Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T14:16:13.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Relationship Typologies

from Part I - Foundations for Studying Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2018

By
Ascan Koerner
Edited by
Anita L. Vangelisti  and
Daniel Perlman
Anita L. Vangelisti
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Daniel Perlman
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Get access

Summary

Attachment theory has been extremely successful at stimulating research on the formation and quality of emotional bonds between relationship partners, and on the complex interplay between individual-level and relationship-level processes in all phases of the lifespan. In this chapter, we review and assess some of the many empirical findings and propose integrative ideas concerning both normative and individual-difference aspects of personal relationships in adulthood. First, we present our model of the activation and psychodynamics of the attachment behavioral system in adulthood and describe the intrapsychic and interpersonal manifestations of the sense of attachment security, as well as the regulatory strategies of hyperactivation and deactivation. Next, we present a systematic review of studies that have examined the implications of variations in attachment-system functioning for the formation and maintenance of dyadic close relationships. Specifically, we focus on the contribution of these variations to relational wishes and goals, attitudes toward intimacy and commitment, patterns of dyadic communication, responses to a partner’s negative and positive behaviors, the experience and management of relational conflicts, and the provision of effective care to a needy partner. Finally, we extend our theoretical analysis to other kinds of relationships, such as therapeutic relationships and relationships within groups.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , pp. 65 - 76
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahrons, C. (1994). The good divorce. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Object relations, dependency, and attachment: A theoretical review of the infant–mother relationship. Child Development, 40, 969–1025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1985). The rules of relationships. In Duck, S. & Perlman, D. (eds.) Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 63–84). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Asendorpf, J. B. (2003). Head‐to‐head comparison of the predictive validity of personality types and dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 17, 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88.Google ScholarPubMed
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4 (Part 2), 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berscheid, E. (1995). Help wanted: A grand theorist of interpersonal relationships, sociologist or anthropologist preferred. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 529–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Brito, R., Waldzus, S., Sekerdej, M., & Schubert, T. (2011). The contexts and structures of relating to others: How memberships in different types of groups shape the construction of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 406–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 173–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, O., Luxenburg, A., Dattner, N., & Matz, D. E. (1999). Suitability of divorcing couples for mediation: A suggested typology. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Crouter, A. C., & Manke, B. (1997). Development of a typology of dual-earner families: A window into differences between and within families in relationships, roles, and activities. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases and relationship description. In Duck, S. & Perlman, D. (eds.) Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 17–38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1981). Social behavior of young siblings in the family context: Differences between same-sex and different-sex dyads. Child Development, 52, 1265–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fincham, F. D. (2004). Communication in marriage. In Vangelisti, A. L. (ed.) The handbook of family communication (pp. 83–103). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, A. P. (1993). Social errors in four cultures: Evidence about universal forms of social relations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 463–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1995). Social schemata for remembering people: Relationships and person attributes that affect clustering in free recall of acquaintances. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 5, 305–324.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (2000). Human sociality: Relational models theory overview. Retrieved October 2, 2016, from www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fiske/relmodov.htmGoogle Scholar
Fiske, A. P., & Haslam, N. (1996). Social cognition is thinking about relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, A. P., & Haslam, N. (1997). The structure of social substitutions: A test of relational models theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 725–729.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, A. P., Haslam, N., & Fiske, S. (1991). Confusing one person with another: What errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 656–674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication in marriage. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Koerner, A. F. (2005). Family communication schemata: Effects on children’s resiliency. In Dunwoody, S., Becker, L. B., McLeod, D., & Kosicki, G., (eds.) The evolution of key mass communication concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod (pp. 113–136). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Richie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1992). Four types of premarital couples: An empirical typology based on PREPARE. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents’ working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Development, 73, 241–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaines, S. O. (1995). Classifying dating couples: Gender as reflected in traits, roles, and resulting behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelbard, R., Goldman, O., & Spiegler, I. (2007). Investigating diversity of clustering methods: An empirical comparison. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 63, 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, E. D., Teti, D. M., & Bond, L. A. (1987). Infant–sibling communication: Relationships to birth-spacing and cognitive and linguistic development. Infant Behavior and Development, 10, 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gold, D. T. (1989). Sibling relationships in old age: A typology. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 28, 34–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce: The relationship between marital process and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Harrington, C., & Metzler, A. (1997). Are ACOAs different from adult children of dysfunctional families without alcoholism: A look at committed intimate relationships. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 102–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, N. (1994). Mental representation of social relationships: Dimensions, laws, or categories? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 575–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haslam, N. (1995). Factor structure of social relationships: An examination of relational models and resource exchange theories. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, N. (1999). Taxometric and related methods in relationships research. Personal Relationships, 6, 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, N. (2009). Relationship types and taxonomies. In Reis, H. T. & Sprecher, S. (eds.) Encyclopedia of human relationships (Vol. 3, pp. 1353–1358). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Haslam, N., & Fiske, A. P. (1992). Implicit relationship prototypes: Investigating five theories of the cognitive organization of social relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 441–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinde, R. A. (1996). Describing relationships. In Aughagen, A. E. & von Salisch, M. (eds.) The diversity of human relationships (pp. 7–35), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1976). Inside the family. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Kent, P., Jensen, R. K., & Kongsted, A. (2014). A comparison of three clustering methods for finding subgroups in MRI, SMS or clinical data: SPSS Two Step Cluster analysis, Latent Gold and SNOB. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerns, K. A. (2000). Types of preschool friendships. Personal Relationships, 7, 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kliem, S., Foran, H. M., Beller, J., Hahlweg, K., Stöbel‐Richter, Y., & Brähler, E. (2015). Dimensional latent structure of relationship quality: Results of three representative population samples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 1190–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koerner, A. F. (2006). Models of relating-not relationship models: Cognitive representations of relating across interpersonal relationship domains. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 629–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koerner, A. F., & Cvancara, K. E. (2002). The influence of conformity orientation on communication patterns in family conversations. The Journal of Family Communication, 2, 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1997). Family type and conflict: The impact of conversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the family. Communication Studies, 48, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002a). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory, 12, 70–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002b). Understanding family communication patterns and family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Communication Yearbook, 26, 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002c). You never leave your family in a fight: The impact of families of origins on conflict-behavior in romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 53, 234–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2013). Communication in intact families. In Vangelisti, A. L. (ed.) The Routledge handbook of family communication (2nd edn., pp. 129–144). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kressel, K., Jaffee, N., Tuchman, B., Watson, C., & Deutsch, M. (1980). A typology of divorcing couples: Implications for mediation and the divorce process. Family Process, 19, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamela, D., Figueiredo, B., Bastos, A., & Feinberg, M. (2016). Typologies of post-divorce coparenting and parental well-being, parenting quality and children’s psychological adjustment. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 47, 716–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavee, Y. & Olson, D. H. (1993). Seven types of marriage: Empirical typology based on ENRICH. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19, 325–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leary, T. (1955). The theory and measurement methodology of interpersonal communication, Psychiatry, 18, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In Hetherington, E. (vol. ed.) & Mussen, P. H. (series ed.) Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th edn., pp. 1–101). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mares, M. L. (1995). The aging family. In Fitzpatrick, M. A. & Vangelisti, A. L. (eds.) Explaining family interaction (pp. 344–374). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwell, G., & Hage, J. (1970). The organization of role-relationships: A systematic description. American Sociological Review, 35, 884–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, J. M. & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality. In Tedeschi, J. (ed.) The social influence process (pp. 50–59). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1995). Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist, 50, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1976). A typology of family environments. Family Process, 15, 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S. O. (1993). Siblings and the new baby: Changing perspectives. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 8, 277–288.Google ScholarPubMed
Olson, D. H. (1981). Family typologies: Bridging family research and family therapy. In Filsinger, E. E. & Lewis, R. A. (eds.) Assessing marriage: New behavioral approaches (pp. 74–89). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Olson, D. H. (1993). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. In Wals, F. (ed.) Normal family processes (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Olson, D. H. & Fowers, B. J. (1993). Five types of marriage: An empirical typology based on ENRICH. The Family Journal, 3, 196–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, L. (1987). Separation, divorce, and families. London: Macmillan Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (eds.) (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, D. (1981). The family’s construction of reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring interpersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, L. B., Bowen, G. L., & Richman, J. M. (1995). Communication in three types of dual-career marriages. In Fitzpatrick, M. A. & Vangelisti, A. L. (eds.) Explaining family interaction (pp. 257–289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutz, W. C. (1958). The interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.Google Scholar
Shulman, S. (1995). Typology of close friendships, relationship models and friendship reasoning in early adolescence. In Shulman, S. (ed.) Close relationships and socioemotional development (pp. 109–127). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Shulman, S., & Knafo, D. (1997). Balancing closeness and individuality in adolescent close relationships. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 687–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slicker, E. K. (1998). Relationship of parenting style to behavioral adjustment in graduating high school seniors [Electronic Version]. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, R. B., Kozak, A. L., Tingley, L. M., Goddard, J. M., Blake, E. M., & Cassel, W. A. (2001). Adult sibling relationships: Validation of a typology. Personal Relationships, 8, 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, R. B., Verbrugge, K. M., & Beilfuss, M. C. (1998). Sibling relationships in early adulthood: A typology. Personal Relationships, 5, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocker, C. M., & McHale, S. M. (1992). The nature and family correlates of preadolescents’ perceptions of their sibling relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stormshak, E. A., Bellanti, C. J., & Bierman, K. L. (1996). The quality of sibling relationships and the development of social competence and behavioral control in aggressive children. Developmental Psychology, 32, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swenson, A. R., Zvonkovic, A. M., Rojas-McWhinney, J., & Gerst, K. N. (2015). A couple analysis of relationship perceptions among couples who face work demands. Personal Relationships, 22, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toennies, F. (1957). Community and society (Loomis, C. P., trans.) New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
VanLear, C. A., Koerner, A. F., & Allen, D. (2006). Relationship typologies. In Vangelisti, A. & Perlman, D. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 91–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuchinich, S., & Angelelli, J. (1995). Family interaction during problem solving. In Fitzpatrick, M. A. & Vangelisti, A. L. (eds.) Explaining family interaction (pp. 177–205). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingarten, H., & Leas, S. (1987). Levels of marital conflict model: A guide to assessment and intervention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Rubin, Z. (ed.) Doing unto others: Joining, molding, conforming, helping, loving (pp. 17–26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Weiss, R. S. (1998). A taxonomy of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 671–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. S., Riggs, S. A., & Kaminski, P. L. (2016). A typology of childhood sibling subsystems that may emerge in abusive family systems. The Family Journal, 24, 378–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeanah, C. H., Benoit, D., Barton, M., Regan, C., Hirshberg, L. M., & Lipsitt, L. P. (1993). Representations of attachment in mothers and their one-year-old infants. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 278–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×