Personality and
Social Psychology
APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology—three volumes Sheldon Zedeck, Editor-in-Chief
APA Handbook of Ethics in Psychology—two volumes Samuel J. Knapp, Editor-in-Chief
APA Educational Psychology Handbook—three volumes
Karen R. Harris, Steve Graham, and Tim Urdan, Editors-in-Chief APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology—three volumes
Harris Cooper, Editor-in-Chief
APA Addiction Syndrome Handbook—two volumes Howard J. Shaffer, Editor-in-Chief
APA Handbook of Counseling Psychology—two volumes Nadya A. Fouad, Editor-in-Chief
APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis—two volumes Gregory J. Madden, Editor-in-Chief
APA Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality—two volumes Kenneth I. Pargament, Editor-in-Chief
APA Handbook of Testing and Assessment in Psychology—three volumes Kurt F. Geisinger, Editor-in-Chief
APA Handbook of Multicultural Psychology—two volumes Frederick T. L. Leong, Editor-in-Chief
APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology—two volumes Deborah L. Tolman and Lisa M. Diamond, Editors-in-Chief APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology—four volumes
Mario Mikulincer and Phillip R. Shaver, Editors-in-Chief
APA Handbook of
Personality and Social Psychology
volume 3
Interpersonal Relations
Mario Mikulincer and Phillip R. Shaver,
Editors-in-Chief Jeffry A. Simpson and John F. Dovidio, Associate EditorsCopyright © 2015 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, including, but not limited to, the process of scanning and digitization, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Published by
American Psychological Association 750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242 www.apa.org
To order
APA Order Department P.O. Box 92984
Washington, DC 20090-2984
Tel: (800) 374-2721; Direct: (202) 336-5510 Fax: (202) 336-5502; TDD/TTY: (202) 336-6123 Online: www.apa.org/pubs/books/
E-mail: order@apa.org
In the U.K., Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, copies may be ordered from American Psychological Association
3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden, London WC2E 8LU England
AmericAn PsychologicAl AssociAtion stAff
Gary R. VandenBos, Publisher
Julia Frank-McNeil, Senior Director, APA Books Theodore J. Baroody, Director, Reference, APA Books Patricia Mathis, Reference Editorial Manager, APA Books
Typeset in Berkeley by Cenveo Publisher Services, Columbia, MD Printer: Edwards Brothers, Inc., Lillington, NC
Cover Designer: Naylor Design, Washington, DC Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
APA handbook of personality and social psychology / Mario Mikulincer and Phillip R. Shaver, Editors-in-Chief. — First edition.
volumes; cm. — (APA handbooks in psychology) Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4338-1699-4 — ISBN 1-4338-1699-7
1. Personality. 2. Social psychology. I. Mikulincer, Mario. II. Shaver, Phillip R.
III. American Psychological Association.
BF698.A647 2014 155.2—dc23
2013039784 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record is available from the British Library.
Printed in the United States of America First Edition
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14344-000
—Jeffry A. Simpson
This book is dedicated to my students, who have helped and inspired me throughout my career and who have taught me (and continue to teach me) so much.
—John F. Dovidio
Volume 3: Interpersonal Relations
Editorial Board . . . ix
Contributors. . . xi
Volume 3 Introduction. . . xxi
Part I. Major Theoretical Approaches. . . 1
Chapter 1. Evolution and Close Relationships. . . 3
Vladas Griskevicius, Martie G. Haselton, and Joshua M. Ackerman Chapter 2. Attachment Processes in Adult Romantic Relationships . . . 33
Paula R. Pietromonaco and Lindsey A. Beck Chapter 3. Interdependence Theory . . . 65
Paul A. M. Van Lange and Daniel Balliet Chapter 4. Relationships and the Self: Egosystem and Ecosystem. . . 93
Jennifer Crocker and Amy Canevello Part II. Biological Approaches and Health . . . 117
Chapter 5. Relationship Neuroscience. . . 119
Lane Beckes and James A. Coan Chapter 6. Relationships and Health . . . 151
Timothy J. Loving and David A. Sbarra Part III. Attraction and Relationship Development . . . 177
Chapter 7. Interpersonal Attraction: In Search of a Theoretical Rosetta Stone . . . 179
Eli J. Finkel and Paul W. Eastwick Chapter 8. Relationship Initiation and Development . . . 211
Susan Sprecher, Diane Felmlee, Sandra Metts, and William Cupach Chapter 9. Ideal Mate Standards and Romantic Relationships. . . 247
Lorne Campbell, Jennifer C. Pink, and Sarah C. E. Stanton
Part IV. Motivation, Emotion, and Intersubjectivity . . . 271 Chapter 10. Goal Pursuit in Relationships. . . 273
Gráinne M. Fitzsimons and Michelle R. vanDellen
Chapter 11. Emotions in Relationships . . . 297 Julie Fitness
Chapter 12. The Matter of Other Minds: Empathic Accuracy and
the Factors That Influence It . . . 319 Sara D. Hodges, Karyn L. Lewis, and William Ickes
Part V. Support, Communication, and Power . . . 349 Chapter 13. Social Support. . . 351
Marci E. J. Gleason and Masumi Iida
Chapter 14. Communication in Personal Relationships . . . 371 Anita L. Vangelisti
Chapter 15. Power and Social Influence in Relationships . . . 393 Jeffry A. Simpson, Allison K. Farrell, M. Minda Oriña, and
Alexander J. Rothman
Chapter 16. Power: Past Findings, Present Considerations, and Future Directions . . . 421 Adam D. Galinsky, Derek D. Rucker, and Joe C. Magee
Part VI. Friendship, Love, and Sexuality . . . 461 Chapter 17. Friendship . . . 463
Daniel Perlman, Nan L. Stevens, and Rodrigo J. Carcedo
Chapter 18. Love: Conceptualization and Experience. . . 495 Beverley Fehr
Chapter 19. Sexuality and Same-Sex Sexuality in Relationships . . . 523 Lisa M. Diamond
Part VII. Maintenance, Strife, and Dissolution. . . 555 Chapter 20. Why Marriages Change Over Time . . . 557
Benjamin R. Karney
Chapter 21. Relationship Maintenance and Dissolution . . . 581 Christopher R. Agnew and Laura E. VanderDrift
Chapter 22. Established and Emerging Perspectives on Violence in
Intimate Relationships . . . 605 Kim Bartholomew, Rebecca J. Cobb, and Donald G. Dutton
Index . . . 631
EDIToRS-In-CHIEF
Mario Mikulincer, PhD, Professor, New School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, Israel
Phillip R. Shaver, PhD, Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis
ASSoCIATE EDIToRS Volume 1
Eugene Borgida, PhD, Morse-Alumni Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota–Twin Cities, Minneapolis
John A. Bargh, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Volume 2
John F. Dovidio, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Jeffry A. Simpson, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota–Twin Cities, Minneapolis
Volume 3
Jeffry A. Simpson, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota–Twin Cities, Minneapolis
John F. Dovidio, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Volume 4
M. Lynne Cooper, PhD, Curators’ Professor, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia
Randy J. Larsen, PhD, William R. Stuckenberg Professor, Department of Psychology, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO
Hillie Aaldering, MS, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Dominic Abrams, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, England Joshua M. Ackerman, PhD, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge
Christopher R. Agnew, PhD, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
John Antonakis, PhD, Department of Organizational Behavior, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Jens B. Asendorpf, PhD, Department of Psychology, Humboldt University Berlin, Germany
Adam A. Augustine, PhD, Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Özlem Ayduk, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley Renée Baillargeon, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign
Benjamin Baird, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara
Daniel Balliet, PhD, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Manuela Barreto, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Exeter, England; and Lisbon University Institute (CIS/ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal
Kim Bartholomew, PhD, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Lucy A. Bates, PhD, Centre for Social Learning and Cognitive Evolution, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland
Roy F. Baumeister, PhD, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee Lindsey A. Beck, PhD, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders,
Emerson College, Boston, MA
