mapping relationship realities

8/10/2019 Mapping Relationship Realities

1/24

MAPPING RELATIONAL REALITIES

INTRODUCTION

Basic Concepts

Humans as Social Animals

A quote by Aristotle states that Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is

unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human.

Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the

common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of

society, is either a beast or a god. it is very important for human beings to form relationship

Forming bonds is a big part of human life. Social animals (including plenty of nonhuman

ones) survive and reproduce mainly by way of their relationships with others. In order to

survive, it is vital to form and maintain some relationships .Being "social creatures" doesn't

just mean having friends. It means living in groups with others, and relying on each other.

From an evolutionary perspective, this is a huge advantage. Instead of evolving big claws or

teeth or whatever, humanity evolved intelligence. That intelligence allowed us to form

societies for our survival, and create more and more complex social systems to live within. It

gave us the ability to not only create tools and knowledge, but to share that knowledge and

pass it down to later generations (which is a social behavior).

The social nature of humans is even MORE important now than it was when we were

forming packs to hunt. A baby on its own would die-- it needs to be raised by others, to learn

from others, to exist in contact with others. A human completely apart from society would be

a single person naked in the wlderness-- they would die. Even a person who has no friends is

still dependent on thousands of others in todays society-- you live in a house built by others,

eat food grown and transported by others, wear clothes made by others, interact with the

world according to a shared language and shared knowledge base. Larger structures like

nations, armies, schools, medicine, law, transportation, manufacturing, and so on all keep you

alive and contribute to your life-- society keeps you alive and well. Thus Humans gather

together to survive and to prosper, therefore the need to belong to a group is a part of eachindividual. And with this comes the desire to be needed by the other members of the group. A

natural satisfaction and security comes from knowing that they are of use to others, that

others value their contributions. We develop and learn about the world around us through the

filter of other people. Our connections to others are key to not only our survival, but also to

our happiness and the success of our careers.

Need for affiliation


2/24

The need for affiliation makes ones life most meaningful. Abraham Maslow (1954) viewedbelongingness as a basic psychological need and considerable research indicates that indeed

the need to belong is a powerful, fundamental, and extremely pervasive motivation

(Baumister & Leary , 1995) humans are social beings who affiliate in many ways. Some

theorists propose that over the course of evolution, individuals whose biological makeup

predisposed them to affiliate were more likely to survive and reproduce than those who werereclusive. By affording greater access to sexual mates, more protection from predators, an

efficient division of labour , and the passing of knowledge across generations, a socially

oriented lifestyle had considerable adaptive value (Kottak, 2000)

Craig Hill (1987) suggests that we affiliate for four basic psychological reasons; to obtain

positive simulation, receive emotional support, gain attention and to permit social

comparisons. People differ in how strongly they desire to affiliate. In one study, college

students who scored high on personality tests of need for affiliation made more friends

during the semester than students who scored low (Byrne and Greenlinger 1989) even people

with strong affiliation needs, however usually desire some time alone. Conversely, people

with lower affiliation needs still seek periodic social contact. Some theorists, therefore, viewaffiliation needs within a homeostatic model (O'Connor & Rosenblood 1996). They propose

that each of us has our own optimal range of social contact. After periods when a social

contact falls below the optimal range, we increase our efforts to be with others. When

possible we seem to desire most strongly to be with others who have already been through the

same or similar situation (Kulik and Mahler, 2000) doing so can provide us with information

about what to expect. One of the most important and intimate ways that humans affiliate is by

seeking a mate. Marriage seems to be universal across the globe, but people also seek mates

in other types of relationships. (Buss and Schmitt, 1993) much research has found, however

that on average women and men display different mating strategies and preferences.

According to an evolutionary viewpoint called sexual strategies theory (& related model

called parental investment theory), mating strategies and preferences reflect inheritedtendencies shaped over the ages in response to different types of adaptive problems that men

and women. Social structure theory proposes that men and women display different mating

preferences because society directs them into different social roles (Eagly and Wood 1999).

Need for belongingness

Belongingnessis the human emotional need to be an accepted member of a group. Whether it

is family, friends, co-workers, or a sports team, humans have an inherent desire to belong and

be an important part of something greater than themselves. This implies a relationship that isgreater than simple acquaintance or familiarity. The need to belong is the need to give and

receive affection from others.

Belonging is a strong and inevitable feeling that exists in human nature and can be the result

of one's own choices, or the choices of others. Because not everyone has the same life and

interests, not everyone belongs to the same thing or person. Without belonging, one cannot

identify oneself as clearly, thus having difficulties communicating with and relating to one's

surroundings.[1]

Roy Baumeister andMark Leary argue that belongingness is such a fundamental

human motivation that we feel severe consequences of not belonging. If it wasnt sofundamental, then lack of belonging wouldnt have such dire consequences on us. This desire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belongingness#cite_note-Fiske.2C_S.T._2004-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belongingness#cite_note-Fiske.2C_S.T._2004-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belongingness#cite_note-Fiske.2C_S.T._2004-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Baumeisterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Learyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Learyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Baumeisterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belongingness#cite_note-Fiske.2C_S.T._2004-1


3/24

is so universal that the need to belong is found across all cultures and different types of

people

Baumeister wrote a paper on the need to belong theory with Mark Leary in 1995. This theoryseeks to show that humans have a natural need to belong with others. Baumeister and Leary

suggest that it is in our nature, as human beings, to push to form. This push is what helps todistinguish it as a need instead of a desire. In addition to the drive for attachment, people also

struggle to avoid the disintegration of these relationships. As part of this theory, a lack of

belonging would have a long term, negative impact on mood and health, and those who do

not meet their belonging needs may suffer from behavioral and psychological issues. Need to

belong theory has two necessary parts. The first is that there is frequent contact between the

people involved in the attachment that is typically conflict free. Additionally, the notion of an

ongoing and continued relationship between them is essential.

This work was groundbreaking in that it separated itself from previous theories relating

to attachment such as those by John Bowlby. While Bowlbys theory implied the attachment

needs to be applied to a group leader or authority figure, Baumeister and Learys need tobelong theory posited that the relationship could be with anyone.To further distinguish the

two theories, Baumeister and Leary theorized that if a relationship dissolved, the bond can

often be replaced with a bond to another person.

