Interdependence Theory

Paul A.M. Van Lange and Caryl E. Rusbult1

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

As one of the classic theories of social psychology, One of the truly classic theories in the social interdependence theory has since its earliest for- and behavioral sciences is interdependence mulation (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959) addressed broad classic themes such as dependence and theory originally developed by John Thibaut power, rules and norms, as well as coordination and Harold Kelley in 1959. In the 1998 edi- and cooperation. Later, Kelley and Thibaut (1978) tion of the Handbook of Social Psychology, provided a more comprehensive statement of the in his chapter on the historic development of theory which allowed researchers to analyze topics social psychology, Ned Jones made the fol- such as attribution and self-presentation, trust and distrust, love and commitment, conflict and lowing prediction about interdependence communication, and risk and self-regulation. theory: “Given the elegance and profundity Interdependence theory seeks to capture the of this analysis … there is good reason that essence of social life by advancing a conceptual its impact will be durable” (1998: 30). Now, framework for understanding social interaction. In more than a decade later, it is clear that inter- particular, it identifies the most important characteristics of interpersonal situations via a compre- dependence theory has influenced genera- hensive analysis of situation structure, and tions of scientists for more than 50 years. It describes the implications of structure for under- is especially interesting to see that it has standing intrapersonal and interpersonal processes stimulated research in various domains of (Kelley et al., 2003). Situation structure matters social psychology, including research focus- because it is the interpersonal reality within which motives are activated, toward which cognition is ing on within-person processes such as affect oriented, and around which interaction unfolds. and cognition, as well as between-person This chapter describes key principles of the theory, processes such as behavior and interaction in and illustrates the utility of an interdependence dyads and groups. Since Thibaut and Kelley theoretic analysis via a review of phenomena that (1959) and Kelley and Thibaut (1978), inter- we may observe everywhere around us – such as regulatory fit, persistence in the face of dissatisfac- dependence theoretical concepts and principles tion, the basis for understanding generosity, and have been used to analyze group dynamics, the ebbs and flows of intergroup relations. power and dependence, social comparison, 252 HANDBOOK OF THEORIES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY conflict and cooperation, attribution and self- structure and processes (Kelley and Thibaut, presentation, trust and distrust, emotions, love 1978; Kelley et al., 2003; Thibaut and Kelley, and commitment, coordination and commu- 1959). Analogous to contemporary physics nication, risk and self-regulation, performance – where the relations between particles are as and motivation, social development, and neu- meaningful as the particles themselves – in roscientific models of social interaction (for interdependence theory, between-person rela- recent reviews, see Kelley et al., 2003; Reis, tions are as meaningful as the individuals 2008; Rusbult and Van Lange, 2003; Van themselves (Rusbult and Van Lange, 2003). Lange et al., 2007). Indeed, concepts such as coordination, trust, The main focus of interdependence theory cooperation, communication, commitment can is on social interaction, a comprehensive con- only be understood in terms of social interac- cept that captures the basics of human social tion, and many of the needs, motives, and life, which helps explain why interdepend- processes that receive considerable attention ence theory has been used to understand so in contemporary social psychology – such as many themes for so long. After all, interac- need-to-belong, uncertainty-management, tion is at the heart of where people live their self-regulation – are often oriented in the social lives. Many feelings and emotions are service of dealing with the threats and oppor- rooted in social interactions, and many beliefs tunities of social interaction. and thoughts are about past or future social In this chapter, we outline the key princi- interactions. For example, whether a close ples of interdependence theory, provide a partner expresses understanding for your bad historical account of its roots and develop- feelings after you have been mistreated by ment over the five decades, and outline some somebody else is essential for how we feel prospects for the future. In doing so, we also and think about ourselves, and how we feel provide a narrative of major challenges that and think about the partner – which has the founders of interdependence theory (must strong implications how we approach a future have) faced, and those that the next genera- interaction situation with the partner (and tion, along with Hal Kelley, have faced. It perhaps other people as well). Typically, will also become clear that interdependence social interactions exert strong effects in the theory is growing while benefiting from the laboratory, but outside of the lab where often solid foundation (and more) that the fathers interactions extend over substantial periods of interdependence theory have provided. We of time, social interactions tend to exert even conclude by describing broad implications more dramatic effects on us and our relation- for various social psychological phenomena ships. One can indeed go so far as to claim and applications in several societal domains. that social interaction colors nearly every phenomenon studied in the social and behavioral sciences, including mental and physical health, personal dispositions, and cognitive INTERDEPENDENCE STRUCTURE and affective experiences (Reis et al., 2000; Rusbult and Van Lange, 2003). Interdependence theory uses two formal tools Generally, we argue that the field of psy- to represent the outcomes of interaction chology would benefit substantially from a –matrices and transition lists (Kelley, 1984; social interaction analysis of human psychol- Kelley and Thibaut, 1978). The purpose of ogy, and suggest that interdependence theory these formal representations is to precisely can play an important role in this respect. specify the character of situation structure – Interdependence theory is one of the few to describe the ways in which people can social psychological theories that provides a affect one another’s outcomes during the comprehensive analysis with a strong orien- course of interaction. Interaction describes tation toward conceptualizing interpersonal two people’s (A and B) needs, thoughts, INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY 253 motives, and behaviors in relation to one outcomes; (b) partner control – the impact of another in the context of the specific interde- each person’s actions on the partner’s out- pendence situation (S) in which their interac- comes; and (c) joint control – the impact of tion transpires (Kelley et al., 2003). Expressed the partners’ joint actions on each person’s formally, I = f (S, A, B). To predict what will outcomes. And by examining the across-cell transpire in an interaction between two per- association between outcomes, we can discern sons, we must consider (a) what situation covariation of interests, or the extent to which they confront (e.g., are their interests at odds, the partners’ outcomes are correlated. These does one hold greater power?), (b) person A’s components define four structural dimen- needs, thoughts, and motives with respect to sions; two additional dimensions have also this interaction (i.e., which traits or values been identified more recently (all six are are activated, how does he feel about person described below; Kelley et al., 2003). Most B?), and (c) person B’s needs, thoughts, and situations are defined by their properties with motives with respect to this interaction. In respect to two or more dimensions. For exam- the following, we replace persons A and B ple, the prisoner’s dilemma, hero, and chicken with John and Mary, two names that have situations all involve moderate and mutual often been used to illustrate the formal logic dependence along with moderately conflict- of interdependence theory. The model involving interests, but these neighboring situations ing the situation and the two persons is some- also differ in the magnitude of actor control, times referred to as the SABI model, an partner control, and joint control, as well as in acronym for Situation, persons A and B that their implications for interaction. collectively account for Interaction (e.g., All conceivable combinations of the six Holmes, 2002; Kelley et al., 2003; Van Lange properties define a very large number of pat- et al., 2007; see the principle of structure, terns. However, we can identify at least 20 to and the principle of interaction, Box 39.1). 25 prototypes (Kelley et al., 2003). Everyday The precise outcomes of an interaction – situations resemble these abstract patterns, the degree to which John and Mary experi- sharing common interpersonal problems and ence it as satisfying – depend on whether the opportunities. For example, the twists of fate interaction gratifies (versus frustrates) impor- situation is one wherein each partner, at some tant needs, such as security, belongingness, point, might unexpectedly find himself or her- and exploration (cf. Baumeister and Leary, self in a position of extreme unilateral depend- 1995; Fiske, 2004). Interaction not only ence; this sort of situation is characteristic of yields concrete outcomes, or immediate health crises and other reversals of fortune. And experiences of pleasure versus displeasure, as another example, the prisoner’s dilemma is but also symbolic outcomes, or experiences a situation wherein each person’s outcomes are that rest on the broader implications of inter- more powerfully influenced by the partner’s action (e.g., Rusbult and Van Lange, 1996). actions than by his or her own actions; this sort For example, if John and Mary disagree of situation is characteristic of interactions about where to dine yet John suggests Mary’s involving mutual sacrifice, trading favors, and favorite restaurant, Mary not only enjoys the free-riding. Everyday situations that share the concrete benefits of good food and wine, but same abstract pattern have parallel implications also enjoys the symbolic pleasure of perceiv- for motivation, cognition, and interaction. ing that John is responsive to her needs. By analyzing how each person’s possible behaviors would affect each person’s outcomes, Importance of we can discern the structure of a situation interdependence structure with respect to degree and type of dependence, examining: (a) actor control – the impact of Why should we care about interdependence each person’s actions on his or her own structure? To begin with, structure in itself 254 HANDBOOK OF THEORIES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Box 39.1 Overview of basic assumptions of interdependence theory

1 The principle of structure (“the situation”) Understanding interdependence features of a situation are essential to understanding psychological process (motives, cognition, and affect), behavior, and social interaction. The features are formalized in a taxonomy of situations, which are degree of dependence, mutuality of dependence, covariation of interest, basis of dependence, temporal structure, and information availability

2 The principle of transformation (what people make of “the situation”) Interaction situations may be subject to transformations by which individualist consider consequences of own (and other’s) behavior in terms outcomes for self and others and in terms of immediate and future consequences. Transformation is a psychological process that is guided by interaction goals, which may be accompanied and supported by affective, cognitive and motivational processes.