Lane Beckes, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Verónica Benet-Martínez, PhD, ICREA and Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain Lin Bian, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
Rezarta Bilali, PhD, Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New York Irene V. Blair, PhD, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of
Colorado, Boulder
Eugene Borgida, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Pablo Briñol, PhD, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain David M. Buss, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin
Richard W. Byrne, PhD, Centre for Social Learning and Cognitive Evolution, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland
Lorne Campbell, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
W. Keith Campbell, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens Amy Canevello, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina,
Charlotte
Rodrigo J. Carcedo, PhD, Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Salamanca, Spain
Charles S. Carver, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, PhD, Department of Psychology, University College London, England; and Department of Psychology, New York University, New York Sapna Cheryan, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle James A. Coan, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Rebecca J. Cobb, PhD, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,
British Columbia, Canada
Dov Cohen, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign
Jennifer Crocker, PhD, Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus Alyssa Croft, MA, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada
William Cupach, PhD, School of Communication, Illinois State University, Normal nilanjana Dasgupta, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst
Carsten K. W. de Dreu, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Roland Deutsch, PhD, Department of Psychology, Technische Universitaet Dresden, Germany
Colin G. DeYoung, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Lisa M. Diamond, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Ed Diener, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign M. Brent Donnellan, PhD, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East
Lansing
Bruce P. Doré, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY
David Dunning, PhD, Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Donald G. Dutton, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Alice H. Eagly, PhD, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Paul W. Eastwick, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas, Austin
nicholas R. Eaton, PhD, Department of Psychology, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Jiska Eelen, PhD, Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Victoria M. Esses, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Allison K. Farrell, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Beverley Fehr, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Diane Felmlee, PhD, Department of Sociology, Pennyslvania State University, University Park
Eli J. Finkel, PhD, Departments of Psychology and Management and Organizations (MORS), Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Susan T. Fiske, PhD, Department of Psychology and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
Julie Fitness, PhD, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Gráinne M. Fitzsimons, PhD, Department of Psychology and Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC
William Fleeson, PhD, Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston- Salem, NC
Rob Foels, PhD, Department of Psychology, Richard Stockton College, Galloway, NJ Marc A. Fournier, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Scarborough,
Ontario, Canada
R. Chris Fraley, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign
David C. Funder, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside Adam D. Galinsky, PhD, Management Department, Columbia University,
New York, NY
Patrick Gallagher, PhD, Altisource, Winston-Salem, NC
Danielle Gaucher, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Brittany Gentile, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens Erik J. Girvan, JD, PhD, School of Law, University of Oregon, Eugene
Jack Glaser, PhD, Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley
Marci E. J. Gleason, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas, Austin
Samuel D. Gosling, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin Jeff Greenberg, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson Vladas Griskevicius, PhD, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis
Ana Guinote, PhD, Department of Cognitive, Perceptual, and Brain Sciences, University College, London, England
Leila Guller, MS, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington Samer Halabi, PhD, School of Behavioral Sciences, Tel-Aviv Jaffa Academic College,
Jaffa, Israel
William Hall, MA, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
David L. Hamilton, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara
Leah Hamilton, PhD, Department of Management, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Martie G. Haselton, PhD, Department of Communication Studies, University of California, Los Angeles
nick Haslam, PhD, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
S. Alexander Haslam, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, St. Lucia, Australia
Zijing He, PhD, Department of Psychology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
Todd F. Heatherton, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Vicki S. Helgeson, PhD, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Sarah D. Herrmann, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe
E. Tory Higgins, PhD, Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY Patrick L. Hill, PhD, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
Aline Hitti, PhD, Department of Psychology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA Sara D. Hodges, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene Robert Hogan, PhD, Hogan Assessment Systems, Fernandina Beach, FL
Ryan Y. Hong, PhD, Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore E. J. Horberg, PhD, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA Rick H. Hoyle, PhD, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University,
Durham, NC
William Ickes, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Arlington Masumi Iida, PhD, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University,
Tempe
Priya A. Iyer-Eimerbrink, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis
Lauri A. Jensen-Campbell, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Arlington
Kyong-sun Jin, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
John T. Jost, PhD, Department of Psychology, New York University, New York
Benjamin R. Karney, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles Liam C. Kavanagh, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, University of
California, San Diego
Aaron C. Kay, PhD, Fuqua School of Business and Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC
Dacher Keltner, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley Melanie Killen, PhD, Department of Human Development and Quantitative
Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park
Laura A. King, PhD, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia
Jennifer M. Knack, PhD, Department of Psychology, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY Robert F. Krueger, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis
Virginia S. Y. Kwan, PhD, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe Mark J. Landau, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence natalia Lapshina, MA, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario, Canada
Randy J. Larsen, PhD, Department of Psychology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
Howard Lavine, PhD, Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Colin Wayne Leach, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs Mark R. Leary, PhD, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University,
Durham, NC
Jenna Lee-Dussud, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle John M. Levine, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA
Karyn L. Lewis, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene
Milton Lodge, PhD, Department of Political Science, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Timothy J. Loving, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas, Austin
Richard E. Lucas, PhD, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing
Diane M. Mackie, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara
