Relationships as Developmental Contexts

The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Volume 30

W. Andrew Collins, Brett Laursen, W. Andrew Collins, Brett Laursen

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 1999
• Print ISBN: 9780805826166
• eBook ISBN: 9781135685317
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

The volume's topic was chosen in part because of the rapidly growing salience of dyadic research perspectives in developmental psychology, but also in social psychology and in fields such as communication and family studies. It provides the most complete representation now available on current theory and research on the significance of personal relationships in child and adolescent development. This volume addresses the ways in which the study of social development has been altered by an emphasis on research questions and techniques for studying children and adolescents in the context of their significant dyadic relationships. Leading scholars--many of them pioneers in the concepts and methods of dyadic research--have contributed chapters in which they both report findings from recent research and reflect on the implications for developmental psychology. Their work encompasses studies of relationships with parents, siblings, friends, and romantic partners. Opening chapters set the stage by describing the key characteristics of social-development research from a dyadic perspective and outlining key themes and contemporary issues in the field. It concludes with commentaries from distinguished senior scholars identifying important directions for future research.

Part III
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND LINKS TO OTHER RELATIONSHIPS

Chapter 8
The Uniqueness of the Parent-Child Relationship

Eleanor E.Maccoby

Stanford University

In the last several decades, the study of relationships has become a vigorous scholarly discipline in its own right. Within the field of Psychology, this work represents a shift away from the traditional focus on individuals. Instead, students of relationships examine interactions between individuals, and they take dyads—or sometimes larger configurations of persons—as the unit of study. A particular area of interest has been on close relationships—relatively enduring relationships between two or more persons that have especial significance for the individuals involved. Although much of the work on relationships has been done with adult couples, the science of relationships was brought into the mainstream of Developmental Psychology in the 1980s, with the publication of the Hartup-Rubin book on Relationships and Development (1986), and the seminal work of Gerald Patterson and his associates on parent-child interaction in families of aggressive (as compared with nonaggressive) children (Patterson, 1982).

Relationships have been described in terms of such attributes as the power gradient between the participants, the nature of emotions predominantly displayed by the individuals toward one another, the amount of conflict, the level of commitment by each toward the partner, and the time-course of close relationships as they are formed, strengthened, maintained, and in some cases dissolved (Berscheid & Peplau, 1983). A taxon-omy has grown up in the study of adult pairs, in which relationships are classified on the basis of clusters of these attributes. As we see shortly, “Exchange” relationships have been distinguished from “communal” or “coercive” ones (Clark & Mills, 1979).

In studies of socialization, in which the childrearing activities of parents and the reactions of children have been assessed, quite a different kind of taxonomy has emerged. Parents’ childrearing styles have been classified, for example, as authoritative, authoritarian, or permissive, but although this classification has grown out of the study of parent-child interaction, it does not describe relationships as such, nor does it take the parent-child dyad as the unit of analysis. Rather, it classifies parental behaviors and reactions. Children’s interactive characteristics are described separately— for example as compliant or resistive, or attentive or inattentive to the parent. Much work on attachment, although it might be thought of as describing a relationship, focuses mainly on the two individuals involved: on the mother’s responsiveness, and the quality of the child’s attachment. When some mother-child pairs are described as closely bonded, or mutually indifferent, this represents a focus on the dyad and takes us into the field of relationships.

This chapter explores whether, and how, parent-child relationships can be described and distinguished in the same terms that have been found useful in the study of adult relationships. The adult work, of course, has not been merely taxonomic. The classifications have been based on carefully worked out theories about how relationships function. The interesting questions are: How similar are the interaction processes between parents and children to those that characterize close adult relationships? Do the theoretical analyses of adult relationships help us to understand parentchild relationships? In drawing the comparisons and contrasts, I focus mainly on the relationships between parents and young children, but consider too how and whether parent-child relationships become more similar to those between intimately related adults as children grow older.¹

I will begin by setting out some widely accepted definitions of what a relationship is. Then I will briefly sketch some historical trends in the theorizing concerning different kinds of adult relationships—how they have been classified and contrasted. Then we can consider how parent-child relationships fit, or fail to fit, within the taxonomic system that exists for the analysis of other kinds of relationships.

Relationships Defined

First, the definitions. Relationships can be said to exist between two people when their lives are interdependent. By interdependent we mean that two people’s behaviors, emotions, and thoughts are mutually and causally interconnected; that is, that what each does, thinks, and feels depends on what the partner does, thinks, and feels. A relationship is defined as close to the extent that it endures, and involves strong, frequent, and diverse causal interconnections (Kelley et al., 1983). When there is an interruption in the chain of mutually linked responses that each partner has come to expect from the other, strong emotions are likely to be aroused (Bercheid, 1986; Mandler, 1975, 1984).