Later, Baumeister published evidence that the way people look for belongingness differs

between men and women. Women prefer a few close and intimate relationships, whereas men

prefer many but shallower connections. Men realize more of their need to belong via a group

of people, or a cause, rather than in close interpersonal relations.

Intimacy

The word intimacy has been derived from the Latin word intimus meaning inner or

inmost. Intimacy can be defined as sharing that which is inmost with others (Mc Adams,

1988). Our emotions are likely to parallel those of the intimate other. In intimate

relationships, we not only share events as factual information, but also the emotional highs

and lows.

People in intimate relationships often behave as if they share some or all aspects of the other

in their own self (Aron, Aron & Smollan, 1992). This is the most extinguishing feature of

intimate relationships. Inclusion of another in ones own self experience is a common feature

in intimate relationships (Register & Henly, 1992).

There are many ways in which intimate relationships manifest themselves.

1. Attribution process- While assigning causes to our and others behaviour we tend to use

external attribution in explaining our behaviour and initial attribution for others. (Jones &

Nisbett, 1971). When we are close to someone, the attributions we have for them is similar to

those we would infer for ourselves as compared to someone about whom we do not care.

2. Resource allocation- Resources are shared equally by intimate partners. There is less

discrepancy between the self and other. This is because when the other is included in ones

self concept, the selfs resources become the others resources.


4/24

3. Communal v/s Exchange relationships- In most social relationships, people operate onthe principle of exchange where they tally their costs against rewards. However, for intimate

relationships which are communal relationships so is not true (Clark & Mills, 1979). The

needs of the self and other become intertwined and often indistinguishable because the other

is an important part of ones self-concept. They provide help as the need of the other arises

without expecting anything in return.

4. Self schemas- Traits which are highly self descriptive are recognised more quickly asself descriptive traits than are traits that are not relevant to ones self concept (Markus, 1977).

As the intimacy bond deepens between two people, they begin to incorporate some of their

self schemas into their own self concepts (Aron et al, 1991). As a result of this cognitive

blurring of the distinction between self and other, people need more time to recognize self

descriptive traits if they are not shared by the intimate other (Aron et al, 1991). Inclusion of

the other in self can lead to self/other confusion in cognitive processing.

5. Transactive memory- People in intimate relationships have a shared memory system for

encoding, storing and retrieving information that is greater than their individual memory.(Weber, Erber & Raymond, 1991). Through updating one another on what is in each others

knowledge area, the partners can further embellish their transactive memory (Engestrom et al,

1990).

Types of Relationships

There are at least two different basic types of relationship. These can be called exchange and

communal relationships (Clark, 1984; Clark & Mills, 1979). Exchange relationships are

based on reciprocity and fairness; each person does something for the other mainly in theexpectation of getting some direct benefit in return. Communal relationships, in contrast, are

based on mutual love and concern; in this type of relationship, people do things for each other

without expecting to be repaid.

One difference between communal and exchange relationships is whether the people keep

track. In the lab, researchers have measured communal versus exchange orientation by having

participants work on puzzles one after the other and noting whether they choose to use

different colored pens (so each persons contribution is readily visible in a distinctive color)

or the same colored pen (so that it becomes impossible to tell who did what). People who

want or have communal relationships are more likely to use the same colored pen (Clark,

1984; Clark & Mills, 1979). By doing that, they did not keep track of their respectivecontributions.

In general, social psychologists assume that communal relationships are more mature and

desirable than exchange relationships. This bias in favor of communal relationships, however,

is specific to close or intimate relationships. Across the broader society, exchange

relationships seem much more powerful for driving progress and increasing wealth.

Exchange relationships promote achievement, increase wealth, and ultimately drive progress,

whereas communal relationships make people feel safe and secure and provide a haven where

others care for you regardless of how much you achieve. This tradeoff may explain why most

people in modern societies ultimately try to have some of both.


5/24

In any case, communal interactions are healthier and more mature in close relationships.People in communal close relationships help each other more than do people in exchange

close relationships. They feel better about helping each other and are more responsive to each

others emotional states. They keep track of each others needs, rather than what the other

does for them and this attention to the others needs reflects an ongoing concern to take care

of each other. Communal relationships also promote a greater sense of unity and sharedidentity, so the relationship feels more solid.

The underlying reality may be that communal and exchange relationships are based on

different rules. Exchange relationships are based on reciprocity. In contrast, communal

relationships are based on the norm of mutual concern.

Attachment styles

People have an innate tendency to form emotional attachments to others. Our experience with

other people influences the ways in which we approach close relationships. Our beliefs about

the self, other people and the nature of relationships are summarized by our attachment style.

Attachment is a special emotional relationship that involves an exchange of comfort, care,

and pleasure. According to John Bowlby, attachment is a "lasting psychological

connectedness between human beings. He also believed that attachment had an evolutionary

component; it aids in survival and that the propensity to make strong emotional bonds to

particular individuals is a basic component of human nature.

Characteristics of Attachment-

Bowlby believed that there are four distinguishing characteristics of attachment:

1.

Proximity Maintenance- The desire to be near the people we are attached to.

2. Safe Haven- Returning to the attachment figure for comfort and safety in the face of a

fear or threat.

3. Secure Base- The attachment figure acts as a base of security from which the child can

explore the surrounding environment.

4. Separation Distress- Anxiety that occurs in the absence of the attachment figure.

Four different attachment styles can be distinguished, with two underlying dimensions; view

of others and view of self. People withsecureattachment styles feel positive about the self

and others, and are most likely to feel trust and happiness in close relationships. Those with

a dismissingattachment style have positive views of the self, but negative views of others;

they are low in expressiveness and intimacy in their relationships. Preoccupiedindividuals

feel negative about themselves, but positive about others. They are high in emotional

expressiveness and show the most reliance on other people. Finally,fearfullyattached people

think negatively about themselves and about others.

These different attachment styles influence the way partners give and receive support.

Securely attached people seek more support when they are upset and give more support when

someone else is upset, whereas people with dismissing and fearful attachment styles seek and

give less support. This demonstrates how attachment styles influence the ways people attain

intimacy and experience love.