Joe C. Magee, PhD, Department of Management and Organizations, New York University, New York
Erika Manczak, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
E. J. Masicampo, PhD, Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston- Salem, NC
Dan P. McAdams, PhD, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Stelian Medianu, MS, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley
Sandra Metts, PhD, School of Communication, Illinois State University, Normal Sarah Molouki, MA, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL Joann M. Montepare, PhD, The RoseMary B. Fuss Center for Research on Aging and
Intergenerational Studies, Lasell College, Newton, MA
D. S. Moskowitz, PhD, Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Michael D. Mrazek, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara
Kelly Lynn Mulvey, PhD, Department of Educational Studies, University of South Carolina, Columbia
Arie nadler, PhD, School of Psychological Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Israel
Steven L. neuberg, PhD, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe Paula niedenthal, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison Bernard A. nijstad, PhD, Department of Human Resource Management and
Organizational Behaviour, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Kevin n. ochsner, PhD, Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY M. Minda oriña, PhD, Department of Psychology, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN Elizabeth Page-Gould, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Ontario,
Canada
Stefano Pagliaro, PhD, Department of Psychology, Seconda Università di Napoli, Italy Sampo V. Paunonen, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario, Canada
Lars Penke, PhD, Georg Elias Müller Institute of Psychology, Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany
Elise J. Percy, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Daniel Perlman, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Richard E. Petty, PhD, Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus Paula R. Pietromonaco, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst
Jennifer C. Pink, Master’s Candidate, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Michael J. Platow, PhD, Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Victoria C. Plaut, PhD, School of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Felicia Pratto, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs Emily Pronin, PhD, Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ Tom Pyszczynski, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Colorado
Springs
Ted Reichborn-Kjennerud, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, University of Oslo, Norway
Stephen D. Reicher, PhD, School of Psychology, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland Jennifer A. Richeson, PhD, Department of Psychology and Institute for Policy Research,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Brent W. Roberts, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign
Richard W. Robins, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis Michael D. Robinson, PhD, Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University,
Fargo
Alexander J. Rothman, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Derek D. Rucker, PhD, Department of Marketing, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Gerard Saucier, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene
Özu˘m Saygi, MS, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands David A. Sbarra, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson Mark Schaller, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada
Toni Schmader, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Abigail A. Scholer, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Jonathan W. Schooler, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara
Julia Schüler, PhD, Institute of Sport Science, University of Bern, Switzerland norbert Schwarz, PhD, Department of Psychology and Marshall School of Business,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Rose M. Scott, PhD, School of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, University of California, Merced
Suzanne C. Segerstrom, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington
Peipei Setoh, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Kennon M. Sheldon, PhD, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia
J. nicole Shelton, PhD, Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ Steven J. Sherman, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana
University, Bloomington
Rebecca L. Shiner, PhD, Department of Psychology, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY Yuichi Shoda, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle Jeffry A. Simpson, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis
Stephanie Sloane, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Eliot R. Smith, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington
Gregory T. Smith, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington Timothy W. Smith, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Brittany C. Solomon, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, Washington
University, St. Louis, MO
Susan C. South, PhD, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Susan Sprecher, PhD, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Illinois State University, Normal
Sanjay Srivastava, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene Sarah C. E. Stanton, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Chadly Stern, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, New York University, New York
Flannery G. Stevens, PhD, Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City nan L. Stevens, PhD, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, the
Netherlands
Fritz Strack, PhD, Department of Psychology, Universitaet Würzburg, Germany Daniel Sullivan, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson Courtney Bearns Tablante, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, Princeton
University, Princeton, NJ
Shelley E. Taylor, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles
R. Scott Tindale, PhD, Department of Psychology, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
Kaitlin Toner, PhD, Institute for Energy and Environment, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
Linda R. Tropp, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Timothy J. Trull, PhD, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri,
Columbia
Jean M. Twenge, PhD, Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA
Tom R. Tyler, PhD, Law School and Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Michelle R. vanDellen, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens Laura E. VanderDrift, PhD, Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY Anita L. Vangelisti, PhD, Department of Communication Studies, University of Texas,
Austin
Paul A. M. Van Lange, PhD, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Martijn van Zomeren, PhD, Department of Social Psychology, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Simine Vazire, PhD, Department of Psychology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO Kathleen D. Vohs, PhD, Marketing Department, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Dylan D. Wagner, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth
College, Hanover, NH
nate Way, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara
Donna D. Whitsett, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle Thomas A. Widiger, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky,
Lexington
Joseph Wielgosz, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Benjamin M. Wilkowski, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie
Paula G. Williams, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City nicole L. Wilson, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle Piotr Winkielman, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego Di Wu, PhD, Department of Psychology, Cedarville University, Cedarville, OH
Tal Yarkoni, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin Vivian Zayas, PhD, Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Leslie A. Zebrowitz, PhD, Department of Psychology, Brandeis University,
Waltham, MA
noam Zerubavel, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY
and Future Directions in the Science of Interpersonal Relations
In a now classic definition of our field, Gordon Allport (1954) proposed that “social psychol- ogy is the scientific attempt to explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individu- als are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of other human beings” (p. 5).
