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-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T23:04:26.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Situations in Close Relationships

from Part I - Interdependence, Situations, and Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2020

By
Simon Columbus ,
Francesca Righetti  and
Daniel Balliet
Edited by
Laura V. Machia ,
Christopher R. Agnew  and
Ximena B. Arriaga
Laura V. Machia
Affiliation:
Syracuse University, New York
Christopher R. Agnew
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Ximena B. Arriaga
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Get access

Summary

A science of close relationships stands to benefit from an understanding of the situations in which interactions between partners take place. In this chapter, we briefly review recent advances in situation research. Within the current decade, several new taxonomies have been put forward that describe how people perceive situations. Functional Interdependence Theory, in particular, posits that people are well-prepared to understand situations in terms of interdependence. New instruments based on Functional Interdependence Theory and other taxonomies for the first time allow researchers to measure in a comprehensive way how people subjectively perceive situations. Coupled with experience sampling methods, which allow the collection of psychological measures in everyday life, these instruments enable researchers to paint a full picture of the interdependent situations people experience in their relationships. We discuss how studying the situations partners experience together in daily life allows researchers to find new answers to questions arising from a) Interdependence Theory, b) Attachment Theory, and c) theorizing on relationship maintenance behaviors. Finally, we offer a framework for research on situational interdependence in close relationships.