6/24

Ainsworths Classic Studies

Ainsworth's "Strange Situation"

In her 1970's research, psychologist Mary Ainsworth expanded greatly upon Bowlby's

original work. Her ground-breaking "Strange Situation" study revealed the profound effectsof attachment on behavior. In the study, researchers observed children between the ages of 12

and 18 months as they responded to a situation in which they were briefly left alone and then

reunited with their mothers. Based upon the responses the researchers observed, Ainsworth

described three major styles of attachment: secure attachment, ambivalent-insecure

attachment, and avoidant-insecure attachment. Later, researchers Main and Solomon (1986)

added a fourth attachment style called disorganized-insecure attachment based upon their

own research. A number of studies since that time have supported Ainsworth's attachment

styles and have indicated that attachment styles also have an impact on behaviors later in life.

Adult Attachment Styles

Hazan and Shaver (1987) were two of the first researchers to explore Bowlby's ideas in thecontext of romantic relationships. According to Hazan and Shaver, the emotional bond that

develops between adult romantic partners is partly a function of the same motivational

system--the attachment behavioral system--that gives rise to the emotional bond between

infants and their caregivers. Hazan and Shaver noted that the relationship between infants and

caregivers and the relationship between adult romantic partners share the following features:

both feel safe when the other is nearby and responsive

both engage in close, intimate, bodily contact

both feel insecure when the other is inaccessible

both share discoveries with one another

both play with one another's facial features and exhibit a mutual fascination and

preoccupation with one another

both engage in "baby talk"

On the basis of these parallels, Hazan and Shaver argued that adult romantic relationships,

like infant-caregiver relationships, are attachments, and that romantic love is a property of the

attachment behavioral system, as well as the motivational systems that give rise to caregivingand sexuality.

The idea that romantic relationships may be attachment relationships has had a profound

influence on modern research on close relationships. There are at least three critical

implications of this idea. First, if adult romantic relationships are attachment relationships,

then we should observe the same kinds of individual differences in adult relationships that

Ainsworth observed in infant-caregiver relationships. Second, if adult romantic relationships

are attachment relationships, then the way adult relationships "work" should be similar to the

way infant-caregiver relationships work. Third, whether an adult is secure or insecure in his

or her adult relationships may be a partial reflection of his or her experiences with his or her

primary caregivers.


7/24

Findings suggested that there are two fundamental dimensions with respect to adultattachment patterns. One critical variable has been labeled attachment-related anxiety. People

who score high on this variable tend to worry whether their partner is available, responsive,

attentive, etc. People who score on the low end of this variable are more secure in the

perceived responsiveness of their partners. The other critical variable is called attachment-

related avoidance. People on the high end of this dimension prefer not to rely on others oropen up to others. People on the low end of this dimension are more comfortable being

intimate with others and are more secure depending upon and having others depend upon

them. A prototypical secure adult is low on both of these dimensions. (Baumeister &

Bushman, 2010)

Relational Self

Relational self refers to those aspects of the self-concept that are shared with relationship

partners and define the person's role or position within significant relationships(Reis &

Sprecher, 2009). The relational self is achieved by assimilating with significant others (i.e.,

the relational self contains those aspects of the self-concept that are shared with relationshippartners and define the person's role or position within significant relationships). The

relational self is based on personalized bonds of attachment. Such bonds include parent-child

relationships, friendships,

and romantic relationships as well as specific role relationships such as teacher-student or

clinician-client. This form of self-representation relies on the process of reflected appraisal

and is associated with the motive of protecting or enhancing the significant other and

maintaining the relation-ship itself.

According to a model developed by Chen, Boucher and Tapias (2006), the relational self

is self-knowledge that is linked in memory to knowledge about significant others,

exists at multiple levels of specificity,

is capable of being contextually or chronically activated, and

is comprised of self-conceptions and a constellation of other self-aspects (e.g.,

motives, self-regulatory strategies) that characterize the self when relating to

significant others.

Self Expansion Model

The self-expansion model proposes that a central human motivation is self-expansion and thatone way people seek such expansion is through close relationships in which each includes the

other in the self. It is based on two key principles. The first is that humans have a primary

motivation to self-expand. The second principle is that individuals often achieve self-

expansion through close relationships which allow the inclusion of the other in the self.

One of the underlying themes of self-expansion is that individuals have a very basic motiveto self-expand. Self-expansion is the desire to enhance an individuals potential efficacy.

Motivational models often refer to self-efficacy as ones belief that they are competent and

can achieve specific goals. However, within the self-expansion model, potential efficacy is

used instead as it only refers to obtaining resources that will make goal attainment possible.Achievement of this goal is a secondary concern


8/24

The second principle of the self-expansion model is that people use close relationships toself-expand by including the other in the self. The self is often described as the content or the

knowledge of who we are.According to Aron and Aron, when entering a close relationship a

person should perceive that the self and other should begin to overlap by including aspects of

the other in the self. More specifically, when the other makes his or her resources available,

this leads to the belief that these resources are now included in the self. These new resourceslead to greater inclusion of the other in the self by also incorporating the others perspectives

and identities in the self.

Present Study

The present study is based on the basic human need to affiliate which is a basic desire to

establish and maintain relationships. People differ in how strongly they desire to affiliate, but

throughout their lives people seek out companions. Further, the need to belong drives people

to affiliate, commit and remain together and it makes them reluctant to live alone. People fear

being ostracised and even historically, social isolation has been a dreaded form of

punishment.

This study focused on understanding how people map out their social reality. It was also anattempt to understand how people perceive themselves in close relationships and how they

configure their relational self ie self achieved by assimilating with significant others. The

relational self consists of those aspects of the self-concept that are shared with relationship

partners and define the persons role or positions within a significant relationship. The Self-

Expansion Model is a conceptual framework that attempts to describe how people think, feel

and act in close relationships. The self-other inclusion represents the degree to which partners

are cognitively and emotionally intertwined with the other, sharing preferences, memories

and joint motivation for maintaining the relationship. It is this self-other inclusion which is

subjectively experienced as closeness and is similar to what we attempt to describe andinvestigate in our own research. From this perspective, the position of self-expansion and

interdependence themes converge and the IOS Scale represents but one measure tapping into

the cognitive overlap that can occur in close relationships.