3 The principle of interaction: SABI: I = f (A, B, S) Interaction is a function of two persons (persons A and B) and (objective properties) of the situation. The situation may activate particular motives, cognitive, and affective experiences in persons A and B, which ultimately through their mutual responses in behavior yield a particular pattern of interaction.

4 The principle of adaptation Repeated social interaction experiences yield adaptations that are reflected in relatively stable orientations to adopt particular transformations. These adaptations are probabilistic and reflect (a) differences in orientation between people across partners and situations (dispositions), (b) orientations that people adopt to a specific interaction partner (relationship-specific orientations), and (c) rule-based inclinations that are shared by many people within a culture to respond to a particular classes of situation in a specific manner (social norms).

reliably influences behavior. For example, of possible affordances). For example, situa- situations with structure resembling the threat tions with uncertain information afford mis- situation reliably yield demand–withdraw understanding, and invite reliance on patterns of interaction – demands for change generalized schemas regarding partners and on the part of the lower power actor, met by situations; generalized schemas carry less withdrawal and avoidance on the part of the weight when information is more complete. In higher power partner (Holmes and Murray, short, situation structure matters because it is 1996). And situations with structure resem- the interpersonal reality within which motives bling the chicken situation reliably yield are activated, toward which cognition is ori- interaction centering on establishing domi- ented, and around which interaction unfolds. nance and sustaining one’s reputation (Nisbett and Cohen, 1996). In short, the structure of situations often directly shapes behavior Dimensions of above and beyond the specific goals and interdependence structure motives of interacting individuals. Moreover, specific structural patterns Level of dependence describes the degree to present specific sorts of problems and oppor- which an actor relies on an interaction part- tunities, and therefore (a) logically imply the ner, in that his or her outcomes are influenced relevance of specific goals and motives, and by the partner’s actions. If Mary can obtain (b) permit the expression of those goals and good outcomes irrespective of John’s actions motives. The term affordance nicely describes (high actor control), she is independent; she what a situation makes possible or may activate is dependent to the extent that John can (a) (see Table 39.1, which provides an overview unilaterally determine her pleasure versus INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY 255

Table 39.1 The six dimensions of situational structure and their affordances (after Holmes, 2002; and Kelley et al., 2003) Situation Dimension Relevant Motives 1 Level of dependence Comfort versus discomfort with dependence; and comfort versus discomfort with independence 2 Mutuality of dependence Comfort versus discomfort with vulnerability (as dependent) Comfort versus discomfort with responsibility (as power holder) 3 Basis of dependence Dominance (leading) versus submissiveness (following) Assertiveness versus passivity 4 Covariation of interests Prosocial versus self-interested motives (rules for self) Trust versus distrust of partner motives (expectations about others) 5 Temporal structure Dependability versus unreliability Loyalty versus disloyalty 6 Information availability Openness versus need for certainty Optimism versus pessimism displeasure (partner control) or (b) in combi- and affectively serene (less anxiety, guilt). nation with Mary’s actions determine her Situations with nonmutual dependence afford pleasure versus displeasure (joint control). the expression of comfort versus discomfort Increasing dependence tends to cause with another having control over your out- increased attention to situations and partners, comes (e.g., feelings of vulnerability, for the more careful and differentiated cognitive dependent partner) along with comfort versus activity, and perseverance in interaction (e.g., discomfort with you having control over oth- Fiske, 1993; Rusbult, 1983). As noted in er’s outcomes (e.g., feelings of responsibility, Table 39.1, dependence affords thoughts and for the powerful partner; see Table 39.1). For motives centering on comfort versus discom- example, unilateral dependence will activate fort with dependence and independence. For John’s insecurity, and his insecurity will pow- example, high dependence situations will erfully shape his behavior and be highly vis- activate Mary’s trait-based reluctance to rely ible to others; in mutual dependence situations on others, her discomfort with dependence his insecurity will be less visible and less will strongly shape her behavior, and her dis- relevant to predicting his behavior. comfort will be particularly evident to others; Basis of dependence describes precisely in low dependence situations, this trait will be how partners influence one another’s out- less visible and less relevant for her behavior. comes – the relative importance of partner Mutuality of dependence describes whether versus joint control as source of dependence. two people are equally dependent upon With partner control, the actor’s outcomes one another. Nonmutual dependence entails rest in the partner’s hands, so interaction differential power – when Mary is more often involves promises or threats as well as dependent, John holds greater power. The the activation of morality norms (“This is less dependent partner tends to exert greater how decent people behave”); common inter- control over decisions and resources, whereas action patterns may include unilateral action the more dependent partner carries the greater (when partner control is nonmutual) or tit- burden of interaction costs (sacrifice, accom- for-tat or turn-taking (when partner control modation) and is more vulnerable to possible is mutual; for example, Clark et al., 1998; abandonment; threats and coercion are pos- Fiske, 1992). In contrast, joint control sible (e.g., Attridge et al., 1995; Murray entails contingency-based coordination of et al., 2006). Interactions with mutual depend- action, such that ability-relevant traits become ence tend to feel “safer” and are more stable more important, including intelligence, 256 HANDBOOK OF THEORIES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY initiative-taking, and strategic skills; rules of John may confront the juncture between a conventional behavior carry more sway than present relationship and an alternative rela- morality norms (“This is the normal way to tionship by derogating tempting alternatives behave”; for example, Finkel et al., 2006; (e.g., Collins and Feeney, 2004; Miller, Turiel, 1983). Basis of dependence affords 1997). Temporally extended situations the expression of dominance versus submis- afford the expression of self-control, delay siveness and assertiveness versus passivity, of gratification, and the inclination to as well as skill such as social intelligence “stick with it” – dependability versus unreli- (see Table 39.1). ability, as well as loyalty versus disloy- Covariation of interests describes whether alty (e.g., Mischel, Chapter 1, this volume) partners’ outcomes correspond versus con- (see Table 39.1). flict – whether partners’ joint activities yield Information availability is the final struc- similarly gratifying outcomes for John and tural dimension: Do John and Mary possess Mary. Covariation ranges from perfectly cor- certain versus uncertain information about: responding patterns through mixed motive (a) the impact of each person’s actions on patterns to perfectly conflicting patterns each person’s outcomes; (b) the goals and (zero-sum). Given corresponding interests, motives guiding each person’s actions; and interaction is easy – John and Mary simply (c) the opportunities that will be made avail- pursue their own interests, simultaneously able versus eliminated as a consequence producing good outcomes for the other. In of their actions? Certain information is contrast, situations with conflicting interests critical in novel or risky situations and in tend to generate negative cognition and emo- interactions with unfamiliar partners. tion (greed, fear) and yield more active and Accordingly, partners engage in a good deal differentiated information-seeking and self- of information exchange during the course presentation (“Can Mary be trusted?”; for of interaction, engaging in attributional example, Surra and Longstreth, 1990; Van activity to understand one another and Lange et al., 1997). Situations with conflict- the situation (e.g., Collins and Miller, 1994). ing interests afford the expression of coop- People may also use representations of prior eration versus competition and trust versus interaction partners to “fill in the informa- mistrust (see Table 39.1) – in such situations, tional gaps” in interaction with new partners, John may demonstrate his prosocial motives or may develop frozen expectations that as well as his trust in Mary. reliably color their perceptions of situations Temporal structure is a fifth important and partners (e.g., Andersen and Chen, 2002; structural dimension – one that captures Holmes, 2002, 2004). For example, people dynamic and sequential processes. As a may generally rely on the belief that the result of interaction, some future behaviors, most people are (rationally) self-interested, outcomes, or situations may be made availa- which in turn may help them to fill in the ble and others may be eliminated. John and blanks when faced with incomplete informa- Mary may be passively moved from one situ- tion about another person’s actions (Vuolevi ation to another or they may be active and Van Lange, 2010). As another example, agents in seeking such movement. Extended people with avoidant attachment may per- situations involve a series of steps prior to ceive a wide range of situations as risky, reaching a goal (e.g., investments leading to anticipate that partners are likely to be unre- a desirable outcome). Situation selection sponsive, and readily forecast problematic describes movement from one situation to interactions. Thus, uncertain information another, bringing partners to a situation that affords, among other things, the expression differs in terms of behavioral options or out- of openness versus the need for certainty, as comes – for example, Mary may seek situa- well as optimism versus pessimism (see tions entailing lesser interdependence, or Table 39.1). INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY 257