Keywords

SituationsFunctional Interdependence Theorytaxonomiesexperience sampling methods
Type
Chapter
Information
Interdependence, Interaction, and Close Relationships , pp. 11 - 36
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Arriaga, X. B. (2013). An interdependence theory analysis of close relationships. In Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships (pp. 39–65). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2017). Revising working models across time: Relationship situations that enhance attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 71–96. doi:10.1177/1088868317705257Google Scholar
Asendorpf, J. B. (2015). From the psychology of situations to the psychology of environments. European Journal of Personality, 29, 382–432. doi:10.1002/per.2005Google Scholar
Ashton, M. C. & Lee, K. (2005). A defence of the lexical approach to the study of personality structure. European Journal of Personality, 19, 5–24. doi:10.1002/per.541Google Scholar
Balliet, D., Tybur, J. M., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2017). Functional Interdependence Theory: An evolutionary account of social situations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 361–388. doi:10.1177/1088868316657965Google Scholar
Bartz, J. A. & Lydon, J. E. (2006). Navigating the interdependence dilemma: Attachment goals and the use of communal norms with potential close others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 77–96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.77Google Scholar
Berdahl, J. L. & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 497–509. doi:10.1002/ejsp.354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, J. & Block, J. (1981). Studying situational dimensions: A grand perspective and some limited empiricism. In Magnusson, D. (Ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 85–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bolger, N. & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2013). Intensive Longitudinal Methods: An Introduction to Diary and Experience Sampling Research. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Brown, N. A., Neel, R., & Sherman, R. A. (2015). Measuring the evolutionarily important goals of situations: Situational affordances for adaptive problems. Evolutionary Psychology, 13, 1–15. doi:10.1177/1474704915593662CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1214–1221. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1214Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2009). An evolutionary formulation of person–situation interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 241–242. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.019Google Scholar
Campbell, L. & Marshall, T. (2011). Anxious attachment and relationship processes: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Personality, 79, 917–947. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00723.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.510Google Scholar
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J. G., & Rubin, H. (2010). Trust, variability in relationship evaluations, and relationship processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 14–31. doi:10.1037/a0019714CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2001). Attachment orientations, dependence, and behavior in a stressful situation: An application of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 821–843. doi:10.1177/0265407501186005Google 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
Columbus, S. & Balliet, D. (2018). [Reverse appraisal of situation characteristics in negotiations]. Unpublished raw data.Google Scholar
Columbus, S., Molho, C., Righetti, F., & Balliet, D. (2019). Interdependence and Cooperation in Daily Life. Under review.Google Scholar
Columbus, S., Molho, C., Righetti, F., & Balliet, D. (n.d.). The Interdependence in Daily Life Study. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Columbus, S., Münich, J., & Gerpott, F. H. (2019). Playing a Different Game: Situation Perception Mediates Framing Effects on Cooperative Behaviour. Preprint. Retrieved from https://psyarxiv.com/gf7kzGoogle Scholar
Conner, T. S., Tennen, H., Fleeson, W., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2009). Experience sampling methods: A modern idiographic approach to personality research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 292–313. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00170.xGoogle Scholar
de Vries, R. E., Tybur, J. M., Pollet, T. V., & van Vugt, M. (2016). Evolution, situational affordances, and the HEXACO model of personality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 407–421. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.001Google Scholar
Drigotas, S. M. & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go?: A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durante, K. M., Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2016). Pair-bonded relationships and romantic alternatives: Toward an integration of evolutionary and relationship science perspectives. In Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 53, pp. 1–74). Burlington, MA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.09.001Google Scholar
Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 581–604. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(00)00025-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Etcheverry, P. E. & Le, B. (2005). Thinking about commitment: Accessibility of commitment and prediction of relationship persistence, accommodation, and willingness to sacrifice. Personal Relationships, 12, 103–123. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00104.xGoogle Scholar
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894–914. doi:10.1037/a0019993Google Scholar
Finkel, E. J., Campbell, W. K., Brunell, A. B., Dalton, A. N., Scarbeck, S. J., & Chartrand, T. L. (2006). High-maintenance interaction: Inefficient social coordination impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 456–475. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.456Google Scholar
Fraley, R. C. & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.4.2.132Google Scholar
Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221.Google Scholar
Gaines, S. O., Reis, H. T., Summers, S., Rusbult, C. E., Cox, C. L., Wexler, M. O., … Kurland, G. J. (1997). Impact of attachment style on reactions to accommodative dilemmas in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 93–113. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00133.xGoogle Scholar
Gerpott, F. H., Balliet, D., Columbus, S., Molho, C., & de Vries, R. E. (2018). How do people think about interdependence? Testing a multidimensional model of subjective outcome interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 716–742. doi:10.1037/pspp0000166Google Scholar
Girme, Y. U., Agnew, C. R., VanderDrift, L. E., Harvey, S. M., Rholes, W. S., & Simpson, J. A. (2018). The ebbs and flows of attachment: Within-person variation in attachment undermine secure individuals’ relationship wellbeing across time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 397–421. doi:10.1037/pspi0000115Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. In Spielberger, C. D. & Butcher, J. N. (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 203–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gomillion, S. & Murray, S. L. (2014). Shifting dependence: The influence of partner instrumentality and self-esteem on responses to interpersonal risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 57–69. doi:10.1177/0146167213503885Google Scholar
Gordon, A. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2012). To have and to hold: Gratitude promotes relationship maintenance in intimate bonds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 257–274. doi:10.1037/a0028723Google Scholar
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898Google Scholar
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 52, 511–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511Google ScholarPubMed
Holmes, J. G. (2002). Interpersonal Expectations as the building blocks of social cognition: An Interdependence Theory perspective. Personal Relationships, 9, 1–26. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00001Google Scholar
Horstmann, K. T., & Ziegler, M. (2016). Situational perception: Its theoretical foundation, assessment, and links to personality. In Kumar, U. (Ed.), The Wiley Handbook of Personality Assessment (1st ed., pp. 31–43). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horstmann, K. T., Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (2018). Measurement of situational influences. In Zeigler-Hill, V. & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hutcherson, C. A. & Gross, J. J. (2011). The moral emotions: A social-functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 719–737. doi:10.1037/a0022408Google Scholar
John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171–203. doi:10.1002/per.2410020302Google Scholar
Karremans, J. C. & Smith, P. K. (2010). Having the power to forgive: When the experience of power increases interpersonal forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1010–1023. doi:10.1177/0146167210376761Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499845Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H. & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Le, B. & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00035Google Scholar
Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377–390. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leikas, S., Lönnqvist, J.-E., & Verkasalo, M. (2012). Persons, situations, and behaviors: Consistency and variability of different behaviors in four interpersonal situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 1007–1022. doi:10.1037/a0030385Google Scholar