Review of Literature

A study in 2010 by (Joanna Schug, Masaki Yuki & William Maddux sought to demonstrate

and elaborate upon findings that East Asians disclose less personal information to other

people than do Westerners. They proposed that both between- and within-culture differences

in self-disclosure to close friends may be explained by the construct of relational mobility,

the general degree to which individuals in a society have opportunities to form newrelationships and terminate old ones. They concluded that societies and social contexts higher

in relational mobility (in which relationships can be formed and dissolved relatively easily)

produce stronger incentives for self-disclosure as a social-commitment device. (Schug, Yuki,

& Maddux, 2010)

Three studies in 2012 byChristine Ma-KellamsandJim Blascovichexamined cross-cultural

differences in empathic accuracy (the ability to correctly infer anothers emotional

experience) within the context of different relationships. EastWest cultural differences in

self-construal were hypothesized to differentiate levels of empathic accuracy across

relationship types. In contrast to the independent self prevalent among members of Western

cultures, members of Eastern cultures generally view the self as interdependent with thosewith whom they have a relationship. Easterners, relative to Westerners, are more concerned
http://psp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Christine+Ma-Kellams&sortspec=date&submit=Submithttp://psp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Christine+Ma-Kellams&sortspec=date&submit=Submithttp://psp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Christine+Ma-Kellams&sortspec=date&submit=Submithttp://psp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Jim+Blascovich&sortspec=date&submit=Submithttp://psp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Jim+Blascovich&sortspec=date&submit=Submithttp://psp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Jim+Blascovich&sortspec=date&submit=Submithttp://psp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Jim+Blascovich&sortspec=date&submit=Submithttp://psp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Christine+Ma-Kellams&sortspec=date&submit=Submit


9/24

with the thoughts or feelings of close others and less concerned with the thoughts or feelings

of those with whom they have no relational link (i.e., strangers). Across three studies, the

authors found that East Asians, compared with European Americans, made more accurate

inferences regarding the emotions of close others (i.e., friends), but less accurate inferences

regarding the emotions of strangers. Furthermore, individual differences in interdependent

self-construal among East Asians predicted the degree of empathic accuracy. (Ma-Kellams &Blascovich, 2012)

Studies by Lutyen and Blatt in 2013 showed that two-polarities models of personality

propose that personality development evolves through a dialectic synergistic interaction

between two fundamental developmental psychological processes across the life spanthe

development of interpersonal relatedness on the one hand and of self-definition on the other.

This article offered a broad review of extant research concerning these models, discusses

their implications for psychology and psychiatry, and addresses future research perspectives

deriving from these models. They first considered the implications of findings in this area for

clinical research and practice. This was then followed by a discussion of emerging research

findings concerning the role of developmental, cross-cultural, evolutionary, andneurobiological factors influencing the development of these two fundamental personality

dimensions. Taken together, this body of research suggested that theoretical formulations that

focus on interpersonal relatedness and self-definition as central coordinates in personality

development and psychopathology provide a comprehensive conceptual paradigm for future

research in psychology and psychiatry exploring the interactions among neurobiological,

psychological, and sociocultural factors in adaptive and disrupted personality development

across the life span. (Luyten & Blatt, 2013)

An article by Aron, Norman et all in 1998 explored the motivational aspects of the self-

expansion model, focusing on 2 key themes: (1) the desire to expand the resources,

perspectives, and identities available for accomplishing goals and (2) the desire to experiencepositive affect arising from the process of such expansion. These themes were considered in

the context of current social psychological work on motivation (to which the model mainly

contributes an understanding of goal selection) as well as in relation to theories and research

in the relationship area (the area in which the model was originally developed and in which it

has generated most of its research). Considered more briefly were the links of self-expansion

motivation with another key aspect of the self-expansion model, including other in the self,

and a discussion of 5 potentially significant motivational aspects of the model or issues that

have not been much studied to date. (Aron, Norman, & Aron, The Self-Expansion Model and

Motivation, 1998)

A study by Aron, Steele, Kashdan and Perez in 2006 tested the hypothesis from the self-expansion model that the usual effect of greater attraction to a similar (vs. dissimilar) stranger

will be reduced or reversed when a person is given information that a relationship would be

likely to develop (i.e., that they would be very likely to get along) with the other person. The

study employed the bogus stranger paradigm and focused on similarity/dissimilarity of

interests in the context of attraction to a same-gender other. The effect for similarity under

conditions in which no information is given about relationship likelihood replicated the usual

pattern of greater attraction to similars. However, as predicted, a significant similarity by

information interaction demonstrated that this effect was significantly reduced (and slightly

reversed) when participants had been given information that the partner will like self. In

analyses for each gender separately, both of these effects were significant only for men,


10/24

suggesting that the focus on interest similarity may have been less relevant for women.

(Aron, Steele, Kashdan, & Perez, 2006)

H. T. Reis and P. Shaver's (1988) interpersonal process model of intimacy suggested thatboth self-disclosure and partner responsiveness contribute to the experience of intimacy in

interactions. Two studies tested this model using an event-contingent diary methodology inwhich participants provided information immediately after their social interactions over 1

(Study 1) or 2 (Study 2) weeks. For each interaction, participants reported on their self-

disclosures, partner disclosures, perceived partner responsiveness, and degree of intimacy

experienced in the interaction. Overall, the findings strongly supported the conceptualization

of intimacy as a combination of self-disclosure and partner disclosure at the level of

individual interactions with partner responsiveness as a partial mediator in this process.

Additionally, in Study 2, self-disclosure of emotion emerged as a more important predictor of

intimacy than did self-disclosure of facts and information. (Laurenceau, Barrett, &

Pietromonaco, 1998)

A research by Constantine Sedikides, Lowell Gaertner & Erin M. OMara furnished supportto the view that the individual self is the primary form of self-definition. They discussed

alternative explanations and implications, ending with the introduction of a theoretical model,

the boomerang model, that has the potential to integrate the diverse literature on the topic.

The individual self comprises of unique attributes, the relational self comprises of partner-

shared attributes, and the collective self-comprises in-group-shared attributes. All selves are

fundamental components of the self-concept, with each being important and meaningful to

human experience and with each being associated with health benefits. Are the selves,

however, equally important and meaningful? They reviewed a program of research that tested

four competing theoretical views suggesting that the motivational hub of human experience

is (a) the individual self, (b) the relational self, (b) the collective self, or (c) determined by

contextual or cultural factors. (Sedikides, Gaertner, & OMara, 2010)

METHOD

Participants

For the purpose of the study one male participant of age 19 and one female participant of age

19 were interviewed, both of them currently studying at the undergraduate level. They were

selected from the interviewers group of acquaintances/friends. Self-analysis was also done.