At its core, Allport’s definition focuses on how social interaction (which for present purposes also encompasses the imagined or implied presence of others) influences the way in which people think, feel, and behave in the context of relationships in their daily lives. Relation- ships, therefore, reside at the intellectual heart of our field, not only because they serve as the main context in which most important forms of social influence occur in daily life but also because their nature and quality shape how individuals think, feel, and act as they navi- gate through their social worlds. The 22 excellent chapters in this volume reveal and eluci- date the critical role that different types of relationships—especially close and intimate ones—play in people’s daily lives.
When planning this volume, we (the editors) wanted to showcase some of the leading theoretical and empirical work that has been conducted in the rapidly expanding field of interpersonal relationships. We also wanted to identify a few of the most significant and potentially promising new directions for future research in various areas. After surveying the field, we identified seven broad areas in which especially good, interesting, and promising relationship-relevant research was occurring. These areas are organized around seven major themes: (a) major theoretical approaches, (b) biological–health approaches, (c) attraction–
relationship development, (d) motivation–emotion, (e) communication–support–power, (f) friendship and love–sexuality, and (g) relationship maintenance–dissolution. The authors invited to write chapters for the volume were chosen in part to represent the diverse array of disciplines within relationship science, including clinical psychology, health psychology, social and personality psychology, family social science, communication studies, sociology, neuroscience, human sexuality, and marketing. We wanted to assemble authors from a broad array of disciplines so that wider swaths of the theoretical and empirical literature in relationship science would be covered.
The authors were given a set of instructions before writing their chapters. We
requested that each chapter be structured to accomplish three goals: (a) highlighting the most important principles, ideas, and findings relevant to the topic of the chapter; (b) identifying the most important and novel emerging themes or issues relevant to the
topic; and (c) proposing new, promising directions for future research. We felt that addressing this third goal was particularly important because we want this book to serve as a roadmap for future theory and research on the topics covered in each chapter. Espe- cially for young scholars or for those approaching a specific topic or area for the first time, it can be difficult to know the best directions in which the next generation of the- ory and research should head. We hope the roadmaps that appear toward the end of each chapter will make these intellectual journeys a little easier, a little less circuitous, and much more productive.
To give you—the reader—an overview of what is to come, I now briefly summarize each of the chapters, which are organized by the seven major themes mentioned earlier.
MAJoR THEoRETICAL APPRoACHES
One prominent theme in relationship science is the need to further develop and integrate existing theories and models that address critical relationship processes and outcomes (Holmes, 2012; Reis, 2007). The first major section of this volume, therefore, contains chapters that present four major theoretical approaches, each of which has important implications for relationships.
In Chapter 1, “Evolution and Close Relationships,” Griskevicius, Haselton, and Ackerman suggest that our ancestors faced a stable set of challenges to survival and reproduction throughout evolutionary history, which included finding and retaining a suitable mate, caring for kin, forming and maintaining coalitions, and achieving status in different groups. They propose that different types of relationships were associated with these dif- ferent evolutionary challenges (e.g., mate attraction with young romantic couples, mate retention with more established couples, kin care with family members, coalition forma- tion with friends and coworkers). Moreover, each ancestral challenge might have pre- sented unique evolutionary opportunities and costs. Griskevicius et al. thus propose that different types of relationships are linked to different relationship-specific modes of thinking and decision making.
Pietromonaco and Beck, in Chapter 2, “Attachment Processes in Adult Romantic Rela- tionships,” provide a broad overview of attachment theory and research, focusing primarily on adult romantic attachment. They review and evaluate research examining how attach- ment orientations shape the way in which people experience and regulate emotions, how they perceive their romantic partners and relationships, how they behave toward their part- ners, and how they initiate relationships, maintain them, and react when they end. They conclude by presenting a person-in-context model of attachment processes, discuss how romantic partners can foster change versus stability in each other’s attachment representa- tions, speculate about how attachment orientations might statistically interact with certain personality traits to predict novel relationship outcomes, and ponder how attachment orien- tations may affect the health status of both relationship partners.