Lennon, C. A., Stewart, A. L., & Ledermann, T. (2013). The role of power in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 95–114. doi:10.1177/0265407512452990Google Scholar
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445, 727–731. doi:10.1038/nature05510CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehl, M. R. & Conner, T. S. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12, 149–168. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00108.xGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246Google Scholar
Molho, C. & Balliet, D. (2017). Navigating interdependent social situations. In Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Psychological Situations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190263348.013.3Google Scholar
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, S. L., Aloni, M., Holmes, J. G., Derrick, J. L., Stinson, D. A., & Leder, S. (2009a). Fostering partner dependence as trust insurance: The implicit contingencies of the exchange script in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 324–348. doi:10.1037/a0012856Google 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. doi:10.1037/a0017015Google Scholar
Murray, S. L. & Holmes, J. G. (2015). Maintaining mutual commitment in the face of risk. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 57–60. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.005Google Scholar
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Aloni, M., Pinkus, R. T., Derrick, J. L., & Leder, S. (2009b). Commitment insurance: Compensating for the autonomy costs of interdependence in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 256–278. doi:10.1037/a0014562Google 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, 93–113. doi:10.1037/pspi0000004Google Scholar
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Pinkus, R. T. (2010). A smart unconscious? Procedural origins of automatic partner attitudes in marriage. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 650–656. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.003Google Scholar
Overall, N. C. & Sibley, C. G. (2008). When accommodation matters: Situational dependency within daily interactions with romantic partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 95–104. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.005Google Scholar
Overall, N. C., Girme, Y. U., & Simpson, J. A. (2016). The power of diagnostic situations: How support and conflict can foster growth and security. In Knee, C. R. & Reis, H. T. (Eds.), Positive Approaches to Optimal Relationship Development (pp. 148–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overall, N. C. & Simpson, J. A. (2015). Attachment and dyadic regulation processes. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 61–66. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.008Google Scholar
Parrigon, S., Woo, S. E., Tay, L., & Wang, T. (2017). CAPTION-ing the situation: A lexically-derived taxonomy of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 642–681. doi:10.1037/pspp0000111Google Scholar
Pervin, L. A. (1978). Definitions, measurements, and classifications of stimuli, situations, and environments. Human Ecology, 6, 71–105. doi:10.1007/BF00888567Google Scholar
Pietroni, D., van Kleef, G. A., de Dreu, C. K. W. & Pagliaro, S. (2008). Emotions as strategic information: Effects of other’s emotional expressions on fixed-pie perception, demands, and integrative behaviour in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1444–1454. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.007Google Scholar
Pietroni, D., van Kleef, G. A., Rubaltelli, E., & Rumiati, R. (2009). When happiness pays in negotiation. The interpersonal effects of “exit option”: direct emotions. Mind and Society, 8, 77–92. doi:10.1007/s11299-008-0047-9Google Scholar
Powell, C. & van Vugt, M. (2003). Genuine giving or selfish sacrifice? The role of commitment and cost level upon willingness to sacrifice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 403–412. doi:10.1002/ejsp.154Google Scholar
Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., … Funder, D. C. (2014). The situational eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 677–718. doi:10.1037/a0037250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauthmann, J. F. & Sherman, R. A. (2016). Ultra-brief measures for the situational eight DIAMONDS domains. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32, 165–174. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000245Google Scholar
Rauthmann, J. F. & Sherman, R. A. (2017). The description of situations: Towards replicable domains of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 482–488. doi:10.1037/pspp0000162Google Scholar
Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015). Principles of situation research: Towards a better understanding of psychological situations. European Journal of Personality, 29, 363–381. doi:10.1002/per.1994Google Scholar
Reis, H. T. (2008). Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 311–329. doi:10.1177/1088868308321721Google Scholar
Reis, H. T. & Arriaga, X. B. (2014). Interdependence theory and related theories. In Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. (Eds.), Theory and Explanation in Social Psychology (pp. 305–327). New York: Guilford.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. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T. & Gable, S. L. (2015). Responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 67–71. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rentzsch, K., Columbus, S., Balliet, D., & Gerlach, T. M. (n.d.). Similarity in Situation Perception Predicts Relationship Satisfaction. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Righetti, F., Gere, J., Hofmann, W., Visserman, M. L., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2016). The burden of empathy: Partners’ responses to divergence of interests in daily life. Emotion, 16, 684–690. doi:10.1037/emo0000163Google Scholar
Righetti, F. & Impett, E. (2017). Sacrifice in close relationships: Motives, emotions, and relationship outcomes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, 1–11. doi:10.1111/spc3.12342Google Scholar
Righetti, F., Luchies, L. B., van Gils, S., Slotter, E. B., Witcher, B., & Kumashiro, M. (2015). The prosocial versus proself power holder: How power influences sacrifice in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 779–790. doi:10.1177/0146167215579054Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4CrossRefGoogle 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). London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446249222.n37Google 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. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.xGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C. E. & van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78.Google Scholar
Saucier, G., Bel-Bahar, T., & Fernandez, C. (2007). What modifies the expression of personality tendencies? Defining basic domains of situation variables. Journal of Personality, 75, 479–504. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00446.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoebi, D. & Randall, A. K. (2015). Emotional dynamics in intimate relationships. Emotion Review, 7, 342–348. doi:10.1177/1754073915590620Google Scholar
Shallcross, S. L. & Simpson, J. A. (2012). Trust and responsiveness in strain-test situations: A dyadic perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1031–1044. doi:10.1037/a0026829Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Weisberg, Y. J. (2006). Daily perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The ups and downs of anxiously attached individuals. In Mikulincer, M., & Goodman, G. S. (Eds.), Dynamics of Romantic Love: Attachment, Caregiving, and Sex (pp. 216–239). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Farrell, A. K., Oriña, M. M., & Rothman, A. J. (2015). Power and social influence in relationships. In Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal Relations (pp. 393–420). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14344-015Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899–914. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.899Google Scholar
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., Sell, A., Lieberman, D., & Sznycer, D. (2008). Internal regulatory variables and the design of human motivation: A computational and evolutionary approach. In Elliot, A. J. (Ed.), Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation (pp. 251–271). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Tsang, J. A., McCullough, M. E., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). The longitudinal association between forgiveness and relationship closeness and commitment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 448–472.Google 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, 1373–1395.Google Scholar
Visserman, M. L., Righetti, F., Impett, E. A., Keltner, D., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2018). It’s the motive that counts: Perceived sacrifice motives and gratitude in romantic relationships. Emotion, 18, 625–637. doi:10.1037/emo0000344Google Scholar
Wagerman, S. A. & Funder, D. C. (2009). Personality psychology of situations. In Corr, P. J. & Matthews, G. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 27–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511596544.005Google Scholar
Yovetich, N. A. & Rusbult, C. E. (1994). Accommodative behavior in close relationships: Exploring transformation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 138–164.Google Scholar
Ziegler, M. (2014). Big Five Inventory of Personality in Occupational Situations. Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried GmbH.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×