INTERDEPENDENCE PROCESSES 2003; Murray and Holmes, 2009; Van Lange et al., 2007, see the principle of transforma- Recall that interaction (I = f [S, A, B]) is tion, Box 39.1). People may follow rules that shaped not only by interdependence structure involve sequential or temporal considera- (S), but also by partners’ needs, thoughts, and tions, such as waiting to see how the partner motives in relation to one another (A and B) behaves, or adopting strategies such as tit- in the context of the situation in which their for-tat or turn-taking. Other rules reflect dif- interaction unfolds (SABI, see Principle of). ferential concern for one’s own and a partner’s Thus, we must add to our structural analysis outcomes, including: altruism, or maximizing a complementary analysis that describes how the partner’s outcomes; cooperation, or maxi- John and Mary react to the situations they mizing combined outcomes; competition, or encounter. How do they psychologically maximizing the relative difference between transform specific situations, responding on one’s own and the partner’s outcomes; and the basis of considerations other than tangi- individualism, or maximizing one’s own out- ble self-interest? What role do mental events comes irrespective of the partner’s outcomes. and habits play in shaping this process, and Transformation is particularly visible when how do partners seek to understand and pre- a given situation structure dictates one type dict one another? And how do people develop of behavior yet personal traits or values dic- relatively stable tendencies to react to spe- tate another type of behavior. When people cific situations in specific ways? act on the basis of transformed preferences, we are able to discern their personal traits and motives. For example, when Mary helps Transformation process John with yard work rather than going out with her friends, she communicates concern To describe how situation structure affects for his welfare. The transformation process is motivation, interdependence theory distin- thus the point at which the “rubber meets the guishes between: (a) the given situation – road,” or the point at which intrapersonal preferences based on self-interest (the “virtual processes – cognition, affect, and motivation structure” of a situation); and (b) the effective – operate on specific situations in such a situation – preferences based on broader con- manner as to reveal the unique self. siderations, including concern with the partner’s interests, long-term goals, or strategic considerations (Kelley and Thibaut, 1978; Cognition, affect, and habit Van Lange and Joireman, 2008). Psychological transformation describes the shift in motiva- Human intelligence is interpersonal – cognition from given to effective preferences. tively and affectively, we are well prepared to People typically behave on the basis of trans- construe the world in terms of interdepend- formed preferences – considerations other ence (Rusbult and Van Lange, 2003). Mental than immediate self-interest guide our actions. events are geared toward discerning what a But people sometimes behave on the basis of situation is “about,” evaluating that structure given preferences; this is likely in simple sit- in terms of one’s own needs and motives, uations for which no broader considerations perceiving the partner’s needs and predicting are relevant, when people lack the inclination his or her motives, and forecasting implica- or wherewithal to take broader considerations tions for future interactions (e.g., Kelley, into account, and in situations involving time 1984). Situation structure partially shapes pressure or constrained cognitive capacity. cognition and affect. For example, the pris- Transformations are often conceptualized oner’s dilemma entails a choice between decision rules that a person (often implicitly) benefiting the partner at low cost to the self adopts during interaction (Kelley et al., versus benefiting the self at substantial cost 258 HANDBOOK OF THEORIES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY to the partner. The characteristic blend of fear Communication entails self-presentation on and greed that is afforded by this situation the part of one person and attribution on the serves as a rather automatic indicator of the part of the other. As noted earlier, the mate- essential opportunities and constraints of this rial for self-presentation and attribution type of situation. resides in the disparity between the given and The transformation process is often driven effective situations, in that deviations from by the cognition and affect that a situation self-interested behavior reveal an actor’s affords. For example, Mary is likely to goals and motives (e.g., Rusbult and Van exhibit self-centered or antisocial transfor- Lange, 2003). Thus, the ability to communi- mation when she experiences greedy thoughts cate self-relevant information is limited by and desires (“It’d be nice to take a free ride”) interdependence structure – that is, specific or feels fearful about John’s motives (“Will situations afford the display of specific he exploit me?”). Cognition and emotion are motives. For example, it is difficult for people also shaped by distal causes – by the values, to convey trustworthiness (or to discern it) in goals, and dispositions that are afforded by situations with correspondent interests, in the situation. For example, Mary’s reaction that in such situations,” trustworthy” behav- to situations with conflicting interests will be ior aligns with “self-interested” behavior. colored by the value she places on fairness, People engage in attributional activity to loyalty, or communal norms (versus greed), understand the implications of a partner’s as well as by whether she trusts John (or actions, seeking to predict future behavior alternatively, fears him). Thus, the mental and to explain prior behavior in terms of situ- events that underlie transformation are func- ation structure versus underlying disposi- tionally adapted to situation structure, and tions. Expectations are not particularly take forms that are relevant to that structure. accurate in interactions with new partners, in At the same time, the transformation proc- that they must be based on probabilistic ess does not necessarily rest on extensive assumptions about how the average person mental activity. As a consequence of adapta- would react in a given situation; in longer- tion to repeatedly encountered patterns, term relationships, expectations can also people develop habitual tendencies to react to be based on knowledge of how a partner specific situations in specific ways, such that has behaved across a variety of situations. transformation often transpires with little or And self-presentation describes people’s no conscious thought (e.g., Rusbult and attempts to communicate their motives and Van Lange, 1996). For example, following dispositions to one another. Of course, self- repeated interaction in situations with pris- presentation may sometimes be geared toward oner’s dilemma structure, John and Mary may concealing one’s true preferences and motives. automatically exhibit mutual cooperation, Moreover, given that people do not always with little or no cognition or affect. Mediation hold complete information about their part- by mental events is more probable in novel ners’ given outcomes, they may sometimes situations with unknown implications, in risky mistakenly assume that a partner’s behavior situations with the potential for harm, and in reflects situation structure rather than psycho- interactions with unfamiliar partners. logical transformation. For example, Mary’s loyalty or sacrifice may not be visible if John fails to recognize the costs she incurred. Communication, attribution, and self-presentation Adaptation During the course of interaction, partners convey their goals, values, and dispositions When people initially encounter specific using both direct and indirect means. situations, the problems and opportunities INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY 259 inherent in the situation will often be unclear. by high satisfaction (John gratifies Mary’s In such novel situations, Mary may system- most important needs), poor alternatives atically analyze the situation and actively (Mary’s needs could not be gratified inde- reach a decision about how to behave, or she pendent of her relationship), and high invest- may simply react on the basis of impulse. ments (important resources are bound to her Either way, experience is acquired. If her relationship). Commitment colors emotional choice yields good outcomes, she will react reactions to interaction (feeling affection similarly to future situations with parallel rather than anger) and gives rise to habits of structure; if her choice yields poor outcomes, thought that support sustained involvement she will modify her behavior in future situa- (use of plural pronouns; for example, Agnew tions with parallel structure. Adaptation et al., 1998). In turn, benevolent thoughts describes the process by which repeated encourage prosocial transformation. For experience in situations with similar structure example, strong commitment promotes gives rise to habitual response tendencies that prosocial acts such as sacrifice, accommoda- on average yield good outcomes. Adaptations tion, and forgiveness (e.g., Finkel et al., 2002; may be embodied in interpersonal disposi- Rusbult et al., 1991; Van Lange et al., 1997). tions, relationship-specific motives, or social Social norms are rule-based, socially trans- norms (Rusbult and Van Lange, 1996, see the mitted inclinations to respond to particular principle of adaptation, Box 39.1). classes of situation in a specific manner Interpersonal dispositions are actor-spe- (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959). For example, cific inclinations to respond to particular most societies develop rules regarding accept- classes of situation in a specific manner able behavior in specific types of situation; across diverse partners (Kelley, 1983). rules of civility and etiquette regulate behav- Dispositions emerge because over the course ior in such a manner as to yield harmonious of development, different people experience interaction. Partners frequently follow different histories with different partners, agreed-upon rules regarding resource alloca- confronting different sorts of interaction tion, such as equity, equality, or need opportunities and problems. As a result of (Deutsch, 1975). Such rules may govern a adaptation, John and Mary acquire disposi- wide range of interactions or may be relational tendencies to perceive situations and tionship-specific (e.g., communal norms in partners in specific ways, and specific sorts of close relationships; Clark et al., 1998; Fiske, transformations come to guide their behavior. 