the new millennium. Journal of Personality ceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal and Social Psychology, 80, 871–875. of Personality and Social Psychology. 78, 478–498. Kumashiro, M., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Taking on board Oerter, R. (2006). The theory of almost everything: The liability-focused feedback: Close positive relation- standard model, the unsung triumph of modern phys- ships as a self-bolstering resource. Psychological Sci- ics. New York: PI Press. ence, 16, 732–739. Poincare´, H. (1958). Science and hypothesis. New York: Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. Dover Publications. (Original work published as La (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The Science et l’Hypothese. Paris: E Flammarion, 1902). importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and Reis, H. T. (2002). Action matters, but relationship science perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal is basic. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- 19, 601–611. ogy, 74, 1238–1251. Reis, H. T. (2006). Implications of attachment theory Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). for research on intimacy. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. The interpersonal process model of intimacy in Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attach- marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling ment, caregiving, and sex (pp. 383–403). New York: approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 314– Guilford. 323. Reis, H. T., Berscheid, E., & Collins. (2000). The relation- Leary, M., & Baumeister, R. (2000). The nature and func- ship context of human behavior and development. Psy- tion of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna chology Bulletin, 126, 844–872. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology Reis, H. T., & Carmichael, C. (2002, July). How do you (Vol. 32, pp. 2–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. see the me that I see? Understanding and validation Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. Amer- in marital relationships. Symposium paper, Interna- ican Psychologist, 41, 954–969. tional Conference in Personal Relationships, Halifax, Mayseless, O., Bartholomew, K., Henderson, A., & Canada. Trinke, S. (2004). I was more her mom than she was Reis, H. T., & Carmichael, C. (2005). Perceived partner mine: Role reversal in a community sample. Family regard in close relationships. Manuscript in prepara- Relations Journal, 53, 78–86. tion, Rochester, NY: University of Rochester. Mead, N., & Bower, P. (2004). Patient-centredness: a Reis, H. T. & Carmichael, C. (2006). Visible and invis- conceptual framework and review of the empirical ible support: A quasi-signal detection analysis. literature. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 1087– Unpublished manuscript, Rochester, NY: University 1110. of Rochester. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. Reis, H. T., Carmichael, C. L., & Rodrigues, A. R. (2003). A. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Enthusiastic responses to capitalization attempts yield Boosting attachment security increases compassion personal and relational benefits. Unpublished manu- and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- script. chology, 89, 817–839. Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Communal and exchange Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing relationships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of person- construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In ality and social psychology, Vol. 3 (pp. 121–144). Bev- D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness erly Hills, CA: Sage. and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1994). Communal and exchange Erlbaum. relationships: Controversies and research. In R. Erber Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for per- relationship context of human behavior and develop- sonal relationships (pp. 29–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- ment. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844–872. baum. Reis, H. T. & Gable. (2003). Toward a positive psychology Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1999). The (mental) ties of relationships. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), that bind: Cognitive structures that predict relationship Flourishing: The positive person and the good life resilience. Journal of Personality & Social Psychol- (pp. 129–159). Washington, DC: APA Press. ogy, 77, 1228–1244. Reis, H. T. & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an inter- Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Bellavia, G., Griffin, D. W., & personal process. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Dolderman, D. (2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Chichester, egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Person- England: Wiley. ality & Social Psychology, 82, 563–581. Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (in press). Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of The relational signature of felt security. Psychological autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality Bulletin, 132, 641–666. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419–435. The ripening of relationship science 23

Reis, H. T., & Smith, S. M. (2004). It’s the feedback that Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment. New counts: Distinguishing different venues for making Haven: Yale University Press. capitalization attempts and their relative benefits. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. (1992). Sup- Unpublished manuscript, Rochester, NY: University port-seeking and support-giving within couples in an of Rochester. anxiety provoking situation: The role of attachment Reis, H. T., Tsai, F. F., Clark, M. S., Pereira-Gray, D. J., styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Stewart, M., Brown, J. B., et al. (2004). Measuring 62, 434–446. responsiveness in the therapeutic relationship: A patient Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Con- perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Fetzer Institute. flict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, Explorations on the meaning of psychological well- 899–914. being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Sroufe, L. A. (2005). Attachment and development: A pro- 57, 1069–1081. spective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2001). Attachment & Human Development, 7, 349–367. Close personal relationships and health outcomes: A key Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the to the role of social support. In B. R. Sarason & S. W. construction of relationships. In W. Hartup & Z. Rubin Duck (Eds.), Personal relationships: Implications for (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 51–71). clinical and community psychology (pp. 15–41). Wiley. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schimel, J., Arndt, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, Stern, D. N. (2002). The first relationship: Infant and J. (2001). Being accepted for who we are: Evidence mother. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. that social validation of the intrinsic self reduces gen- Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and eral defensiveness. Journal of Personality and Social technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press: Psychology, 80, 35–52. Washington, DC. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Stroebe, W., & Stroebe, M. S. (1996). The social psy- Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strat- chology of social support. In A. Kruglanski & egies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Scien- E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook ces, 28, 247–311. of basic principles (pp. 597–621). New York: Sears, R. R. (1977). Sources of life satisfactions of Guilford. the Terman gifted men. American Psychologist, 32, Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). To be adored or to be known: 119–128. The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verifica- Sechrest, L. (1963). Incremental validity: A recommenda- tion. In R. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Hand- tion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, book of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 408– 23, 153–158. 448). New York: Guilford. Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self evaluation: To Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, G. J. (1994). thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social ogy, 66, 857–869. psychology, Vol. 29 (pp. 209–269). San Diego, CA: Taylor, S. E. (2004). Preparing for social psychology’s Academic Press. future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Sedikides, C. & Strube, M. J. (Eds.) (in press). The self. 40, 139–141. New York: Psychology Press. Van Lange, P. A. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). My relation- Shaver, P. R., Collins, N., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Attach- ship is better than—and not as bad as—yours is: ment styles and internal working models of self and The perception of superiority in close relationships. relationship partners. In G. Fletcher & J. Fitness Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, (Eds.), Knowledge structures and interaction in close 32–44. relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. Williams, G. C., McGregor, H. A., Zeldman, A., 25–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Freedman, Z. R., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Testing a Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment- self-determination theory process model for promoting related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human glycemic control through diabetes self-management. Development, 4, 133–161. Health Psychology, 23, 58–66.