In Chapter 3, “Interdependence Theory,” Van Lange and Balliet offer a historical over- view of interdependence theory and discuss four basic principles of the theory: structure (the current situation individuals are in), transformation (how individuals construe the situ- ation), interaction (the characteristics of both individuals [partners] and the objective fea- tures of the situation), and adaptation (how repeated social interactions with a partner result in stable orientations to adopt certain transformations in similar situations with the partner).
The authors then illustrate each of these principles by discussing research on power and
dependence, cooperation and conflict, trust and distrust, attribution and self-presentation, and stereotyping and information seeking. They conclude the chapter by identifying several major implications of interdependence theory.
Finally, in Chapter 4, “Relationships and the Self: Egosystem and Ecosystem,” Crocker and Canevello suggest that many scholars assume that people desire relationships to satisfy their own personal needs and goals. As a result, people make sacrifices and compromises to keep their partners happy so they can continue to receive relationship benefits. The authors claim that this self-centered view of relationships reflects egosystem motivation, and they go on to propose a second ecosystem motivation in which people forego their self-interest and come to care deeply about the best interests of their partners. After describing this alterna- tive motivation, Crocker and Canevello evaluate various romantic relationship principles from this ecosystem perspective. They also discuss variables that might predict whether ego- system or ecosystem principles are likely to characterize certain relationships at particular points of development.
BIoLoGICAL APPRoACHES AnD HEALTH
Two other rapidly expanding areas within relationship science are relationship neuroscience and the connection between relationship quality and health (Simpson & Campbell, 2013).
This development has been facilitated by new and affordable technologies, by the changing funding priorities of federal grant agencies, and by new relationship scholars who are receiv- ing advanced training in the health sciences. Thus, the second major section of this volume contains chapters that showcase recent discoveries in both relationship neuroscience and relationships and health.
In Chapter 5, “Relationship Neuroscience,” Beckes and Coan focus on how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that people exhibit in different relationship contexts are tied to what is happening at a neurobiological level. The authors discuss the many challenges associated with conducting relationship neuroscience research, including how to interpret complicated findings. They then review the relationship neuroscience literature, focusing on the neural substrates of self-representation, the representation of others, empathy, emotion regulation, sex, caregiving, and attachment. While doing so, they review neuroscientific conceptions of emotion and sociality such as the somatic marker hypothesis, theories of subjective experi- ence, the tend-and-befriend model, and models that explain similarities between the physical and social pain circuits. They focus considerable attention on social baseline theory and shared-systems approaches to empathy. Beckes and Coan conclude by discussing the econ- omy of action, prediction, perception–action linkages, rerepresentation processes, and sociality.
Addressing relationships and health, Loving and Sbarra begin Chapter 6, “Relationships and Health,” by noting that there is a strong connection between having good relationships and having positive physical and mental health outcomes, with negative relationship events forecasting poorer health outcomes. The authors structure their review of the relationships and health literature around normative romantic relationship development processes, exam- ining research that has used both objective health markers and biomarkers of health, such as mental illness and depression. They call for more experimental studies of physical health outcomes to shed additional light on the most plausible mediators that link relationship pro- cesses to physical and mental health outcomes.
ATTRACTIon AnD RELATIonSHIP DEVELoPMEnT
The study of interpersonal relationships in social psychology began by focusing on the basic determinants of attraction in new and emerging relationships (Berscheid, 1985). The field moved into the study of established dyads after the publication of Kelley et al.’s seminal book Close Relationships in 1983. Nevertheless, interpersonal attraction remains a central and vibrant topic in relationship science, partly because the conditions under which a relation- ship begins can strongly affect how it develops, how and why it is (or is not) well main- tained, and whether or not it eventually dissolves. The third major section of the book contains three chapters that tackle initial attraction and relationship development.
Chapter 7 by Finkel and Eastwick, “Interpersonal Attraction: In Search of a Theoretical Rosetta Stone,” reviews theory and research on interpersonal attraction processes. Finkel and Eastwick first discuss three metatheoretical perspectives—the domain-general reward per- spective, the domain-specific evolutionary perspective, and the attachment perspective—that explain the bulk of current interpersonal attraction results. They then review the vast inter- personal attraction literature within these metatheories. They suggest that the instrumentality principle—the notion that people become attracted to others when others help them achieve their most important goals—could be the unifying principle of interpersonal attraction. Finkel and Eastwick also propose that once people have achieved an important goal, they should be less attracted to partners who initially were instrumental in helping them attain that goal.
Sprecher, Felmlee, Metts, and Cupach, in Chapter 8, “Relationship Initiation and Develop- ment,” examine the environmental context of potential relationships and how proximity and certain situations often combine initially to propel two individuals into a relationship. They then discuss internal factors that contribute to relationship development, such as whether a person is ready to start a new relationship and the role that mutual attraction plays in this pro- cess. The authors then review the signals that people use to convey interest in forming a rela- tionship, which can lead to later relationship phases and turning points that further cement relationship bonds. They also discuss how self-disclosure, certain intensification strategies, and sexual intimacy all affect relationship development processes. After this, they address problem- atic relationship initiation experiences, focusing on deception, unwanted relationship advances, and stalking. They conclude by discussing third-party assistance in relationship initiation.
Finally, in Chapter 9, “Ideal Mate Standards and Romantic Relationships,” Campbell, Pink, and Stanton review how ideal mate standards affect interpersonal attraction, relation- ship initiation, and relationship maintenance. They discuss what ideal mate standards (pref- erences) are, how they develop, and what many people want in short-term and long-term romantic relationships. Guided by the ideal standards model, they then discuss how per- ceived discrepancies (e.g., ideal partner vs. actual partner disparities) affect the evaluation and maintenance of established relationships. Campbell et al. next address a debate in the literature about the association between self-reported ideal mate preferences and mate choice, focusing on whether and when ideal mate preferences influence actual mate selec- tion. They conclude by speculating about when certain ideal standards should govern rela- tionship processes most strongly and how ideals can change over time.