1992). Norms not only govern behavior, but Thus, the “self” is the sum of one’s adapta- also shape cognitive experiences. For exam- tions to previous situations and partners (such ple, in interactions guided by communal adaptations are determined also by needs and norms, partners neither monitor nor encode motives that are biologically based). For the extent of each person’s (short-term) con- example, if John’s mother employed her tributions to the other’s welfare. power in a benevolent manner, gratifying his childhood needs and serving as a secure base from which he could explore, John will have developed trusting and secure expectations DEVELOPMENT OF about dependence (for a review, see Fraley INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY: AN and Shaver, 2000). INTERPERSONAL ACCOUNT Relationship-specific motives are inclinations to respond to particular classes of situa- As noted earlier, the history of interdepend- tion in a specific manner with a specific ence theory is strongly shaped by the long- partner (Rusbult and Van Lange, 2003). For standing collaboration and friendship between example, commitment emerges as a result of Harold Kelley and John Thibaut. A sketchy dependence on a partner, and is strengthened summary of the history of interdependence 260 HANDBOOK OF THEORIES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Table 39.2 Brief historical overview of interdependence theory 1959 Thibaut, J.W. and Kelley, H.H. (1959) Provides social exchange analysis of interactions and The Social Psychology of Groups. relationships individuals in dyads and small groups. New York: Wiley Uses games as a conceptual tool and focuses on analysis of dependence, power, rewards, costs, needs and outcomes in exchange relations. Introduces new concepts such as comparison level and comparison level of alternatives (CL and CL-alt) to understand relationship satisfaction and stability. 1978 Kelley, H.H., and Thibaut, J.W. (1978) Provides comprehensive analysis of interaction situations in terms Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of of four dimensions, labeled as degree of dependence, mutuality of Interdependence. New York: Wiley. dependence, correspondence of outcomes, and basis of dependence. Introduces transformation from given to effective matrix, thereby formalizing broader interaction goals broader than immediate self-interest. Adopts a functional analysis of transformations, thereby recognizing social learning of transformation rules, and its functional value for particular domains of situation. 2003 Kelley, H.H. et al. (2003) An Atlas of Provides an overview of 21 basic interaction situations, which are Interpersonal Situations. New York: analyzed in terms of interdependence features, the psychological Cambridge University Press processes that they afford, and the interaction processes that they might evoke. Extends the taxonomy of situations by two additional dimensions to yield six dimensions, including (a) degree of dependence, (b) mutuality of dependence, (c) basis of dependence, and (d) covariation of interest (was formerly referred to as correspondence of outcomes), and (e) temporal structure and (f) information availability. At present and in the future: Integrates interdependence theory with principles of evolutionary theory to understand adaptation as a function of the situational structure. Extends interdependence theory to neuroscientific models of the social mind. Re-extends interdependence theory to group processes and relationships between groups. theory is provided in Table 39.2. Our narra- Group Dynamics at MIT, to collaborate on tive is written from the perspective of Harold writing this chapter. This decision, so he Kelley, as the authors of this chapter inter- described informally, was one of the very acted much more with “Hal” (1921–2003) best in his academic career. There was an than with John Thibaut (1917–1986), which interpersonal fit from the very beginning, and is why we refer to the former as Hal and the they wrote a beautiful chapter, inspired by latter as John Thibaut. The collaboration some of the notions put forward by Kurt between Thibaut and Kelley started when Lewin, in which they analyzed the interde- Hal was invited to write a chapter on “group pendence between individuals in their pursuit problem solving” for the Handbook of Social of group goals. The major themes – interde- Psychology. Hal invited John Thibaut, whom pendence and social interaction – were dis- he knew well from the Research Center for cussed in a manner that was predictive of INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY 261 their later collaboration, one that lasted for breadth of relevance). In that book, they pre- three decades until the death of John Thibaut sented interdependence theory, and it became in 1986. They developed a collaboration that immediately clear that many years were was characterized by many travels between devoted to very basic theoretical issues. Malibu and Chapel Hill, by deep friendship One decision they faced was whether and tremendous mutual respect, by equality behavior was primarily based on the given (they were both follower and leader) as well matrix (i.e., on the basis of immediate self- as by similarity and complementarity. To interest) or whether the theory should be magnify the latter (for illustration purposes), extended to include broader considerations. the natural distribution of tasks was that Hal Informed by research during the sixties and focused more strongly on analysis of situa- seventies, they agreed on the latter and pro- tions, while John Thibaut focused more vided a logical framework for a number of strongly on connections with the various lit- fundamental transformations, which they eratures inside and outside of psychology. labeled as MaxJoint (enhancement of joint They were also complementary in that Hal’s outcomes), MinDiff (minimization of abso- interests focused more on the dyad (later lute differences in outcomes for self and relationships) whereas John’s interests’ others), MaxRel (maximization of relative focused more on the (small) group. advantage over other’s outcomes), and the They then wrote a book (Thibaut and like. These transformations were also inspired Kelley, 1959) that was inspired by social by the work of Messick and McClintock, and exchange theory (in particular, Homans, 1950) many others around the globe, who had and by game theory and decision theory (in already provided empirical evidence for some particular, a highly influential book by Luce transformations in their research using exper- and Raiffa, 1957). Essentially, they analyzed imental games as empirical tools (e.g., social interactions in dyads and small groups Messick and McClintock, 1968). Hal and in terms of patterns of social exchange, John also outlined other types of transforma- thereby using games as the conceptual tool – tion, which emphasize the idea that people to be able to delineate the patterns of interde- respond to contingencies and expected impli- pendence, such as rewards and costs, and cations of present behavior for the future. power and dependence. They also introduced Another key difference with the earlier book new concepts such as comparison level and was that it emphasized the functional value comparison level for alternatives (CL and of various transformations. In short, this CLalt) to provide a strong conceptual analysis book contributes logic to the question, What for the differences between satisfaction and do “people make of situations?” (see also dependence. This book was a great success Kelley et al., 2003). and a must-read for any social psychologist at Thus, the classic Kelley and Thibaut inter- that (or any) time (see Jones, 1998). dependence analysis became a comprehen- After nearly two decades, Kelley and sive theory encompassing (a) a formal Thibaut (1978) modestly expressed the belief analysis of the “objective” properties of a that their new analysis – an interdependence situation with the help of a taxonomy of situ- analysis – might well reach the standards of ations, (b) a conceptualization of psychologi- a theory. While the origins were captured in cal process in terms of transformations, the 1959 book, interdependence theory was including motives, cognition, and affect now formally born (Hal and John were care- (what do people make of the situation?), and ful scientists and they would reserve the label (c) behavior and social interaction – which theory only for those kinds of conceptual resulted from both the objective properties of analysis that would pass stringent tests of the situation, and what both persons made of scientific rigor – probably defined by Hal and it. Moreover, they emphasized (d) adaptation John Thibaut in terms of clear logic and wide and learning, as longer-term orientations that 262 HANDBOOK OF THEORIES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY may grow out of experience. Inspired by the Caryl Rusbult developed the investment work of Messick and McClintock (1968), model of commitment processes, a frame- and their own (Kelley and Stahelski, 1970), work that was deeply rooted in interdepend- they also suggested that people might differ ence theoretic principles, to understand in their “transformational tendencies.” These persistence and commitment processes in adaptations were later conceptualized in ongoing relationships (see Rusbult and Van terms of dispositions, relationship-specific Lange, 2003; Rusbult et al., 2006). Paul Van motives, and social norms (see Rusbult and Lange was intrigued by Kelley and Thibaut’s Van Lange, 1996). taxonomy of situations (“structure”) and Over time, numerous people were inspired transformations (what “persons” make of by the “logic” of interdependence theory – its situations) and found it very useful for his assumptions, the reasoning, and last but not research on social value orientation as well least, its focus. Logic is one thing, but it as for understanding the functionality of gen- appeared to have considerable breadth. And erosity in social dilemmas (see Van Lange so researchers in areas as diverse as altruism, et al., 1997, 2002). Norbert Kerr found an attribution, coordination, conflict, coopera- interdependence perspective useful for under- tion, competition, delay of gratification, standing group-related issues as diverse as exchange, investments, fairness, justice, love, motivation and performance, cooperation, power, prosocial behavior, trust, sacrifice, and free-riding in social dilemmas (see Baron self-presentation, stereotyping, hostility and and Kerr, 2003; Kerr and Tindale, 2004). It aggression in the context of dyads, ongoing was Harry Reis who not only had used inter- relationships (close or not) and groups (small dependence theory in his research on inti- and larger, ongoing or not), either found it macy and responsiveness in relationships exceptionally useful or were inspired by it. (e.g., Reis, 2008; Reis et al., 2000), but also Also, researchers studying environmental had the vision and skills in getting this group issues, organizational issues, and political of people together at a joint meeting of the issues have fruitfully used principles from Society of Experimental Social Psychology interdependence theory (for a comprehensive (SESP) and the European Association of review, see Rusbult and Van Lange, 1996, Experimental Social Psychology (EAESP) in 2003; Van Lange and Joireman, 2008). The Washington in 1995. This resulted in a six- list of authors is too long to summarize here, year collaboration and eventually the publi- but we wish to note that, if we were to list cation of the Atlas of Interpersonal Situations them it would become clear that interdepend- (Kelley et al., 2003). ence theory had a strong influence in various The