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-848d4c4894-89wxm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T07:34:44.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - What Is Good and What Is Missing in Relationship Theory and Research

from Part I - Foundations for Studying Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2018

By
Margaret S. Clark
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

In this chapter, we consider the role of personal relationships, including friendships and romantic relationships, in adolescence (age 12-18) and young adulthood (age 19-28). Distinctive characteristics of youth as relationship partners are tied to cognitive advances in adolescence, but non-biological factors in young adulthood. Major conceptual approaches to the study of relationships, including biosocial, ecological, and interpersonal, offer perspectives regarding the functional role of friendships and romantic partnerships in development. We review research findings on friendships to identify the unique features of these relationships in adolescence and early adulthood. Specifically, we consider concepts of friendship, selection of friends, interactions in friendships, friendship quality and individual functioning, and friendship networks. We then review research findings to characterize romantic relationships in adolescence and young adulthood. Specifically, we review concepts of romantic relationships, selection of partners, interactions in romantic relationships, sexual behavior, dating aggression, and relationship quality. Our review demonstrates that in the midst of developmental change, relationships preserve their functional significance. Understanding processes that link individual and relational change may help us better understand how relationships adapt to change in every period of life.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , pp. 28 - 38
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

Agnew, C. R., & Le, B. (2015). Prosocial behavior in close relationships: An interdependence approach. In Schroeder, D. A. & Graziano, W. G. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 362–375). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, S. M., Glassman, N. S., Chen, S., & Cole, S. W. (1995). Transference in social perception: The role of chronic accessibility in significant-other representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2014). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arriaga, X. B. (2013). An interdependence theory analysis of close relationships. In Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 39–65). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1190–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M., & Warren, C. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social and Personality Compass. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumard, N., André, J. B., & Sperber, D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckes, L., & Coan, J. A. (2011). Social baseline theory: The role of social proximity in emotion and economy of action. Social and Personality Compass. doi: 10.111/j.1751–9004.2011.00400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berscheid, E. (1986). Mea culpas and lamentations: Sir Francis, Sir Isaac, and the slow progress of soft psychology. In Gilmour, R. & Duck, S. (eds.) The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 267–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E. (1995). Help wanted: A grand theorist of interpersonal relationships, sociologist or anthropologists preferred. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 529–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berscheid, E. (1999a). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berscheid, E. (1999b). Integrating relationship knowledge. In Collins, A. W. & Laursen, B. (eds.) Relationships as developmental contexts (pp. 307–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E. (2003). The human’s greatest strength: Other humans. In Aspinwall, L. G. & Staudinger, U. M. (eds.) A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology (pp. 37–47). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berscheid, E., & Collins, A. W. (2000). Who cares? For whom and when, how, and why? Psychological Inquiry, 11, 107–109.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E., & Peplau, L. A. (1983). The emerging science of relationships. In Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (eds.) Close relationships (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolger, N., & Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 458–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953–961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boothby, E. J., Clark, M. S., & Bargh, J. A. (2014). Shared experiences are amplified. Psychological Science, 25, 2209–2216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614551162CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boothby, E. J., Smith, L. K., Clark, M. S., & Bargh, J. A. (2016). Psychological distance moderates the amplification of shared experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(10), 1431–1444. doi: 10.1177/0146167216662869CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boothby, E. J., Smith, L. K., Clark, M. S., & Bargh, J. A. (2017). The world looks better together: How close others enhance our visual experiences. Personal Relationships. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/pere.12201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Sadness and depression. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2014). Intimate relationships (2nd edn.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Brosch, T., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2007). The baby caught my eye: Attention capture by infant faces. Emotion, 7, 685–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: A domain based approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 187–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L., & Simpson, J. A. (2013). The blossoming of relationship science. In Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 3–10). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, L., & Surra, C. (2012). Research on close relationships: Call for an interdisciplinary integration. In. Campbell, L. & Loving, T. J. (eds.) Interdisciplinary research on close relationships: The case for integration (pp. 3–24). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavallo, J. V., Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (2014). Risk regulation in close relationships. In Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (eds.) Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group (pp. 237–254). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S., Boucher, H., Andersen, S. M., & Saribay, S. A. (2014). Transference and the relational self. In Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 281–305). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, M. S., & Boothby, E. (2013). A strange(r) analysis of morality: A consideration of relational context and the broader literature is needed. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 85–86. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000751CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, M. S., Boothby, E. J., Clark-Polner, E., & Reis, H. T. (2015). Understanding prosocial behavior requires understanding relational context. In Schroeder, D. A. & Graziano, W. G. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 329–245). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, M. S., & Lemay, E. P. Jr. (2010). Close relationships. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Gardner, L. (eds.) Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 5th edn., pp. 898–940). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Clark, M. S., Lemay, E. P., & Reis, H. T. (2018, in press). Other people as situations: Relational context shapes psychological phenomena. In Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R., & Funder, D. C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of situations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Advanced online publication.Google Scholar
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. R. (2012). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. In van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (eds.) Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 232–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipient’s mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark-Polner, E., & Clark, M. S. (2014). Understanding and accounting for relational context is critical for social neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 127. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00127CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cushman, F., Young, L., & Greene, J. D. (2010). Our multi-system moral psychology. Towards a consensus view. In Doris, J. and the Moral Psychology Research Group (eds.) The moral psychology handbook (pp. 47–71). London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eibach, R. P., Libby, L. K., & Erlinger, J. (2012). Unrecognized changes in the self contribute to exaggerated judgments of external decline. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eibach, R. P., Libby, L. K., & Gilovich, T. D. (2003). When change in the self is mistaken for change in the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 917931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eibach, R. P., & Mock, S. E. (2011). The vigilant parent: Parental role salience affects parents’ risk perceptions, risk-aversion, and trust in strangers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 694–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fessler, D. M. T., & Holbrook, C. (2013). Friends shrink foes: The presence of comrades decreases the envisioned physical formidability of an opponent. Psychological Science, 24, 797–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fessler, D. M. T., Holbrook, C., Pollack, J. S., & Hahn-Holbrook, J. (2014). Stranger danger: Parenthood increases the envisioned bodily formidability of menacing men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, E. J. (2014). The I3 model: Metatheory, theory and evidence. In Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. (eds.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 1–104). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Finkel, E. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (2008). Pro-relationship motivation: An interdependence theory analysis of situations with conflicting interests. In Shah, J. Y. & Gardener, W. L. (eds.) Handbook of motivation science (pp. 547–560). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Finkel, E. J., Simpson, J. A., & Eastwick, P. W. (2017). The psychology of close relationships: Fourteen core principles. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 383–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2013). The science of intimate relationships. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwall, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the implicit association test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselton, M. G., & Galperin, A. (2013). Error management in relationships. In Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 234–254). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, J. G. (2012). The future of relationship science. In Campbell, L., La Guardia, J. G., Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (eds.), The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology: Vol. 12. The science of the couple (pp. 231–253). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLOS Med. 7:e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1995). How parenthood changes marriage. In Fitzpatrick, M. A. & Vangelisti, A. L. (eds.) Explaining family interactions (pp. 147–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ickes, W., & Hodges, S. D. (2013). Empathic accuracy in close relationships. In Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 348–373). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Julian, L. J. (2011). Measures of anxiety: State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale‐Anxiety (HADS‐A). Arthritis Care & Research, 63(S11), s467–s472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karandashev, V. (2016). Romantic love in cultural context. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2005). Contextual influences on marriage: Implications for policy and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (eds.) (1983). Close relationships. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N., Reis, H., Rusbult, C., & Van Lange, P. A. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., & Cohen, A. B. (2012). A history of evolutionary social psychology. In Kruglanski, A. W. & Stroebe, W. (eds.) Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 101–122). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., & White, A. E. (2013). Relationships from an evolutionary life history perspective. In Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 13–38). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knapp, M. L., Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2013). Interpersonal communication and human relationships (7th edn.). New York, NY: Pearson Higher Education.Google Scholar