MoTIVATIon, EMoTIon, AnD InTERSUBJECTIVITY
Close relationships are one of the most fertile contexts in which powerful motivations and intense emotions are experienced, expressed, and acted on (Berscheid, 1983). Because of the
strong interdependence that exists in close relationships, close relationship partners are not only more likely to experience strong motivations and feel intense negative and positive emotions, they can also intensify or diminish the motivations and emotions experienced by their partners, depending on how they behave in the relationship. For this reason, the fourth major section of the book is devoted to the interrelated and often interlocking concepts of motivation, emotion, and intersubjectivity in relationships.
In Chapter 10, “Goal Pursuit in Relationships,” Fitzsimons and vanDellen open by explaining that most goal pursuit occurs in social contexts with friends, coworkers, family, and romantic partners. They then review research on how goal pursuit is both affected by and affects these relationships in various ways. Then Fitzsimons and vanDellen describe a transactive self-regulation model, which highlights relations among the personal and inter- personal goal pursuits enacted by relationship partners. According to this model, self- regulation is an interdependent process instead of an independent one. The authors then use this model to interpret research findings concerning goal pursuit in various relationship contexts. While doing so, they cover aspects of interpersonal goal priming, goal contagion, social support, the motivating impact of successful others, the effects of regulatory resources and strategic motivational orientations on relationship processes, and the effects of relation- ship processes on self-regulation.
The next chapter, “Emotions in Relationships,” by Fitness focuses directly on relationship- related emotional processes. Fitness provides an integrative summary of what is known about emotions within relationships. She begins by reviewing emotion theory from an evolu- tionary–social psychological perspective, emphasizing the information and communication functions that different emotions serve. Fitness then reviews the cognitive appraisal
approach to emotion elicitation, including how the personalities and attachment histories of each relationship partner affect emotion appraisals and experiences. Next, Fitness discusses the importance of good emotion communication and regulation for maintaining healthy relationships, with an emphasis on the intrapersonal and interpersonal costs of emotional suppression. Fitness concludes the chapter by reviewing the important role of positive emo- tions in adaptive relationship functioning, highlighting positive emotions such as joy, inter- est, love, compassion, and gratitude and encouraging more theoretically integrative research on emotions in relationships.
Hodges, Lewis, and Ickes, in Chapter 12, “The Matter of Other Minds: Empathic Accu- racy and the Factors That Influence It,” address empathic accuracy in relationships. After defining what empathic accuracy is, they focus on three sources of variance in empathic accuracy performance in relationships: the characteristics of perceivers that predict better empathic accuracy, the factors that contribute to the readability of the target, and how char- acteristics of the perceiver and target statistically interact to predict empathic accuracy in a particular social situation. They then examine whether higher levels of empathic accuracy are essential for good social and interpersonal outcomes, which target variables still need to be investigated, and how the nature of the relationship between the target and the perceiver should affect empathic accuracy levels.
SUPPoRT, CoMMUnICATIon, AnD PoWER
As mentioned, communication and social influence lie at the heart of not only relationships but social psychology as well (Allport, 1954). Indeed, the defining feature of a close relation- ship is that partners strongly influence each other’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors over
time and in different social contexts (see Kelley et al., 1983). Studying relationship pro- cesses, therefore, requires a different way of conceptualizing these intrinsically interpersonal variables. More specifically, because a relationship exists between two people, the patterns of interconnection between partners within a relationship must be measured and modeled appropriately. The fifth section of the book examines these issues: communication, support, and influence between partners in relationships.
In Chapter 13, “Social Support,” Gleason and Iida note that the study of social support has relied heavily on retrospective reports of received support and its perceived
availability. They point out that some past research has concluded that social support tends to be beneficial for most recipients. However, recent research investigating recipi- ents’ responses to enacted support has indicated that it has either no effects or negative effects on many support recipients. The authors discuss why enacted support often fails to alleviate recipients’ distress; they focus on the motivation, timing, content, and skills of enacted support along with the characteristics of support receivers and support providers.
Gleason and Iida then address some of the negative effects of support provision on the support provider.
Vangelisti’s Chapter 14, “Communication in Personal Relationships,” explains that com- munication in relationships is important because it both shapes and reflects how partners perceive, think, feel, and behave toward one another. Five properties of communication are then described (interdependence, reflexivity, complexity, ambiguity, and indeterminancy), and theories and research on these properties are reviewed. These properties can be under- stood at both an individual and a dyadic level. At the individual level, Vangelisti reviews the basic cognitive and emotional patterns that affect and are affected by communication pro- cesses. At the dyadic level, she evaluates couple types and certain behavioral sequences asso- ciated with different relationship outcomes.
In Chapter 15, “Power and Social Influence in Relationships,” Simpson, Farrell, Oriña, and Rothman provide an overview of theory and research on power and social influence in relationships. Although most prior research has investigated interactions between strangers, the authors note that attention is shifting to how and why different kinds of social influence strategies and tactics are more or less effective in established relationships and how power differences between relationship partners predict various relationship outcomes. Simpson et al. begin by reviewing the theoretical literature on power and social influence, focusing on influence agents (those attempting to persuade their partners) and influence targets (those being persuaded). Next, they review research on the use and effectiveness of different power and influence strategies and tactics in established relationships. Following this, they unveil a new process model—the dyadic power–social influence model—that specifies how the use of different influence strategies and tactics, in combination with the power dynamics in a given relationship, affect different personal and relational outcomes. They conclude the chapter by speculating about how power develops and is used at different stages of relationship
development.