It seems obvious that parent-child relationships qualify as close, especially when the child is young. A young child’s ability to get food, to dress and undress, to bathe, even to move from place to place, all depend on interactions with a caretaker. And an adult’s ability to carry out caretaking functions efficiently depends on the child’s producing a set of coordinated responses: for example, lifting a foot to get a pant-leg on, opening the mouth for a spoonful of food. We now know a good deal about the refined, detailed coordination whereby a parent and infant respond and adapt to one another’s signals and actions. As children grow older, these moment-to-moment linkages in behavior fade in importance and are replaced by forms of linkage that span greater distance in time and space. But the more distal forms of interaction can continue to create the substance of a close relationship, given that the behavioral streams of the parents and children continue to be mutually dependent, causally linked. Within any parent-child pair, then, both the degree of meshing and the nature of the processes whereby each influences the other will change with the development of the child. But I assume that at every stage, one or both partners in the parentchild relationship must continue to adapt to the behaviors, states, and goals of the other.

Although it must be true that parents and children are biologically prepared to form close relationships with one another, there are cross-cultural and within-cultural variations in how close these relationships typically are, and what form closeness takes. In some cultures and subcultures, fathers seldom interact with young children and cannot be said to have a close relationship with them under the terms of our definition, even though these fathers may be thoroughly committed to their children’s welfare in less intimate ways. And, parents differ, within and between cultures, in terms of such things as whether routine caretaking and feeding is done according to the parent’s schedule versus adapted to the child’s current state, how much playful interaction parents engage in with young children, how emotionally expressive they are, or how much time the two spend in physical proximity to one another. Clearly, from the beginning, the stage is set for qualitatively different kinds of relationships to emerge between different parent-child pairs.

Equity Theory and “Exchange” Relationships²

Gouldner (1960) said that the principle of reciprocity is a universal norm. That is, in all social groups, an individual who is benefited by another individual is understood to have an obligation to return a benefit in some form and at some time. Exchange theory embodies this principle. It has been meant to explain why some relationships endure and others do not. It assumes, first of all, that each person in a relationship will behave in such a way as to maximize his or her own benefits, and minimize personal costs. But in relationships, each person’s costs and benefits are related to those of the partner—often, indeed, controlled by the partner. Exchange theory frames relationships in terms of a social exchange of benefits and services. Some of the concepts are taken from economic theory, but the theory also had strong roots in reinforcement theories in psychology (see Sears, 1951, for an early analysis of social interchange in these terms). Not only must each person derive more benefits than cost from the relationship between them, but the net benefits derived by each from the relationship must be roughly equivalent to those of the partner, when benefits are summed over time. If a cost-benefit balance between the pair does not exist, the relationship will be unstable and is likely to be broken off. When a balance prevails between the parties, an exchange relationship can be said to be in place. Kelley and Thibaut (1978) expanded the concept of exchange relationships to include not only people’s efforts to maximize personal benefits from a relationship but also their increasing cooperative efforts, as they and their partners became more and more interdependent, to maximize benefits accruing to the pair jointly. Presumably, cooperative efforts would be augmented because the interests and goals of an interdependent pair would become progressively more joint. Still, in exchange relationships, individuals are seen as keeping a running tally of costs and benefits. They expect the effort they make, and their contributions to the partnership, to be proportional to the benefits they receive from it, whether these benefits be to the self only, or in the form of benefits accruing to both members of the pair.

Must the participants in a relationship have equal costs, and equal benefits, for the relationship to endure? Not necessarily. In equity theory (a more general form of exchange theory) investments (Homans, 1974) or inputs (Adams, 1965) are part of the cost-benefit equation, so that the person who invests the most has a greater right, understood by both parties, to draw resources and benefits from the relationship. Presumably, this balances out the extra benefits the lowinvestment partner derives by virtue of association with a high-investment partner. “Investment” is a difficult concept to define in human relationships, but it includes a wide range of assets that either partner may bring to the relationship. Assets include anything that is valued, such as physical attractiveness, material goods, social status, good reputation, physical strength, or membership in a prestigious group.

When partners do not bring equal assets to a relationship, a hierarchical exchange relationship is likely to develop. It is still true that both parties are free agents, in the sense that each can decide, on the basis of a personal costbenefit analysis, whether to remain in the relationship. However, a bargain has been struck such that both understand that one partner, by virtue of greater investment, has the greater right to exercise control. In theory, most employeremployee relationships are of this sort. The benefits employees enjoy by virtue of the wages they receive should equal or exceed the costs of the time and energy they devote to furthering the employer’s goals.

In equal-status exchange relationships, as in hierarchical ones, each partner has independent objectives which each helps the other to realize, but the participants are understood to have equal rights to influence, or make demands upon, the other. Such relationships involve a form of cooperation or reciprocity based on the self-interest of each partner. As noted earlier, each person keeps a reckoning, which may be more or less explicit, more or less detailed, of who owes what to whom. Each person’s freedom to make a demand or ask a favor of the other is strictly limited by whether the asker is in a position to repay, and compliance to a partner’s request is understood to create an obligation on the part of the partner to do something of equal value for the complier at a future time.

