FACT #1: RELATIONSHIP SCIENTISTS STUDY RELATIONSHIPS
This may seem like a sillyâperhaps even stupidâstatement to make at the beginning of a textbook called Close Relationships. But the truth is that one of the biggest challenges faced by early scholars in the field was finding a common definition of the concept ârelationshipâ that everyone could agree on. Without a common vocabularyâa shared understanding of basic conceptsâit was virtually impossible for scientists interested in exploring relationship topics to effectively communicate with each other and to share their theoretical and empirical findings. This, in turn, made it difficult for the field to progress and develop a cumulative and coherent body of knowledge. By the late 1970s, in fact, things were so messy that scientist Robert Hinde described the study of interpersonal relationships as an endeavor âwhere the complexity of material makes it difficult to follow the same path twice, and where the conceptual jungle chokes the unwaryâ (1979, p. 6).
These sorts of messy conceptual issues are not solely the bane of scientists and academicians. Most of us, in fact, have probably faced a similar situation at some point in our lives, finding (to our surprise and even chagrin) that our understanding of what it means to have, or to be in, a relationship does not entirely match that of our partner. In fact, psychologist Ann Weber (1998) observed that one of the most difficult issues for scientists who study romantic breakups (her own area of research) is that some people deny that their relationships actually ended because, in their minds, âthere was no relationship to break upâ (p. 272). Similarly, people who engage in extrarelational sex or infidelity (a topic we will discuss in Chapter 12) often justify their behavior by claiming that they did not have an actual ârelationshipâ with the other party. Public examples of this phenomenon abound. In 2001, for instance, one politician excused his extramarital affair by arguing, âIn my opinion, we did not have a relationship. It would probably be her definition of a relationship versus mineâ (Isikoff & Thomas, 2001). On hearing the politicianâs denial, the woman involved replied, âOK, what do you call a relationship? Itâs like I donât understand what he defines as a relationshipâ (âFlight attendant angered by Conditâs definition of ârelationship,ââ August 28, 2001). Definitions of what constitutes a ârelationshipâ clearly differ among people in everyday use, and so it is no wonder that scientists have had an equally difficult time coming to terms with this concept.
Interaction: The Basic Ingredient of a Relationship
Fortunately, due to the pioneering efforts of several early social and behavioral scientistsâ including psychologist Harold Kelley and his colleagues, whose influential book Close Relationships (Kelley et al., 1983) provided much of the initial vocabulary of relationship scienceâthere is now substantial agreement in the field about just what constitutes a ârelationship.â Specifically, most scholars believe that the basic ingredient of a relationship is interaction, which provides two people with an opportunity to establish mutual influence or interdependence (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Thus, the concept of relationship refers to a state of interdependence that arises from ongoing interactions, and two people are âin a relationshipâ or âhave a relationshipâ to the extent that they interact and mutually influence each otherâhow one partner behaves (i.e., acts, thinks, or feels) influences how the other partner behaves (i.e., acts, thinks, or feels), and vice versa. Essentially, when two people are in a relationship, there is a âping-pongâ of influence back and forth between them such that each partnerâs behaviors at a given point in time influence the other partnerâs behaviors at a later point in time (see Figure 1.1). Because this oscillating rhythm of mutual influence occurs over time, relationships are inherently dynamic and temporal in natureâthey are composed of a series of events that occur between partners over time (Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000). It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between an âinteractionâ and a ârelationship,â but in general, an interaction episode involves an isolated exchange (or set of exchanges) that occurs within a limited span of
time, whereas a relationship involves repeated interactions over a longer duration of time (see Hinde, 1979, 1997; Homans, 1979).
Interaction is a necessary condition for a relationship to exist. This means that if two people seldom interact they do not have much of a relationship, and if there is no interaction whatsoever then there is no relationshipâregardless of what they themselves might say or wish to believe. Consider the case of John Hinckley Jr., the man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in order to impress the actress Jodie Foster. Hinckley firmly believed that he and Foster were involved in a romantic relationship, asserting that âI am with Jodie spiritually every day and every night ⊠We are a historical couple ⊠I am Napoleon and she is Josephine. I am Romeo and she is Julietâ (Taylor, 1982). Although Hinckley had attempted to contact Foster on multiple occasions, she had never met him and insisted that there was no relationship. A similar scenario involving actress Halle Berry occurred more recently. In court documents filed in 2004, Berry revealed that Greg Broussard, a man who had repeatedly threatened her and against whom she later obtained a restraining order, had âimagined a relationship wherein he and I are engaged to be marriedâ but that she did not know him and no such relationship existed (Hall, 2004). Relationship scientists would side with Foster and Berry. With no history of sustained interaction, with no established pattern of mutual influence or interdependence, neither Hinckley nor Broussard had a relationship with the objects of their misguided affectionâthe association existed only in the delusional fantasies of those two lone individuals. It is certainly not unusual for people to fantasize about having intimate connections with celebrities or fictional characters in television, movies, and literature (see Derrick, Gabriel, & Tippin, 2008). Most, however, do not mistake their one-sided fantasies for the reality of an actual relationship.
Two Additional Ingredients
All relationships involve interactions and, as we have discussed, interactions are a necessary condition for the existence of a relationship. However, interactions are not a sufficient conditionâ interaction alone does not constitute a relationship. Two other conditions must be met before scientists would be comfortable concluding that two people are in a ârelationship.â
The first condition is that the interactions must be unique in some way to the two people involved; that is, their interaction pattern must be different from the interaction patterns each has with other individuals and different from the interaction patterns of other sets of partners. In particular, their interactions cannot be role-based. In role-based interactions, each personâs behavior is influenced not by the partnerâs behavior but by social norms and prescriptions that govern the behavior of all people who assume that particular role (Hinde, 1979). Many of our interactions are role-based. For example, the interaction between a patient and a physician, a customer and a cashier, a citizen and a police officer, or a student and a teacher is largely dictated by their respective rolesâand their behavior tends to be the same regardless of who the two individuals are, when and where the interaction occurs, or what their transaction involves (i.e., what ailments are being described and treated, what items are being purchased, what material is being taught and learned). Whether the patient is you, me, or someone else; the physician is Rebecca, Andrew, or Jane; and the reason for the visit is the flu, allergies, or a broken toe, the interaction follows much the same course because the behaviors of both individuals are primarily determined by their group membership and occupancy of particular social positions (in this instance, doctor and patient). Interactions between two people who are fo...