Knee, C. R., & Petty, K. N. (2013). Implicit theories of relationships: Destiny and growth beliefs. In Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 183–198). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krems, J. A., Neel, R., Neuberg, S. L., Puts, D. A., & Kenrick, D. T. (2016). Women selectively guard their (desirable) mates from ovulating women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 551–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., McNulty, J. K., & Kumashiro, M. (2010). The doormat effect: When forgiving erodes self-respect and self-concept clarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 734–749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Rouby, D. A., & Miller, S. L. (2007). Can’t take my eyes off you: Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maner, J. K., Rouby, D. A., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2008). Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: The evolved psychology of relationship maintenance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maner, J. K., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). The basic cognition of jealousy: An evolutionary perspective. European Journal of Personality, 22, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, L. J., Hathaway, G., Labester, K., Mirali, S., Acland, E. L., Niederstrasser, N., … Mogil, J. S. (2015). Reducing social stress elicits emotional contagion of pain in mouse and human strangers. Current Biology, 25, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNulty, J. (2010). Forgiveness increases the likelihood of subsequent partner transgressions in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 787–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNulty, J. K. & Russell, V. M. (2016). Forgive and forget, or forgive and regret? Whether Forgiveness leads to less or more offending depends on offender agreeableness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 616–631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics and change (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Miller, R. S. (2015). Intimate relationships (7th edn.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (2009). The architecture of interdependent minds: A motivation-management theory of mutual responsiveness. Psychological Review, 116, 908–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (2011). Interdependent minds: The dynamics of close relationships. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neel, R., Kenrick, D. T., White, A. E., & Neuberg, S. L. (2016). Individual differences in fundamental social motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 887–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2010). Evolutionary social psychology. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D., & Lindzey, G. (eds.) Handbook of social psychology (pp. 761–796). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pataki, S. P., Fathelbab, S., Clark, M. S., & Malinowski, C. H. (2013). Communal strength norms in the United States and Egypt. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 7, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, H. T. (2006). The relationship context of social psychology. In van Lange, P. A. M. (ed.) Bridging social psychology (pp. 253–260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T. (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. Personal Relationships, 14, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, H. T. (2009). Relationships are situations, and situations involve relationships. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, H. T. (2012). A brief history of relationship research in social psychology. In Kruglanski, A. W. & Stroebe, W. (eds.) Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 363–382). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T., & Arriaga, X. B. (2015). Interdependence and related theories. In Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. (eds.) Theory and explanation in social psychology (pp. 305–327). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In Mashek, D. J. & Aron, A. (eds.) Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844–872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Duck, S. (ed.) Handbook of research in personal relationships (pp. 367–389). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rogers, L. O., Niwa, E. Y., & Way, N. (2017). The friendships of racial-ethnic minority youth in context. In Cabrera, N. J. & Levendecker, B. (eds.) Handbook of positive development of minor youth (pp. 267–280), New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C. R., & Arriaga, X. B. (2012). The investment model of commitment processes. In van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (eds.) Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 218–231). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Hannon, P. A., Stocker, S. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2005). Forgiveness and relational repair. In Worthington, E. L. Jr. (ed.) Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 185–205). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparison jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 780–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2016). Does singlehood isolate or integrate? Examining the link between marital status and ties to kin, friends, and neighbors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnall, S., Harber, K. D., Stefanucci, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Social support and the perception of geographical slant. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1246–1255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Coan, J. A. (2009). Viewing cute images increases behavioral carefulness. Emotion, 9, 282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, J. A. (2017). Evolution and relationships: The integration continues. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11, 212–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesser, A., & Smith, J. (1980). Some effects of task relevance and friendship on helping: You don’t always help the one you like. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 582–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal, 94, 1395–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Rusbult, C. R. (2012). Interdependence theory. In van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (eds.) Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 251–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (1989). Providing help and desired relationship type as determinants of changes in moods and self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 722–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zebrowitz, L. A., Brownlow, S., & Olson, K. (1992). Baby talk to the babyfaced. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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
×