group came together at various meet- countries even in the pre-Internet era (most ings, often right before or after a major social notably, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, psychological conference in Europe or the France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, US. There were two meetings that were inde- New Zealand, Poland, Sweden, United pendent of a conference. First, in 1996, Kingdom, and the US), and that influence during Caryl’s sabbatical at the VU University spanned successive generations, so that it is in Amsterdam, we held a series of eight-hour fair to say that it has strong appeal to young-, (nearly nonstop) daily sessions for about mid-, and late-career scientists. seven days. Hal, Caryl Rusbult and Paul Van To illustrate from the experience of the Lange discussed aspects of what was later Atlas project group, John Holmes had worked called “temporal structure,” and drafted an with John Thibaut, and used principles of outline for chapters for the book. But fortu- interdependence theory in his work on trust nately, those not present later corrected a and conflict (as well as on motivation- tendency to embrace complexity rather than management in relationships; Holmes and parsimony. Second, the other series of meet- Rempel, 1989; Murray and Holmes, 2009). ings was held in 2000 in Boca Raton, Florida, INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY 263 generously sponsored by Bibb Latané. At this extended, and its implications for basic series of meetings, we discussed the various questions about relationship processes drafts of the chapters, and reached final con- (Caryl’s passion) and human cooperation sensus over the situations that should – or (Paul’s focus). We also frequently discussed should not – be included in the book. “applications” of interdependence theory by The Atlas by Kelley et al. (2003) extended examining why and when an interdepend- Kelley and Thibaut (1978) in very important ence-theoretical analysis mattered. This is ways, but perhaps most notably by analyzing the question that we address next. 21 situations and by adding two dimensions to the four dimensions of interdependence that Kelley and Thibaut already had previ- ously identified. The added dimensions were APPLICATIONS OF (a) temporal structure, and (b) information INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY availability. The first copy of the book was published ahead of schedule (thanks to Harry To comprehend the utility of interdepend- Reis and our publisher, Cambridge University ence concepts it is important to “see them in Press) and was given to Hal Kelley about a action” – to perceive the theoretical, empiri- week or less before he died. Caryl, John, cal, and societal benefits of these concepts in Norb, and Paul saw the first copy at the advancing our understanding of specific psy- Society for Personality and Social Psychology chological phenomena. In particular, we sug- (SPSP) meeting in Los Angeles, in February gest that interdependence theory is especially 2003, shortly before a memorial service for useful for understanding relationship persist- Hal at UCLA. Also, Hal suggested earlier ence and stability, interpersonal generosity, that we dedicate the book to the memory of as well as other broad topics – such as goal John Thibaut, and that suggestion received pursuits in relationships, and understanding strong support, in synchrony, from us all. of group processes. As one of us (PvL) edits this chapter, I might be indulged in saying a bit more about the contributions to the development of inter- Understanding goal pursuits dependence theory of my late colleague, col- laborator, and dear friend, Caryl Rusbult. Our first example illustrates a simple point: Needless to say, Caryl Rusbult was a major interdependence matters. In fact, interdepend- contributor to the Atlas throughout all six ence shapes many psychological processes years. As a UCLA undergraduate (where Hal that might seem to be thoroughly actor-based was professor) and UNC (Chapel Hill) grad- and intrapersonal, such as individual goal uate student (where John Thibaut was profes- pursuits. Goals are end states that give direc- sor) and later faculty member, she developed tion to behavior, either as overarching life a strong commitment to interdependence plans or as simple everyday endeavors. Tradi- theory. It was only two days before she died tional models of goal pursuit have employed (far too young at the age of 57 in January intrapersonal explanations, examining indi- 2010) that she and I re-evaluated the various vidual-level processes such as goal-plan projects we had worked on together. We directed behavior, self-regulation, or goal- decided that the comprehensive review behavior disparities (e.g., Carver and Scheier, (Rusbult and Van Lange, 1996) and the Atlas 1998; Mischel, Chapter 1, this volume). The joint venture (Kelley et al., 2003) were success of goal pursuit has been argued to rest among the highlights of our long-standing on actor-level variables such as goals, traits, collaboration. We truly enjoyed talking about skills, and motivation. A notable approach in interdependence theory – its logic, the ways this tradition is regulatory focus and regula- in which it needs to be communicated and tory fit theories which suggest that people are 264 HANDBOOK OF THEORIES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY more likely to achieve goals when they in specific endeavors because they have posi- approach them in a manner that fits their tive explicit or implicit attitudes about the regulatory orientation – when they approach endeavor; people persevere in specific jobs promotion-ideal self goals of accomplishment or relationships because they feel satisfied in an eager manner and approach prevention- with them (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Greenwald et al., ought self goals of security in a vigilant 1998). The affect construct has been opera- manner (Higgins, 1997, 2000, 2011). tionally defined in terms of satisfaction level, An interdependence analysis shares some positive attitudes, liking, or attraction. of these assumptions, but extends them in An important challenge to this “feel good” interesting directions. Indeed, research using model of persistence (“So long as it feels diverse empirical techniques has revealed good, I’ll stick with it”) is to be found in situ- that in ongoing relationships, people enjoy ations wherein people persevere despite the greater movement toward their ideal selves existence of negative affect. Clearly, people not only when (a) they, themselves, possess sometimes persevere even though they hold strong promotion orientation (actor control), negative attitudes about behavior-relevant but also when (b) their partners possess attitude objects; people sometimes stick with strong promotion orientation (partner con- jobs or marriages despite feelings of dissatis- trol) (parallel negative associations are evi- faction. Persistence in an abusive relationship dent for prevention orientation; Righetti and is a particularly telling illustration: surely Rusbult, 2007). Indeed, partners with a strong people do not persist because they are promotion orientation support the actor’s delighted with such relationships. Some movement toward the ideal self because such authors have sought to account for such inex- partners more reliably elicit key components plicable persistence in terms of trait-based of the actor’s ideal-related eagerness. Some explanations – by reference to a victim’s low empirical support was also obtained for a self-esteem or learned helplessness (e.g., third form of fit: Above and beyond the Aguilar and Nightingale, 1994; Walker, 2000). above-noted actor and partner effects, there is Inexplicable persistence is thus assumed to be some evidence for a joint control effect, such an actor effect – people persevere because that (c) actor–partner commonality in regula- of something peculiar or unhealthy about tory orientation also influences each person’s themselves. movement toward the ideal self. Thus, the In contrast, an interdependence analysis fact that goal pursuit and attainment are pow- explains persistence more broadly, by refer- erfully and reliably influenced by interde- ence to the nature of an actor’s dependence. pendence processes suggests that there is To the extent that people are more dependent much to recommend in an interdependence upon their jobs or relationships, they are theoretic analysis. Interdependence matters. more likely to persist in them; the greater their dependence upon a distal goal, the more likely they are to persist in pursuit of the goal. Understanding persistence In relationships, dependence is strengthened by increasing satisfaction (are important needs Our second example illustrates the fact that gratified?), declining alternatives (could interdependence structure matters. Indeed, important needs be gratified elsewhere?), and structure can often help explain otherwise increasing investments (are important inexplicable phenomena, such as why atti- resources linked to the line of action?; see tudes do not always satisfactorily predict Rusbult et al., 2006). For example, Mary may behavior, or why people sometimes persist in persevere in an abusive relationship not situations that are not particularly satisfying. necessarily because she has low self-esteem Traditionally, persistence has been explained by or has acquired a pattern of learned helpless- reference to positive affect: people persevere ness, but rather, for reasons resting on structural INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY 265 dependence – because she is heavily invested of interdependence structure are essential to in remaining with her partner (e.g., she is mar- the basic question of under what circum- ried to John or has young children with him) stances generosity might be functional. Our or has poor alternatives (e.g., she has no driv- example concerns the best-known and most er’s license or possesses poor employment thoroughly investigated interdependence sit- opportunities; Rusbult and Martz, 1995). uation: the prisoner’s dilemma. Traditional Why should scientists favor an interdepend- analyses of situations with this structure have ence-based analysis of persistence? For one revealed that people enjoy superior outcomes thing, positive affect is not particularly reliable over the course of long-term interaction when – affect ebbs and flows even in the most satis- they behave on the basis of quid pro quo, or fying jobs and relationships, such that “feeling tit-for-tat (Axelrod, 1984; Pruitt, 1998): if an good” is not sufficient to sustain long-term interaction partner cooperates, you should persistence. In addition, actor-based explana- likewise cooperate; if a partner competes, tions would appear to be limited in light of you should compete. clear evidence for dependence-based causes of But how effective is tit-for-tat under condi- persistence (e.g., Mary may have invested too tions of suboptimal information availability much to quit). Moreover, interdependence- – for example, when people are aware of based