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-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:14:16.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Interdependence Perspectives on Relationship Maintenance

from Part II - Theories of Relationship Maintenance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2019

By
Laura E. VanderDrift  and
Christopher R. Agnew
Edited by
Brian G. Ogolsky  and
J. Kale Monk
Brian G. Ogolsky
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
J. Kale Monk
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Get access

Summary

How do people maintain their closest relationships? In this chapter, we present an interdependence account of how people maintain their relationships with others. Interdependence theory, first articulated by Thibaut and Kelley, was formulated to explain how people choose among potential courses of action in interdependent situations featuring problems of actor coordination and decision-making. Because romantic partners are often faced with daily choices within their relationship (e.g., Should we go to the movie my partner wants to see rather than what I want to see? Should I stay in this relationship or pursue an alternate?), interdependence theory is well suited for understanding relationship maintenance processes. We begin by discussing why relationship maintenance is necessary. We then review the set of processes – behavioral and cognitive – that help keep interdependent relationships intact, despite the fact that situational actors must adapt to constantly changing situations. Central to these processes is one’s commitment to a relationship, which, once established, causes maintaining a relationship to become an automatic, default option under ordinary circumstances.

Keywords

interdependence theoryclose relationshipssituationsrelationship maintenancerelationship commitment
Type
Chapter
Information
Relationship Maintenance
Theory, Process, and Context
 , pp. 15 - 28
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

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., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939Google Scholar
Arriaga, X. B. (2001). The ups and downs of dating: Fluctuations in satisfaction in newly formed romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 754–765. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.754Google Scholar
Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1190–1203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279011Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://hec.unil.ch/docs/files/56/618/b_and_m_need_to_belong_pb.pdfGoogle Scholar
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. The American Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 32–40. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1086/222820Google Scholar
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59(3), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376268Google Scholar
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 12–24. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Powell, M. C. (1986). Keeping track of needs in communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 333–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.333CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drigotas, S. M., Whitney, G., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). On the peculiarities of loyalty: A diary study of responses to dissatisfaction in everyday life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295216006Google Scholar
Goodfriend, W., & Agnew, C. R. (2008). Sunken costs and desired plans: Examining different types of investments in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1639–1652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208323743Google Scholar
Holt-Lunstad, J., Robles, T. F., & Sbarra, D. A. (2017). Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States. American Psychologist, 72(6), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 967–980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.967Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., … Peterson, D. R. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 265–314). New York, NY: WH Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H. (1984). The theoretical description of interdependence by means of transition lists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(5), 956–982. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/47/5/956/Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interpersonal situations: The context of social behavior. In An atlas of interpersonal situations (pp. 3–16). Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499845Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Need fulfillment and emotional experience in interdependent romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(3), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501183007Google Scholar
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 758–766. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/73/4/758/Google Scholar
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Griffin, D. W., & Derrick, J. L. (2015). The equilibrium model of relationship maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000202CrossRefGoogle 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, 357–391. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality, 60(1), 53–78. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/60/1/53/Google Scholar
Tan, K., & Agnew, C. R. (2016). Ease of retrieval effects on relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215617201Google Scholar
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Balliet, D. P., Parks, C. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2014). Social dilemmas: Understanding human cooperation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Tazelaar, M. J. A. (2002). How to overcome the detrimental effects of noise in social interaction: The benefits of generosity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 768–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.82.5.768Google Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1373–1395. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373Google Scholar
VanderDrift, L. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2012). Need fulfillment and stay-leave behavior: On the diagnosticity of personal and relational needs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407511431057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanderDrift, L. E., Lewandowski, G. W., & Agnew, C. R. (2011). Reduced self-expansion in current romance and interest in relationship alternatives. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(3), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510382321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walster, E., Walster, G., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
White, C. N., VanderDrift, L. E., & Heffernan, K. S. (2015). Social isolation, cognitive decline, and cardiovascular disease risk. Current Opinion in Psychology, 5, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., & Foster, C. A. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 942–966. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/77/5/942/Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×