Responses were recorded and then analysed.

Tools

I nclusion of Other in the Sel f: The present study will adapt the Inclusion of Other in

the Self (IOS) Scale (Aron, Aron & Smollan, 1992). The IOS Scale has seven Venn

diagrams of two same-size circles, one circle indicating the self and the other circle

representing the other. In the first picture, the two circles are adjacent to each other.

From the second picture to the seventh picture, the degree of overlap progresses

linearly (Aron et al, 1992). The scale is scored from 1 (no overlap) to 7 (almost

complete overlap). The IOS Scale had been used primarily to describe dyadic

relationships such as romantic relationship and self-best-friend relationship (Aron,Aron, Tudor & Nelson, 1991; Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult & Langston, 1998). In


11/24

applying the IOS scale to various samples, researchers have found it robust and

reliable. When Aron, Aron, & Smollan (1992) administered this scale to a sample of

208 participants, the average score (across relationship type) was 4.74 (SD = 1.48)

The respondents were asked to list out their important relationships and mention the

selfother overlap in that relationship referring to the pictures 1 to 7.

The IOS Scale:

Please indicate the picture which best describes your important relationships. If none

of the pictures presented below describes your situation, please draw one yourself.

Note that each picture symbolizes a relationship involving two persons. One circle

represents you, while the other circle represents your close relationship.

Relationship

Picture

Description of

Relationship

Quali tative I nterview:Qualitative interviewing is a common qualitative data collectionmethod though it is not a completely standardised approach. It characteristically involves

questions and probes by the interviewer designed to encourage the interviewee to talk

freely and extensively about the topic(s) defined by the researcher. The whole point of the

qualitative interview is that it generally generates extensive and rich data from

participants in the study. Success is not guaranteed as factors such as the skills of the

interviewer, the topic and interviewees potential to provide good qualitative data have a

part to play.

Although the researcher usually has a list of areas to explore through questioning, there

is no rigid structure and flexibility is vital. The researcher wishes to encourage openanswers in which the interviewee provides elaborate and detailed answers. It normally


12/24

does not lend itself to quantitative analysis methods and detailed replies are encouraged,

leading to lengthy interviews of a somewhat unpredictable duration and some form of

recording is generally necessary. It is largely steered by the responses of the interviewee

which the interviewer may explore further with the use of careful questioning and seeks

to explore the thinking of the interviewee. (Howitt, 2010)


13/24

Procedure

For the purpose of this practical the following procedure was followed:

At first I coded three relationships which are most significant in my life. After coding those

relationships i did self-analysis using the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scale (Aron,Aron & Smollan, 1992). After the self-analysis was done a group was formed of people of

age group 19-21 discussion was held in the group and all the group members settled down on

a set of questions which revolved around the themes of formation, maintenance, conflicts and

resolution. These questions were then used as a guide to conduct the interviews with one

male and one female participant respectively. The interviews were conducted and transcribed.

Content analysis was used to analyse the data and then inferences were drawn about the

participants relationship with the significant others.

Step 1: Self Analysis

A.

UsingI nclusion of Other in the Self Scale, we first listed out our personalrelationships.

B.

Reflecting on the stages of each relationship listedformation, maintenance like for

example activities shared, not shared, conflictareas and frequency, resolution, we

described our relationship with others.

Step 2: We collected data using the IOS Scale and interviewed our 1 male and 1 femaleparticipant. Based on discussions in class, the following probes were developed:

What is the range of your relationships?

What about the domains of your relationship?

What is the history of your relationships? How have they evolved or changed over time? How have you contributed to these relationships? Do you want to improve them? How

and why?

What are the processes that enter and maintain your relationships- the gives and takes in

your relationships?

How do these relationships configure you ie what if these relationships were not in yourlife?

What do you value the most in these relationships?

How often and what kind of conflicts occur in your relationships? How do you negotiate

and solve these conflicts? How do these conflicts affect the future of your relationships?

What would you value more in your relationships? Your independence or the inter-dependence you share with the other person?

Are these relationships affected by the gender of the other person? How does your gender

affect these relationships?

Step 3: Once the interviews were conducted, and transcribed, we analysed them via the

method of content analysis.


14/24

RESULTS

1.

Self Analysis

Relationship Grandfathers

friend

Schoolmate Mother Best Friend Soul Sister

Picture 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Description No self

disclosure, no

shared activities,

minimal

recreationalactivities, very

low frequency

of interaction

and no conflicts

Very little self

disclosure, no

shared or

recreational

activitiesanymore, low

frequency of

interaction and

no conflicts

Some

censored self

disclosure,

quite a few

shared andrecreational

activities,

interaction

every day and

high amount

of conflicts

A lot of self

disclosure,

some shared

activities, lot

ofrecreational

activities,

daily

interaction

and very

high level of

conflicts

Complete self

disclosure,

almost no

shared or

recreationalactivities as

living in

different

countries now,

hourly virtual

interaction and

no conflicts at

all


15/24

2. Male Participant

(Transcript of interview attached in appendices)

Relationship Brother Childhood

Best Friend

Father Aunt College Best

Friend


Description Minimal self

disclosure,

learning

music as

shared

activity, some

recreational

activities,daily

frequency of

interaction,

very high

daily conflicts

Sporadic self

disclosure, no

shared

activities

anymore, X-

box and

football as

sharedactivities, no

conflicts in

past 4 years

Moderate self

disclosure,

morning rituals

as shared

activities,

music and wine

tasting as

recreationalactivities, daily

frequency of

interaction and

some weekly

conflicts

High level

of self

disclosure,

no shared

activities

anymore,

movies,

music etc asrecreational

activities

and no

conflicts

Very high

self

disclosure,

daily travel

as shared

activities, lot

of

recreationalactivities,

daily

interaction

and no

conflicts


16/24

3. Female Participant

(Transcript of interview attached in appendices)

Relation

ship

School Ex-

Boyfriend

School

Friend

Mother Boyfriend Best Friend


Descript

ion

No self

disclosure

any more,

no

shared/recre

ational

activities,

very low

level of

interaction,and no

conflicts

anymore

Some self

disclosure,

no

shared/recre

ational

activities,

moderate

interaction,

and no

conflicts

Moderate

self

disclosure,

little

shared/recre

ational

activities,

moderate

interaction

and someconflicts

High self

disclosure,

little

shared/recre

ational

activities,

daily

interaction,

and

moderateconflicts

Complete

self

disclosure,

little

shared/recre

ational

activities,

daily

interaction,

and noconflicts


17/24

DISCUSSION

The aim of the study was to map out relational realities and study close relationships using

Aron and Arons IOS scale. Semi-structured qualitative interviews of two participants, onemale and one female between the age of 19-30 years old was done for the same.