explanations imply unique intervention how a partner’s behavior affects their own strategies. For example, if we seek to enhance outcomes, but are not aware of situational Mary’s freedom to persist versus cease involve- constraints that may have shaped the part- ment with John, an actor-based explanation ner’s actions? An interdependence analysis might favor psychotherapy geared toward rais- suggests that misunderstanding is often ing self-esteem or eliminating learned help- rooted in noise, or discrepancies between lessness. In contrast, an interdependence-based intended outcomes and actual outcomes for a explanation might inspire interventions partner that result from unintended errors designed to reduce (unilateral) dependence – (Kollock, 1993). For example, when John for example, improving the quality of Mary’s fails to receive a response to an email mes- economic alternatives via driving lessons or sage that he sent to Mary, it may be because job training. Also, in therapy, the focus may of a network breakdown in Mary’s workplace not only be on some fluctuation in satisfaction rather than to Mary’s disregard for his well- as such, but on the interpersonal causes that being. Noise is ubiquitous in everyday inter- might account for it in combination with action, in that the external world is not implications for the future of the relationships. error-free (e.g., networks sometimes crash) This interdependence-based analysis differs and people cannot lead error-free lives (e.g., from actor-based approaches, in that they Mary may accidentally delete John’s email emphasize the actor-and-partner interactions, note in her daily spam purge). and what holds them together in the future. Given that tit-for-tat entails reciprocating a For example, sometimes a change (a move) partner’s actual behavior – and not the part- that they initiate and accomplish together may ner’s intended behavior – responding in kind bring about closeness and trust through serves to reinforce and exacerbate “accidents.” enhanced interdependence. If the accident involves unintended good outcomes, the consequences may be positive. But if the accident entails unintended negative Understanding interpersonal outcomes, the consequences may be more generosity serious. For example, when Mary’s actions cause John to suffer poor outcomes, he may Our third example illustrates how adapta- respond with tit-for-tat, enacting a behavior tions might be influenced by interdepend- that will cause her poor outcomes. In turn – ence structure. That is, the precise properties and despite the fact that she did not initially 266 HANDBOOK OF THEORIES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY intend to harm John – Mary will react to to communicate trust and generosity to cope John’s negative behavior with tit-for-tat, with noise. causing him to suffer reciprocal poor outcomes. John and Mary will enter into a pattern of negative reciprocity: they can become Understanding intergroup relations trapped in an extended echo effect from which they cannot readily exit – an echo Most group phenomena are more complex – effect that tit-for-tat simply reinforces. often too complex for a comprehensive anal- Indeed, research reveals that negative noise ysis, which is probably why Thibaut and exerts detrimental effects when people follow Kelley often did not go beyond the triad. a strict reciprocity rule – partners form more Nevertheless, the logic provided by interde- negative impressions of one another and both pendence theory has also considerable poten- people suffer poorer outcomes (Van Lange tial in analyzing intergroup relations. et al., 2002). In contrast, a more generous, One important issue is the analysis of tit-for-tat-plus-one strategy (giving the part- intergroup relations. Sometimes groups face ner a bit more than one received from the high correspondence of outcomes, in that they partner) yields better outcomes – noise does both (or all) are pursuing the same goal and not negatively affect partners’ impressions of need each other in that pursuit. For example, one another or the outcomes each receives neighboring countries help each other in their over the course of interaction. Indeed, in the pursuit of controlling the use of hard drugs. presence of negative noise, a generous strat- Under such circumstances, groups may actu- egy yields better outcomes for both people ally develop fairly congenial relationships, than does tit-for-tat (for more extended evi- especially when they hold similar views about dence, see Klapwijk and Van Lange, 2009). the policy for doing so. Sometimes groups Such findings are reminiscent of the litera- face moderate correspondence of outcomes, ture regarding interaction in close relation- in the pursuit of some collective goal that is ships, where partners have been shown to quite costly to each group. For example, enjoy better outcomes in conflictual interac- countries want to control global warming, but tions when one or both partners accommo- they differ in their interest or views as to how date or forgive (e.g., Karremans and Van much to contribute. Under such circumstances, Lange, 2008; Rusbult et al., 1991, see also groups are faced with social dilemmas (in the Simpson, 2007). intergroup context, a conflict between ingroup The societal implications of this interde- interest and common, superordinate interests), pendence analysis are quite powerful, as they and they often exhibit considerably less suggest relatively concrete advice for people coopera tion than individuals in similar situa- entering new situations at school, in organizations (Insko and Schopler, 1998). The pri- tions, and other situations where people inter- mary reasons accounting for that effect are act in dyads and small groups. Under linked to the affordances of the interdepend- circumstances of imperfect information ence situation. For example, some degree of (which most situations are like) it helps to conflicting interest challenges trust more give people the benefit of the doubt, to (and enhances competitive motivation more) reserve judgment, and to add a little generos- in interactions between groups than between ity to our tendencies to interaction in a tit- individuals (for a meta-analytic review, see for-tat manner. The findings may also be Wildschut et al., 2003). Indeed, there is good especially relevant to the communication deal of evidence that an interdependence through email, Internet, and other electronic approach complements other approaches (such means, as these devices tend to be quite as social identity and self-categorization “noisy.” But perhaps the use of ‘smileys’ and approaches) in their predictions of intergroup other devices might just serve the very function relations. INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY 267

A strong concern with receiving better out- prove to be important to several issues in comes – and not getting worse outcomes – psychological science and beyond. than other groups is often conflicting with First, much research and theory in social good outcomes for the collective (De Dreu, psychology focuses on processes in an 2010). However, competition can sometimes attempt to understand “system-questions”, be a powerful means to cooperation. It takes such as how cognition and affect might influ- an interdependence approach to analyze the ence one another, the characterization as a patterns of interdependence between (a) the dual-process system, such as the reflective individual and their group, (b) the individual and impulsive system, hot and cool systems and the collective, and (c) the group and the and so on. We suggest that interdependence collective (see Bornstein, 1992; Halevy et al., theory provides a much-needed taxonomy of 2008; Wit and Kerr, 2002). For example, a situations that may help us understand when soldier (i.e., the individual) who fights force- (i.e., the situations in which) particular sys- fully often serves the group (i.e., his/her coun- tems might be activated. For example, forms try), but not necessarily the world (i.e., the of dependence call for trust, especially when entire collective). In such multilayered social there is some conflict of interest, and perhaps dilemmas, competition can be quite beneficial. limited time might set into motion a hot When there are two (or more) well-defined system where impulses and gut feelings drive groups who comprise the entire collective, behavior rather than systematic thought (see then sometimes competition between the Hertel et al., 2000). An excellent case in groups helps the entire collective. The compe- point is the analysis of relationships between tition should then deal with something desira- “the powerful” and “the powerless” in organ- ble. For example, in the Netherlands, there is a izations (Fiske, 1993). Because the latter are contest between cities aiming for the award strongly dependent on the former, it becomes “Cleanest City.” As another example, two important to engage in deep, systematical departments at a university may do better processing for reaching accurate conclusions (yielding greater research output and enhanced about the motives and attributes of the pow- teaching) if the university provides extra erful. In contrast, the powerful are less resources for only excellent departments. dependent on the powerless (and there are Indeed, organizations often use competition as often many of the latter), and the powerful a means to promote functioning. are often more shallow, heuristic in forming impressions of the powerless. Accordingly, they are more likely to fall prey to stereotypic Benefits of a taxonomic information (Fiske, 1993). approach: theoretical Second, a taxonomy of situations is essen- development in the future tial to dynamic approaches to social interaction and personality – people do not only A unique and exceptionally important contri- respond to situations, they may also actively bution of interdependence theory is the seek situations, avoid other situations, or shape advancement of a taxonomy of situations. situations in particular ways (e.g., Snyder Indeed, there are very few theories in social and Ickes, 1985). However, it is one thing to psychology that advance a taxonomy of situ- recognize that people are not slaves of situa- ations, even though social psychology as a tional forces – that people select and modify field is strongly concerned with situational situations in explicit or subtle ways; it is influence or influences from the social envi- quite another thing to predict the character of ronment (see also Reis, 2008). Also, we situation selection. Interdependence theory believe that “dimensions” of temporal struc- provides insight in this respect, in that the ture and information availability that have dimensions underlying situations should been added recently (Kelley et al., 2003) will reliably activate and afford specific sorts of 268 HANDBOOK OF THEORIES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