Communal Relationships

In their 1979 paper, Clark and Mills introduced a distinction between exchange relationships and what they called communal relationships. In their view, the difference lies in whether partners feel an obligation to be responsive to one another’s needs. Such a sense of obligation is not present in exchange relationships, they claimed, but is present in communal ones, these being most commonly found among kin, but also in certain other relationships as well. In the Clark and Mills account, people in a communal relationship do not keep track of who owes what to whom, and although both partners presumably receive benefits from the relationship, these benefits need not be comparable, since the two persons’ needs may not be the same.

In communal relationships, partners are joined in a number of ways. First, they focus more on joint objectives and benefits than individual ones; what they do jointly is seen as being for “us” rather than for “you” and “me.” Second, strong emotional ties between members of the pair usually involve a considerable degree of mutual empathy, so that elation, anxiety, or serenity manifested by one partner can be experienced vicariously by the other (Brown, 1986; Wispe, 1978). These elements make it possible for each partner to trust the other—that is, to have confidence that each partner will do what is best for the other and neither will undercut the other out of self-interest. Another element should be noted: Other people perceive a communal pair as having mutual loyalty and joint interests and outcomes. Thus, the pair are treated as a pair and develop a joint reputation. Each becomes vulnerable to public judgments of the partner as well as the self.

Partners in a communal relationship tend to maintain a high state of awareness of each other’s emotional states and needs, and are vigilant for information that is relevant to the partner’s goals as well as their own. Among older children and adults, there is extensive mutual disclosure between friends concerning personal histories, feelings, tastes, and aspirations, especially in the early stages when a communal relationship is being formed. From then on, partners keep the flow of information going so that each is up to date on the other’s enterprises and emotional states. Partners also maintain a state of readiness to be influenced by one another.

Causal Relationships

Coercive relationships are relationships in which the exercise of power is onesided. Usually this situation develops when the subordinate party is not free to leave. In such relationships as master-slave, or prisoner-guard, power over the subordinate person is achieved through physical restraint and the dominant person’s control of rewards and punishments. In the pure case, adaptation as well as power is one-sided. The subordinate person must adapt to the demands of the dominant one, and there are few limits on the dominant person’s exercise of arbitrary power. No balance of costs and benefits between the partners in the relationship need be maintained. Adaptation by the subordinate partner can take a variety of forms, including imitation of the powerful other (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963; Bettelheim, 1958) as well as compliance to the demands of the other. To adapt, the subordinate person must have greater, more detailed knowledge about the tastes, motives, and probable reactions of the dominant person than vice versa.

Relationships can be mutually coercive when (a) neither party is free to leave, and/or (b) when the dominance issues have not been resolved, so that each person is struggling to impose his or her will upon the other. But even in asymmetrical coercive relationships, where one has achieved control over the other, there are nevertheless forces for redress of balance. Coerced subordinates usually find ways and means of manipulating their manipulators. For example, in military organizations it is well known that low-ranking personnel have ways of sabotaging unwelcome orders, and are often able to train their superior officers with respect to what orders to give. These processes occur within families as well as in more public relationships.

In one sense, coercive relationships can be considered as a special case of exchange relations, in that the subordinate derives benefit of a kind from the relationship. By conforming to the demands of the dominant other, the subordinate can avoid the pain of whatever punishment the other would inflict for noncompliance. However, the fact that control is exercised through force and fear takes the relationship out of the realm of relationships that equity theory is meant to explain—namely, bargains freely entered into by two parties each of whom is in a position to compute, and be guided by, a personal cost-benefit ratio.

Mixed Relationships

Few relationships are pure examples of any one of the relationship types. Among adults, elements of power assertion (coercion) enter at least occasionally into even the most harmonious communal relationship. And even in the absence of coercion, the communal element in a close relationship such as marriage will wax and wane, relative to exchange elements, depending on such things as childbearing, changes in job status or the status of other relationships that each partner independently maintains. When we speak of two persons having a communal relationship, then, we usually mean that this component predominates over the other relationship components.

Relationships as “Natural Categories”

Fiske, in his paper on the “Four elementary forms of sociality” (1992), said that there are distinct forms of social relationships that form natural categories— categories that are recognized in all cultures, each having a set of distinct, widely understood scripts from which participants can enact their roles in the different kinds of relationships. His taxonomy is similar to, but not identical with, the classification of relationships we have been discussing so far. He distinguishes communal relationships, equal-status exchange relationships, and authoritybased (hierarchical) relationships, but separates off as a fourth category the market-based relationships in which services are provided in exchange for money. Fiske’s work adds a cognitive component to the distinctions among different kinds of relationships, claiming that it matters how relationships are represented cognitivel...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contributors
• Preface
• Historical and Conceptual Perspectives on Development and Relationships
• Part II: Developmental Perspectives on Close Relationships with Peers
• Part III: Familial Relationships and Links to Other Relationships
• Development and Relationships: Retrospect and Prospect