Before interviewing the participant, the IOS scale was self-conducted and analysed. The

results can be seen in part 1 of results. The first degree of relationship was with the

grandfathers best friend. There is negligible self disclosure, related only to superficial details

such as name, age, current place of study etc. Frequency of interaction is very low, with the

only interaction being when he calls the home landline. The only shared/recreational activity

is when they are together at some family event or party, which happen about once in 3-4

months. There is no conflict in the relationship. The level of self disclosure is slightly higher

with the 2nddegree, which is an old schoolmate, with some details like interests, opinions etc

being exchanged in class. Frequency of interaction used to be almost daily till the last 2 years,after which interaction is a rare facebook message or kind. Shared activities used to be

attending classes in school together but since school has ended, there are none. There are

almost no recreational activities anymore, except for school alumini meets. Since there are no

conflicts, there is no conflict resolution. The 3rddegree was identified as the mother. Amount

of self disclosure is moderate, but most of it is censored, based on the principle of what she

doesnt know wont hurt her. Frequency of interaction is daily due to living together. There

are quite a few shared activities like dinner, watching tv etc, while recreational activities

include shopping, parties etc. There is a very high level of conflict with almost some or other

argument or conflict taking place every day. Conflict resolution never actually takes place,

with both ignoring it, and it eventually dissipating on its own. The 4thdegree was identified

as the best friend. The relationship involved a lot of self disclosure, with personal issuesbeing shared and discussed by both sides. However, communication often suddenly broke

down for some times in between but it got back to normal after a while. The frequency of

interaction was high with at least bi-weekly physical meetings and almost daily virtual

communication. Shared activities included walking from metro station to college etc together.

There were a lot of recreational activities like parties, movies, general hanging out etc. There

was a very high level of conflict, on almost everything with both feeling a general feeling of

being pissed off with each other constantly, and some lingering deep seated issues that have

never been completely resolved. Conflict resolution took place via honest communication and

openness about what the issue was, but it was not always effective or even healthy. The 5th

degree that was identified was the soul sister. There was complete and utter self disclosure,

with almost no secrets. Topics included everything from family issues to personal issues tominor fights with others etc. Since the soul sister moved to a different country after school,

which is where they initially met, the amount of shared or recreational activities is very less,

only once or twice a year. There is daily interaction via virtual mediums with both keeping in

touch with variety of ways such as skype, whatsapp, facebook etc. There are almost no

conflicts and even when they are some, they are very trivial disagreements which are almost

immediately sorted out.

The first interview was conducted on Vivasvaan Srivastava. The participant is a 2 ndyear

student of Politcal Science at Hindu College. He is an active debater and lives with his

parents and younger brother at home in Saket. His schooling was from Amity International

School, Saket where he was an active member of both the debating and basketball team. The


18/24

relationships chosen by the participant can be seen in part 2 of the Results. The themes that

emerged from the semi-structured interview will now be discussed.

The first theme that emerges is his estranged relationship with his brother. This can beseen in the following statements: with my brother, it was never a very pleasant relationship

because as a kid we had a lot of competition with each other, over the years as wevegrown up, so that relationship has really deteriorated and we dont really talk as such, Now

that were both older weve just sorta moved in our paths so we dont really feel the need of

reconciling, whenever I've tried to be a brother its never really worked out so theres that,

his whole habit of complaining about what I do really gets on my nerves., my brother I

think its like I've given him a lotAnd I never really got it back, like as a kid I would have

wanted him to help me back too, there is nothing really in my relationship with him that I

value anymore, Because I literally cant even think of a single moment that I've actually

enjoyed with him, apart from my brother that is. With him, theyve (conflicts) just

worsened the relationship

Vivasvaan put his brother in the 1st

degree of his relationships ie the farthest. Initially, assupported by his statements, he tried really hard to have a good relationship with his brother

but due to a lot of reasons, such as sibling rivalry, favouritism and biasness by parents, as

seen in the following statement, I always felt as a kid that my parents ga ve him more than he

deserved, partly my parents fault because, like now that I'm older they admit that there

were some things that they did not really understand and that in some way they did show

favouritism. A study by Pardo et all in 2008 showed that despite a powerful social norm

that parents should treat offspring equally, beginning in early childhood and continuing

through adulthood, parents often differentiate among their children in such domains as

closeness, support, and control. (Suitor, Sechrist, Plikuhn, Pardo, & Pillemer, 2008).

According to him, It also depends on how much you parents facilitate this process (good

relationship between siblings), Because even today I think they're very biased, becausewhen I was young we were not as economically stable as we are now and my brother got all

the benefits of that and so he never truly appreciated what was given to him on a platter but I

could see that and yeah. Another study from 1983 showed that teenagers who perceived a

sibling as being favored evidenced increased angry and depressive feelings as well as identity

confusion, and was most pronounced when a parent of the same sex favoured a sibling of the

same sex as the respondent. (Harris & Howard, 1983)

He does not believe that there is any hope of reconciliation, as seen in the above statements.

This can be attributed to the Expectancy Theory, which proposes that an individual will

decide to behave or act in a certain way because they are motivated to select a specific

behavior over other behaviors due to what they expect the result of that selectedbehavior will

be. (Vroom, 1964)

The 2ndtheme that emerged was his estranged relationship with his father.This can be

seen in the following statements: . Now he makes faces when I talk about the same things he

used to share with me, really upset about me not prioritizing my education over my

relationships so now my dad does not really appreciate me talking to him about my college

life and all, , I just wish that he could be more comfortable and happy with the person I

am.