goals and motives. For example, sometimes to different partners in different social situa- people may avoid situations of dependence tions. For example, as outlined by Murray and – the decision to work on an independent Holmes (2009), if–then rules might reflect the task rather than a joint task. Situation selec- way in which trust is communicated and com- tion is often functional, in that it helps gratify mitment is built in ongoing relationships – specific needs or promotes long-term out- partner’s sacrifices might be directly translated comes (Mischel and Shoda, 1995; Snyder into trust. Thus, while evolutionary theory has and Ickes, 1985). But of course, situation focused on adaptations, such as coordination selection may also initiate or sustain self- and cooperation, interdependence theory pro- defeating processes. For example, shy chil- vides the conceptual tools for understanding dren may avoid interaction, which in turn the domains of the situations that afford the may limit their opportunities for overcoming expression of the skills and motives relevant shyness. The interdependence theory typol- to coordination and cooperation. This contri- ogy of situations can fruitfully be employed bution may be very useful for helping to to extend predictive specificity in classic understand why some cognitions and emo- psychological domains, including not only tions are closely connected to particular the problem of specificity in predicting how domains of interpersonal situations. traits relate to situation selection, but also More generally, we suggest that interde- specificity in predicting person-by-situation pendence theory will be exceedingly helpful interactions (Kelley et al., 2003). As such, an as a model for understanding when and why interdependence theoretic analysis can particular neurological networks, hormonal advance precise predictions about the inextri- responses, or complementary responses cable link between persons and situations. might be activated. These biology-based Third, a taxonomic approach is essential to responses will often be adaptive in light of basic evolutionary issues. Because evolution- the qualities of both persons and the situation ary theory focuses on the question of how – that is, the SABI model discussed earlier. common human characteristics interact with For example, on the observer’s side, responses the social environment, it is essential to have that are linked to anger are probably best the theoretical tools to analyze social situa- understood when carefully analyzing another tions in terms of their key features (e.g., person’s violation of a norm in situations Schaller et al., 2006; Tooby and Cosmides, where people are likely to have somewhat 2005; Van Vugt, 2006). Interdependence conflicting preferences (e.g., Singer et al., theory shares some assumptions with evolu- 2006). It is especially striking that people tionary approaches. One such a shared with prosocial orientations tend to react very assumption is that people, as individuals, automatically to a violation of equality (e.g., partners, and as members of a group adapt to activation in the amygdala, Haruno and Frith, social situations (Kelley and Thibaut, 1978). 2009). Such findings provide neuroscientific At the same time, while evolutionary theory evidence in support of the integrative model tends to focus on common human character- of social value orientation, which states that istics, interdependence theory can make a prosocial orientation represents not only the contribution by specifying key properties of tendency to enhance joint outcomes but also the social situation to which people adapt – the tendency to enhance equality in outcomes such as the dependence, conflicting interest, (Van Lange, 1999). On the actor’s side, feel- information availability, and so on. According ings of guilt might be evoked in such situa- to interdependence theory, it is plausible that tions when we ourselves violate such norms people develop consistent contingencies, (e.g., Pinter et al., 2007). Further, the topic of which may take the form of “if … then” rules self-regulation (and affect-regulation and (Mischel and Shoda, 1999; see Murray and self-control) in the interpersonal domain is Holmes, 2009; Reis, 2008), in their adaptations of course strongly linked to inhibiting the INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY 269 temptation of self-interest and exercising situations that people might face (in terms of self-restraint. valence, frequency, and intensity), and how these features covary with several factors, such as differences in personality, social class, gender, and age. For example, the frequency CONCLUSION with which one faces situations of unilateral dependence on another person might increase Social psychology is the field of psychology from adulthood to old age. A taxonomy of that is defined most strongly in terms of situations also helps us understand the situa- influences of the situation – specifically, the tions that relationship partners and members influence of the social environment on human of small groups are likely to face (or not) – behavior. Somewhat surprisingly, not much for example, of how they face situation of theorizing in social psychology is centered conflicting interests. As a variation of Lewin’s on the analysis of the social environment. By (1952: 169) well-known dictum, one might providing a taxonomy of interpersonal situa- suggest that “there is nothing as practical as tions, interdependence theory has served that a good taxonomy.” role. The addition of new dimensions (infor- Thus, after more than 50 years since mation availability and temporal structure) to Thibaut and Kelley (1959), interdependence the well-established ones (dependence, mutu- theory comes full circle. It really has helped ality of dependence, basis of dependence, the field to get a grip on situations that inter- covariation of interest) should be essential acting partners face or might face (the given toward understanding the nature and mechan- interdependence situation), what they make ics of (implicit) theories that people bring to of it (the transformation process) in terms of bear on situations with limited information cognition and emotion, and how the structure (e.g., the hot and cold systems, the degree of and the processes shape human behavior and processing, the needs and motives involved, social interactions. This also helps to explain as well as the implicit theories by which why interdependence theory has been well people make incomplete information com- appreciated for over five decades, and why plete) as well as the motives and skills that interdependence has been used to understand are relevant to time in a general sense (e.g., so many issues – group dynamics, power and investment, delay of gratification, considera- dependence, social comparison, conflict and tion for future consequences). A taxonomy of cooperation, attribution and self-presentation, interpersonal situation is essential for theo- trust and distrust, emotions, love and commit- retical progress. ment, coordination and communication, risk From a theoretical perspective, it is crucial and self-regulation, performance and motiva- that we need to know better what a situation tion, social development, and neuroscientific “objectively” represents, because only then it models of social interaction. We are looking is possible to understand what people subjec- forward to the theoretical contributions and tively make of a situation (construction). applications of interdependence theory over Conceptually, the constructs of given situa- the next 50 years. tion (objective situation), transformation (meaning analysis), and effective situation (subjective situation) represent the heart of the interdependence theory. It complements NOTES much other theorizing in social psychology which tends to focus on the processes rele- 1 Sadly, Caryl Rusbult (1952–2010) passed away vant to transformation and effective situation on January 27, 2010, some weeks before this chapter was completed. Some of her important contribu- preferences. Another reason why a taxonomy tions to interdependence theory throughout her is important is that it helps us understand the career are described in this chapter. We thank John 270 HANDBOOK OF THEORIES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Holmes, Norbert Kerr and Harry Reis for their helpful De Dreu, C.K.W. (2010) Social conflict: the emergence comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. and consequences of struggle and negotiation. In S.T. Fiske, D.T Gilbert, and G. Lindzey (eds). Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, 5th Edition, pp. 983–1023. New York: Wiley. REFERENCES Deutsch, M. (1975) Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of Agnew, C.R., Van Lange, P.A.M., Rusbult, C.E. and distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, Langston, C.A. (1998) Cognitive interdependence: 137–149. Commitment and the mental representation of close Finkel, E.J., Campbell, W.K., Brunnel, A.B., Dalton, relationships. Journal of Personality and Social A.N., Scarbeck, S.J. and Chartrand, T.L. (2006) High- Psychology, 74, 939–954. maintenance interaction: Inefficient social coordina- Aguilar, R.J. and Nightingale, N.N. (1994) The impact tion impairs self-reguation. Journal of Personality of specific battering experiences on the self-esteem and Social Psychology, 91, 456–475. of abused women. Journal of Family Violence, 9, Finkel, E.J., Rusbult, C.E., Kumashiro, M. and Hannon, 35–45. P.A. (2002) Dealing with betrayal in close relation- Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. ships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, Processes, 50, 179–211. 956–974. Andersen, S.M. and Chen, S. (2002) The relational self: Fiske, A.P. (1992) The four elementary forms of social- An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psycho- ity: Framework for a unified theory of social rela- logical Review, 109, 619–645. tions. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723. Attridge, M., Berscheid, E. and Simpson, J.A. (1995) Fiske, S.T. (1993) Controlling other people: The impact Predicting relationship stability from both partners of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, versus one. Journal of Personality and Social 48, 621–628.Fiske, S.T. (2004). Social Beings: A Psychology, 69, 254–268. Core Motives Approach to Social Psychology. New Axelrod, R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Wiley. York: Basic Books. Fraley, R.C. and Shaver, P.R. (2000) Adult romantic Baron, R.S. and Kerr, N.L. (2003) Group Process, Group attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging Decision, Group Action, 2nd Edition. Buckingham: controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of Open University Press. General Psychology, 4, 132–154. Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1995) The need to Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E. and Schwartz, J.L.K. belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit fundamental human motivation. Psychological cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. Bornstein, G. (1992) The free rider problem in inter- Halevy, N., Bornstein, G. and Sagiv, L. (2008) ‘Ingroup group conflicts over step-level and continuous public love’ and ‘Outgroup hate’ as motives for individual goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, participation in intergroup conflict: A new game 62, 597–606. paradigm. Psychological Science, 19, 405–411. Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (1998) On the Self- Haruno, M. and Frith, C.D. (2009) Activity in the regulation of Behavior. New York: Cambridge. amygdala elicited by unfair divisions predicts Clark, M.S., Dubash, P. and Mills, J. (1998) Interest in social value orientation. Nature Neuroscience, 13, another’s consideration of one’s needs in communal 160–161. and exchange relationships. Journal of Experimental Hertel, G., Neuhof, J., Theuer, T. and Kerr, N. (2000) Social Psychology, 34, 246–264. Mood effects on cooperation in small groups: Does Collins, N.L. and Feeney, B.C. (2004) Working models positive mood simply lead to more cooperation? of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Cognition and Emotion, 14, 441–472. Evidence from experimental and observational Higgins, E.T. (1997) Beyond pleasure and pain. studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. 87, 363–383. Higgins, E.T. (2000) Making a good decision: Value Collins, N.L. and Miller, L.C. (1994) Self-disclosure and from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230. liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Higgins, E.T. (2011) Regulatory focus theory. In P.A M. 116, 457–475. Van Lange, A.W. Kruglanksi and E.T. Higgins (eds), INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY 271

Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Vol. 1 Klapwijk, A. and Van Lange, P.A.M. (2009) Promoting (pp. ???–???). London: Sage cooperation and trust in ‘noisy’ situations: The Holmes, J.G. (2002) Social relationships: The nature power of generosity. Journal of Personality and and function of relational schemas. European Journal Social Psychology, 96, 83–103. of Social Psychology, 30, 447–495. Kollock, P. (1993) ‘An eye for an eye leaves everyone Holmes, J.G. (2004) The benefits of abstract functional blind’: Cooperation and accounting systems. analysis in theory construction: The case of interde- American Sociological Review, 58, 768–786. pendence theory. Personality and Social Psychology Lewin, K. (1952) Field Theory in Social Sciences: Review, 8, 146–155. Selected Theoretical Papers. New York: Harper. Holmes, J.G. and Murray, S.L. (1996) Conflict in close Luce, R.D. and Raiffa, H. (1957) Games and Decisions: relationships. In E.T. Higgins and A. Kruglanski (eds), Introduction and Critical Survey. London: Wiley. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, pp. Messick, D.M. and McClintock, C.G. (1968) Motivational 622–654. New York: Guilford Press. bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Holmes, J.G. and Rempel, J.K. (1989) Trust in close Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1–25. relationships. In C. Hendrick (ed.), Review of Miller, R.S. (1997) Inattentive and contented: Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 187–220. Relationship commitment and attention to alterna- London: Sage. tives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Homans, G.C. (1950) The Human Group. New York: 73, 758–766. Harcourt, Brace & World. Mischel, W. and Shoda, Y. (1995) A cognitive-affective Insko, C.A. and Schopler, J. (1998) Differential distrust system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situ- of groups and individuals. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler ations, dispositions, and invariance in personality and C.A. Insko (eds), Intergroup Cognition and structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268. Intergroup Behavior: Toward a Closer Union, pp. Murray, S.L. and Holmes, J.G. (2009) The architecture 75–107. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. of interdependent minds: A Motivation-management Jones, E.J. (1998) Major developments in five decades theory of mutual responsiveness. Psychological of social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske and G. Review, 116, 908–928. Lindzey (eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G. and Collins, N.L. (2006) 2, 4th Edition, pp. 3–57. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in Karremans, J.C. and Van Lange, P.A.M. (2008) relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666. Forgiveness in personal relationships: Its malleability Nisbett, R.E. and Cohen, D. (1996) Culture of Honor: and powerful consequences. European Review of The Psychology of Violence in the South. Boulder, Social Psychology, 19, 202–241. CO: Westview. Kelley, H.H. (1983) The situational origins of human Pinter, B., Insko, C.A., Wildschut, T., Kirchner, J.L., tendencies: A further reason for the formal analysis Montoya, R.M. and Wolf, S.T. (2007) Reduction of of structures. Personality and Social Psychology the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity: The role Bulletin, 9, 8–30. of leader accountability and proneness to guilt. Kelley, H.H. (1984) The theoretical description of inter- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, dependence by means of transition lists. Journal of 250–265. Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 956–982. Pruitt, D. (1998) Social conflict. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske Kelley, H.H., Holmes, J.G., Kerr, N.L., Reis, H.T., and G. Lindzey (eds), Handbook of Social Rusbult, C.E. and Van Lange, P.A.M. (2003) An Psychology, Vol. 2, 4th Edition, pp. 470–503. Atlas of Interpersonal Situations. New York: Boston: McGraw-Hill. Cambridge. Reis, H.T. (2008) Reinvigorating the concept of situa- Kelley, H.H. and Stahelski, A.J. (1970) Social interaction tion in social psychology. Personality and Social basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about Psychology Review, 12, 311–329. others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Reis, H.T., Collins, W.A. and Berscheid, E. (2000) The 16, 66–91. relationship context of human behavior and devel- Kelley, H.H. and Thibaut, J.W. (1978) Interpersonal opment. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844–872. Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York: Righetti, F. and Rusbult, C.E. (2007) Interpersonal regu- Wiley. latory fit: Consequences for goal pursuit. Unpub- Kerr, N.L. and Tindale, R.S. (2004) Small group decision lished manuscript, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. making and performance. Annual Review of Rusbult, C.E. (1983) A longitudinal test of the invest- Psychology, 55, 623–656. ment model: The development (and deterioration) of 272 HANDBOOK OF THEORIES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involve- Turiel, E. (1983) The Development of Social Knowledge: ments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Morality and Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge 45, 101–117. University Press. Rusbult, C.E., Coolsen, M.K., Kirchner, J.L. and Van Lange, P.A.M. (1999) The pursuit of joint out- Clarke, J. (2006) Commitment. In A. Vangelisti and comes and equality in outcomes: An integrative D. Perlman (eds), Handbook of Personal Relation- model of social value orientation. Journal of ships, pp. 615–635. New York: Cambridge University Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337–349. Press. Van Lange, P.A.M., De Cremer, D., Van Dijk, E. and Rusbult, C.E. and Martz, J.M. (1995) Remaining in Van Vugt, M. (2007) Self-interest and beyond: Basic an abusive relationship: An investment model principles of social interaction. In A.W. Kruglanski analysis of nonvoluntary commitment. Personality and E.T. Higgins (eds), Social Psychology: Handbook and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558–571. of Basic Principles (pp. 540–561). New York: Rusbult, C.E. and Van Lange, P.A.M. (1996) Interdepen- Guilford Press. dence processes. In E.T. Higgins and A. Kruglanski Van Lange, P.A.M. and Joireman, J.A. (2008) How can (eds), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic we promote behaviour that serves all of us in the Principles, pp. 564–596. New York: Guilford Press. future. Social Issue and Policy Review, 2, 127–157. Rusbult, C.E. and Van Lange, P.A.M. (2003) Van Lange, P.A.M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E.M.N. and Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Joireman, J.A. (1997) Development of prosocial, Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375. individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory Rusbult, C.E., Verette, J., Whitney, G.A., Slovik, L.F. and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and and Lipkus, I. (1991) Accommodation processes in Social Psychology, 73, 733–746. close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical Van Lange, P.A.M., Ouwerkerk, J.W. and Tazelaar, evidence. Journal of Personality and Social M.J.A. (2002) How to overcome the detrimental Psychology, 60, 53–78. effects of noise in social interaction: The benefits of Schaller, M., Kenrick, D. and Simpson. J. (eds) (2006) generosity. Journal of Personality and Social Evolution and Social Psychology. New York: Psychology, 82, 768–780. Psychology Press. Van Lange, P.A.M., Rusbult, C.E., Drigotas, S.M., Arriaga, Simpson, J.A. (2007) Psychological foundations of X.B., Witcher, B.S. and Cox, C.L. (1997 Willingness trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science, to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Persona- 16, 264–268. lity and Social Psychology, 72, 1373–1395. Singer, T., Seymour B., O’Doherty J., Klaas E.S., Dolan Van Vugt, M. (2006) Evolutionary origins of leadership J.D. and Frith, C. (2006) Empathic neural responses and followership. Personality and Social Psychology are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Review, 10, 354–372. Nature, 439, 466–469. Vuolevi, J.H.K. and Van Lange, P.A.M. (2010) Beyond Snyder, M. and Ickes, W. (1985) Personality and social the information given: The power of the belief in behavior. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds), The self-interest. European Journal of Social Psychology, Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 883–947. New 40, 26–34. York: Random House. Walker, L. (2000) The Battered Woman Syndrome, 2nd Surra, C.A. and Longstreth, M. (1990) Similarity of Edition. New York: Springer. outcomes, interdependence, and conflict in dating Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J.L., Insko, C.A. and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Schopler, J. (2003) Beyond the group mind: Psychology, 59, 501–516. A quantitative review of the interindividual-inter- Thibaut, J.W. and Kelley, H.H. (1959) The Social Psy- group discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin, chology of Groups. New York: Wiley. 129, 698–722. Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (2005) Conceptual founda- Wit, A.P. and Kerr, N.L. (2002) ‘Me vs. just us vs. tions of evolutionary psychology. In D.M. Buss us all’ Categorization and cooperation in nested (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social pp. 5–67. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Psychology, 83, 616–637.