Finally, in Chapter 16, “Power: Past Findings, Present Considerations, and Future Direc- tions,” which outlines power as a basic and pervasive individual difference variable, Galinsky, Rucker, and Magee offer a primer on the social psychology of power. They begin by provid- ing a clear definition of power and then discuss both the antecedents (manipulations and measures) and the consequences of power along with several variables that reliably moderate power outcomes. Galinsky et al. then review different theories of how power can guide and affect different types of social behavior. They conclude the chapter by discussing novel and
emerging themes in the study of power, making several important points that both new and seasoned power scholars will appreciate.
FRIEnDSHIP, LoVE, AnD SEXUALITY
This section of the book deals with the topics of friendship, different types of love in rela- tionships, and sexuality, with a special focus on nonheterosexual relationships. Each of these topics is central to the study of close relationships (see Diamond, 2003; Fehr, 1996), and each chapter provides a detailed theoretical and empirical overview of these core topics.
In Chapter 17, “Friendship,” Perlman, Stevens, and Carcedo summarize what is known about friendships. They begin by discussing friendship qualities, including the types of friendships people typically have and how friendships differ from other types of relation- ships. Next, Perlman et al. indicate how and why friendships are initiated, maintained, and sometimes dissolved. They then turn to the nature of friendships, including how and why friendships are similar or different at different points in a person’s life and how gender affects the nature of friendships in childhood and adulthood. After this, the authors review work on friendship and well-being, revealing that not having close friendships has several major disadvantages. They conclude the chapter by discussing the future of friendships, especially networked individualism, a pattern of friendship that has become more common with recent changes in communication technology.
In Chapter 18, “Love: Conceptualization and Experience,” Fehr summarizes what is known about love from a social psychological perspective. She addresses how people view and define love, what is currently known about gender and cultural differences in concep- tions of love, and how conceptions of love affect relationship satisfaction and stability. After this, Fehr reviews how individuals actually experience love in relationships, including the neurological correlates of love and its developmental course across time as relationships develop. She concludes the chapter by surmising how different forms of love influence rela- tionship satisfaction, commitment, and deterioration.
Diamond provides a comprehensive review of human sexuality in Chapter 19, “Sexuality and Same-Sex Sexuality in Relationships.” She explains the role that sexual behavior plays in couple functioning; the variables that predict sexual satisfaction; the challenges posed by self or partner illness, disability, or sexual dysfunction; and the protective health benefits of good sex and the positive aspects of sexuality. She also evaluates the relationship dynamics of same-sex couples, including issues of sexual stigmatization and marginalization, legal recognition, gender differences, and sexual norms and practices.
MAInTEnAnCE, STRIFE, AnD DISSoLUTIon
The final section of the book considers how relationships are maintained and how and why they occasionally dissolve despite the good intentions of well-meaning partners. Tradition- ally, a considerable amount of research in relationship science has focused on these signifi- cant topics, particularly within clinical and social psychology and the family social sciences (see Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000).
In Chapter 20, “Why Marriages Change Over Time,” Karney addresses how and why marriages often change over time, even though most spouses want to preserve their initial levels of happiness. Karney opens the chapter by discussing the nature of change in marriage and then addresses what changes and how different features of marriage tend to shift over
time. He presents a model outlining how marital change occurs, focusing on how and why spouses’ marital evaluations typically decline. He then reviews evidence showing that spouses’ specific perceptions of their marriage are more susceptible to change than are their global evaluations of their marriage. Karney proposes that change at a global level is often attributable to either an accumulation of specific negative perceptions or limits on spouses’
ability or a motivation to assimilate negative perceptions into their global marital views.
In Chapter 21, “Relationship Maintenance and Dissolution,” Agnew and VanderDrift sug- gest that relationships can be conceptualized on an independence–interdependence contin- uum, and they suggest that relationship maintenance processes sustain partners’
interdependence. They then review past research on relationship maintenance from this per- spective. The authors discuss maintenance processes that keep interdependent partners happy and stable (stability promotion processes), that increase partners’ level of interdepen- dence (interdependence promotion processes), and that deal with threats to the relationship (threat-induced processes). They conclude by reviewing the positive and negative conse- quences of not maintaining relationships and the variables that forecast relationship dissolution.
Finally, in Chapter 22, “Established and Emerging Perspectives on Violence in Intimate Relationships,” Bartholomew, Cobb, and Dutton address classic and recent perspectives on the causes of violence in intimate relationships. They first review feminist perspectives on how the patriarchal system contributes to men’s violence against women. After this, they dis- cuss psychological perspectives on the background and personality variables that place cer- tain individuals at risk for becoming violent toward their partners. Bartholomew et al. then review interactional perspectives that focus on the relational and situational contexts in which partner violence arises. They first discuss how partner abuse may be elicited by a con- fluence of different partner characteristics and how certain combinations of partner charac- teristics can emerge over time. They then review the social contexts that often elicit abuse, including those that inhibit and disinhibit aggression. They conclude by describing a multi- factor model that integrates different approaches and by discussing how these perspectives might be used to prevent and treat partner abuse.
ConCLUSIon
When we (the editors) were planning this book, we hoped that the envisioned chapters would provide broad and comprehensive coverage of the most important theories, models, principles, and research findings relevant to the topic addressed by each chapter. We also hoped that the authors of each chapter would provide clear and useful roadmaps for
researchers interested in each topic to follow in the coming decade. We could not be happier with what the chapter authors have delivered. And we believe that you—the reader—will agree.
Jeffry A. Simpson Associate Editor References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Random House.
Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley et al. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110–168).