According to him, a lot of this change in his fathers behaviour stems from the repercussions

of his last breakup, which we can see in: since then my dad has been scolding me ever since

and basically being really critical and disapproving and all. What I want from him is not a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior


19/24

guilt trip but you know, actual advice because even hes been there down that road,Its

more of an I told you so sort of thing really, , he now just prefers to live in an artificial

bubble of his own where his son is just going to college to study and nothing else. I mean talk

about ridiculous

However, he and his father, who he has placed in the 3rddegree in his relationships, have

found other things to connect over and fill the gaps in the lack of frankness in theircommunication, as seen here: one thing he recently picked up was music, so thats where we

share a really good bond because hes learning from me so thats the only place we can

connect now and he is compensating and its actually better this way because overhere it

no longer involves any discomfort or awkwardness because I do realize that obviously all our

parents come from a generation previous to ours which is not as open or frank about certain

things the way we are

Vivasvaan believes that any crack lines in the relationship between him and his father are

either because of his father, I think it has more to do with him accepting and understanding

the fact that yes, there is a life beyond studies and all. And honestly, I dont think I can do

anything here to really change the way things are. He really needs to change his perspective

is what it is Its like he has a superior attitude about some portions of my life or due to hisbrother, he did say a lot of wrong stuff about me to my dad and he somehow made it seem to

him that I was a wasted cause, especially when I screwed up big time in my boards. So after

that both my parents were really really upset about me not prioritizing my education over my

relationships so now my dad does not really appreciate me talking to him about my college

life and all.

A study on effects of parental differential treatment on relationship quality with siblings and

parents in 2005 showed the extent to which justice evaluations, which is evaluation of what is

justified or not, mediate the effects of perceived parental differential treatment on relationship

quality with siblings and parents. According to this, justice evaluations turned out to be more

powerful predictors of relationship quality to parents than parental differential treatment.

(Boll, Ferring, & Filipp, 2005)

Thhe third theme which emerged was him perceiving his aunt as a mentor and guide,

along with high level of trust and frankess with her,who he has placed in the 4thdegree of

relationships. This can be seen in the following statements: she really understood my stupid

teenage antics and all so when my parents had a tough time understanding where me or my

behaviour was coming from, she used to come and talk to me and tell me how to go about

stuff and she's the only one Ive honestly actually talked about things in my life to, Yeah, I

would (call her my mentor.) In a lot of ways and even today, she actually sits down to talk to

me about it and people dont usually do that, My aunt has given me a lot. We see that

there was a high level of dependence on her, especially during his teenage years: She's the

only one Ive honestly actually talked about things in my life to, specially about my pubertal

years because I kind of hit it back in 6thgrade when everyone else in my class, specially the

guys were still kids and I was the only one with facial hair and all and that used to really

make me feel awkward and out of place. Without my aunt, my life would have been really

really difficult.

A research by Huston and Larzelere in 1980 proved trust to be associated with love and

amount of self-disclosure, with people reciprocating to trust and self-disclosre more than

other factors involved in relationships. (Larzelere & Huston, 1980)


20/24

The fourth and final theme identified was the evasion of personal responsibility for current

state of relationships.As seen in the previous themes,

In relation to his father not being as frank and open with him as he was before, I kinda

blame it on my brother, he used to complain a lot about the time me and my dad spent

together and it was ok when he was a child but now its like its become a chronic habit of

his.In relation to his estranged relationship with his brother, I always felt as a kid that my

parents gave him more than he deserved, so it was partly my parents fault because, like now

that I'm older they admit that there were some things that they did not really understand as

parents also

In relation to his fight with his childhood best friend, we've had ups and downs in our

friendships, mostly because we used to chase the same girl at once point of time and basically

this giy ended up dating her. So for two years we did not really talk that much because he had

this misconception that I was trying to break them up. Its only when she moved away to the

states that we actually talked once again and realized ok we were really foolish.

In all the three statements above, Vivasvaan often blames external forces or some third

person for any conflicts or issues that crop in in his relationships and does not take anyproactive part in ensuring their maintenance and survival. Another point to note is his sense

of perceived unfairness regarding all these relationships, wherein he is always the victim of

the relationship, always supposedly unable to do more. This has been theorized in the Equity

theory which attempts to explain relational satisfaction in terms of perceptions of fair/unfair

distributions of resources within interpersonal relationships. (Hatfield, Walster, & Berscheid,

1978)

The 2ndparticipant interviewed was Akshita Sahini, a 19 year old undergraduate student at

the UCLA. She lives with 3 other girls in a shared flat. The relationships chosen by her can

be seen in part 3 of results. The themes that emerged frin the interview will now be discussed

The first theme that was noted was the importance of trust and self disclosure,especially in

the 5thamd the closest degree of relationships, ie her best friend.

About her best friend, she says: she was the person I was calling whenever I had

something I needed to talk about or even just anythinggenerally, We basically get each

other on a level of understanding I havent shared with anyone else ever, so in way of

improving it I would like things to remain just the way they are, no matter what shell

listen to me and if she cant shell be direct about it. She wont fake it interest, at the end of

the day were gonna come back to each other and we depend on each other too much to let

go so easily, while when youre best friends with someone, and this is not a term I use

lightly, you know youre gonna stick with each other.She and her best friend depend on each other a lot, as illustrated in the following statement,

We depend on each other so much, and so completely, so I definitely value the

interdependence more. One of the reasons for this can be the theories in the Investment

Model, which state that our commitment to a relationship depends on how satisfied we are

about a) rewards and costs and what we see as a fair balance and b) a comparison with

potential alternative relationships. (Rusbult C. , 1980). In the case of Akshita and her best

friend, the rewards, which are in the form of complete self disclosure and trust clearly

outweight the costs for her, which might be the distance between the two of them. Also, as

seen here, I did not believe that I could ever talk to anyone just the way I think but with

her I can, this relationship clearly wins the comparison with other potential alternatives.


21/24

To sum it up, she herself describes the relationship in the following way: shes the firstperson I've grown attached to so bloody much in an non-romantic platonic way. I can tell

her anything, at any time, no matter how shameful or cringe-inducing or anything it is. So if

she were not there, I wouldnt have anyone to truly trust, to confide in, to truly be myself. I

would be very lonely in a way

Another article by Rusbult in 1993 employs interdependence theory as a means ofunderstanding how and why some relationships survive difficult times whereas other

promising relationships end, with the investment model suggesting that dependence

increases not only as a consequence of increasing satisfaction, but also because available

alternatives are perceived to be poor and numerous important resources are invested in a

relationship. (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993)

The 2ndtheme that emerged from the interview was that of communication and distance.Considering that all 5 degrees of relationships in Akshitas life are long distance ones,

effective communication and interaction often becomes an issue.