San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 413–484). New York, NY: Random House.
Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964–980.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x
Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguish- ing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173–192. doi:10.1037/0033- 295X.110.1.173
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. New York, NY: Sage.
Holmes, J. G. (2012). The future of relationship science. In L. Campbell, J. G. LaGuardia, J. M. Olson, &
M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The science of the couple: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 12, pp. 231–253).
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., … Peterson, D. R.
(1983). Close relationships. New York, NY: Freeman.
Reis, H. T. (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. Personal Relationships, 14, 1–23.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00139.x
Simpson, J. A., & Campbell, L. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of close relationships. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Major TheoreTical
approaches
Evolution and ClosE RElationships
Vladas Griskevicius, Martie G. Haselton, and Joshua M. Ackerman
Throughout history, humans have faced critical chal- lenges that included finding a mate, keeping that mate, caring for kin, forming coalitions, and gaining some status. Solving each of these ancestral chal- lenges involved forming a different type of social rela- tionship. An evolutionary perspective suggests that there is a set of fundamentally different types of close relationships associated with different evolutionary challenges. These types include (a) mate attraction (e.g., dating couples), (b) mate retention (e.g., mar- ried couples), (c) kin care (e.g., family members), (d) coalition formation (e.g., friends), and (e) status (e.g., workplace relationships). Each type of ancestral challenge is associated with different kinds of evolu- tionary opportunities and costs, suggesting that dif- ferent types of relationships may be governed by a different relationship-specific psychology. In this chapter, we review the principles of evolutionary psy- chology and their implications for close relationships.
Although some animals spend most of their lives as hermits, humans have always lived in groups.
The human brain has evolved for social relationships (Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg, & Schaller, 2010;
Kenrick, Neuberg, & White, in press). But although people are born ready to love and relate to other people, relationships differ in several important ways. For example, the words I love you can be spo- ken by a parent to a newborn baby, by a young man to a woman he met yesterday at a beach resort in Mexico, and by a heterosexual woman to her best female friend. Yet parental love is not the same as romantic love, which is still different from platonic love between friends.
In this chapter, we consider social relationships from an evolutionary perspective. This perspective contends that, throughout history, humans have faced a set of core ancestral challenges, which include attracting a mate, keeping that mate, caring for kin, forming coalitions, and attaining status. An evolutionary perspective suggests that each type of challenge can be solved by forming different types of relationships. These relationship types include (a) dating couples, (b) married couples, (c) family mem- bers, (d) friends, and (e) coworkers (see Table 1.1).
Each type of relationship is associated with different kinds of evolutionary opportunities and costs, meaning that people need different things from different types of intimate others and must provide different things to those intimate others. These needs and provisions vary systematically depending on the type of relationship.
In this chapter, we first briefly review what it means to take an evolutionary perspective, review- ing some foundational principles. We then discuss each of the five types of relationships, reviewing relevant theory and findings. Finally, we discuss emerging themes and future directions in the study of social relationships from an evolutionary perspective.
AN EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH TO RELATIONSHIPS
A modern evolutionary approach is based on the seminal work of Charles Darwin. This approach sug- gests that, just as the forces of natural selection can
shape morphological features, so too can those forces shape psychological and behavioral tenden- cies. An evolutionary approach maintains that human and nonhuman animals inherit brains and bodies equipped to behave in ways that are fitted to the demands of the environments within which their ancestors evolved. Just as human morphological features—opposable thumbs, larynxes, and upright postures—have been shaped by evolutionary
pressures, humans inherited brains specially designed to solve recurrent problems in the ances- tral world (L. Barrett, Dunbar, & Lycett, 2002; Buss, 1995; Neuberg, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2010; Tooby &
Cosmides, 1992). For example, along with the larynx, humans also inherited a brain designed to easily learn to communicate using language. Although the specific words and sounds of a language might differ across cultures, all languages share an underlying TAbLE 1.1
Relationship Types and Associated Evolutionary Opportunities and Threats
Relationship domain
Typical dyads
Relationship tasks
Key evolutionary theories
Relationship opportunities
Relationship threats
Relationship- specific sensitivities Mate
attraction Dating
couple Attract desirable romantic partner
Intersexual selection, parental investment, strategic pluralism, sexual strategies
Sexual and reproductive access, resource access
Abandonment after pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, partner deception
Sensitivity to partner’s mate value, sexual strategy, honest costly signaling, other mating opportunities Mate
retention Married
couple Preserve alliance with romantic partner
Attachment theory, strategic interference theory
Long-term parental alliance, instrumental and emotional support
Sexual infidelity, resource infidelity, cuckoldry
Sensitivity to partner’s change in relative mate value, cues to infidelity, mate poaching, infertility, mating ecology Kin care Parent–child,
siblings Successfully raise children and care for relatives
Kin selection, parent–offspring conflict
Inclusive fitness, account-free resource sharing, cooperative breeding
High costs of close kin, parasitism of kinship, inbreeding
Sensitivity to kin member’s relatedness, age, sex, ability, need, health, and other cues to enhancing inclusive fitness Coalition Friends,
teammates Develop and maintain cooperative alliances
Reciprocal altruism, social contract theory, intergroup conflict
Shared resources, material support, instrumental support, protection
Free-riding cheaters, excessive demands, social rejection, stigmatization
Sensitivity to equity and unfair exchanges, trustworthiness, rejection, competence, group power Status Worker–boss,
coworkers Gain and maintain social prestige and power
Intrasexual selection, dominance hierarchy
Reputation- enhancing alliances, moving up status hierarchies
Loss of reputation, respect, and power
Sensitivity to position in hierarchies, leadership cues in others, other status opportunities