About her mother, I've grown up I try to be more accommodating and nice to her basically

and its easier now that I dont live with her anymorebut it often does not happen like that.Hes never really said anything but the distance obviously is an issue for us because if we

were able to meet and all more than 4-5 times a year, things would be different, With

vibhas, theyre not usually aboutanything in particular, more to do with our combined

frustration about the long distance thing and it just builds up sometimes and then comes out.

-referring to her boyfriend.

For her best friend, Even if we dont talk for a while I know were gonna beok, . And

unlike with Vibhas, the distance between us hasnt really made a difference. In fact we

became better friends after I left the country, than we were before.

A study in 1999 dealt with the nature of partners' needs for closeness and distance in

established relationships that issues of closeness and distance were highly salient, especially

for insecurely attached individuals. The presence and nature of reported differences inpartners' needs for closeness-distance were predicted by sex and by the attachment styles of

both partners; these differences were also linked to relationship satisfaction, with participants

frequently reporting that interactions concerning closeness-distance had changed during the

course of the relationship (Feeney, 1999)

Another study from 2004 showed that across in people with long distance relations the

interaction states of being together and being apart mutually enabled and constrained one

another in many ways. (Sahlstein, 2004).

Akshita state that she made extensive use of the technology available in todays world like

Viber, Skype, Facebook, Facetime etc to keep in touch with them, which made the distance

easier to deal with.

Contrary to popular belief, not too many gender differences emerged. However, compared to

the female participant, the male participant seemed more open and willing to talk about his

personal relationships. Both the participants preferred close friendships with females, and

both valued honesty and trust the most in all their relationships. No cultural differences

emerged per say because both of them belonged to similar backgrounds.


22/24

Limitations:

Nave researcher: the method of qualitative interviews depends significantly on the

skill of the interviwer. While the analysis proved to be satisfactory, there were some

statements which could have been probed and looked further into.

Zero verifiability: it cantbe certain that the participants have told the truth. It alldepends on the subjectivity and discretion of the interviewer to judge the authenticity

of the data. Articulation of thoughts by the participants was also an issue sometimes

No Generalizability: Due to small sample, knowledge produced cant be used to make

sweeping generalization about the relational selves of people. These findings may be

unique to the participants in the study only. Also, since the sample is once of

convenience, it is not a true representative of the sample.

Validity of the study is threatened as the researcher choses which statements and lines

to quote, and the study might be influenced by his/her biases

The interviewer effect: people respond differently depending on how they perceive

the interviewer.

Implications and Future Research

Future research can be aimed at minimising the limitations of the present study-

A larger sample and less convenience can be used to solve generalizability issues

The chosen sample can be more representative, with the age ranges being broadened

and well as the demography of the samples

Alternatively, samples can be limited to a particular section of the population so that it

is easier to pinpoint different casual factors and make generalizations

More than one interview of the participants can be taken to increase knowledge about

participant.

CONCLUSION

The aim of the study was to map out relational realities and study close relationships using

Aron and Arons IOS Scale. Semi-structured qualitative interview of 2 participants, maleaged 19 and female aged 19 was done for the same. The most evident themes that emerged

were that of sibling rivalry and favouritism by parents affect not only the relationship

between the siblings, but also between the parents and the child. Trust, honesty,

communication and self-disclosure were the most important factors for maintaining

relationships. No major gender and cultural differences emerged.


23/24

References

Aron, A., Norman, C. C., & Aron, E. N. (1998). The Self-Expansion Model and Motivation.

Representative Research in Social Psychology Vol 22, 1-13.

Aron, A., Steele, J. L., Kashdan, T. B., & Perez, M. (2006). When similars do not attract:

Tests of a prediction from the self-expansion model.Journal of Personal

Relationships, 387-396.

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2010). Social Psychology and Human Nature.Loose

Leaf: New York, NY.

Boll, T., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S. (2005). Effects of Parental Differential Treatment on

Relationship Quality with Siblings and Parents: Justice Evaluations as Mediators.

Social Justice Research, Vol 18, 155-182.

Feeney, J. A. (1999). Issues of Closeness and Distance in Dating Relationships: Effects of

Sex and Attachment Style.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol 16, 571-

590.

Harris, I., & Howard, k. (1983). Correlates of Perceived Parental Favoritism. The Journal of

Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development.

Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978).Equity: Theory and research.Allyn and

Bacon, Inc.

Howitt, D. (2010).Introduction to Qualitative Methods in Psychology.Edinburgh: Pearson

Education.

Larzelere, R., & Huston, T. (1980). Towards Understanding Interpersonal Trust in Close

Relationships.Journal of Family and Marriage, Vol 42, 594-604.

Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal

process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner

responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology Vol 74, 1238-1251.

Luyten, P., & Blatt, S. J. (2013). Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition in normal and

disrupted personality development: retrospect and prospect.American PsychologistVol 68.

Ma-Kellams, C., & Blascovich, J. (2012). Inferring the Emotions of Friends Versus

Strangers: The Role of Culture and Self-Construal.Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin Vol 38, 933-945.

Miller, R. (2012).Intimate Relationships.NY: Cram 101 Textbooks.

Rusbult, B., & Buunk, B. (1993). Commitment Processes in Close Relationships: An

Interdependence Analysis.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol 10, 175-

204.


24/24

Rusbult, C. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the

investment model.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.

Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in

long-distance relationships.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol 21,

689-710.

Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. (2010). Relational Mobility Explains Between- and

Within-Culture Differences in Self-Disclosure to Close Friends.Journal for

Association of Psychological Science, Vol 21, 1471-1478.

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & OMara, E. M. (2010). Individual Self, Relational Self,

Collective Self: Hierarchical Ordering of the Tripartite Self.Psychological Studies,

Vol 56, 98-107.

Suitor, J., Sechrist, J., Plikuhn, M., Pardo, S., & Pillemer, K. (2008). Within-Family

Differences in ParentChild Relations Across the Life Course. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, Vol 17, 334-338.

Vroom, V. (1964).Expectancy Theory.Connecticut: Yale School of Management.

mapping relationship realities

Documents