VU Research Portal
Interdependence, interaction, and relationships
Rusbult, C.E.; van Lange, P.A.M.
published in
Annual Review of Psychology
2003
DOI (link to publisher)
10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059
document version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Link to publication in VU Research Portal
citation for published version (APA)
Rusbult, C. E., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of
Psychology, 54, 351-375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
E-mail address:
vuresearchportal.ub@vu.nl
Download date: 09. Aug. 2022
15 Nov 2002 17:55 AR AR178-PS54-14.tex AR178-PS54-14.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IBD
10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2003. 54:351–75
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059
Copyright
c
° 2003 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
First published online as a Review in Advance on October 4, 2002
INTERDEPENDENCE,INTERACTION,
AND
RELATIONSHIPS
Caryl E. Rusbult
1
and Paul A. M. Van Lange
2
1
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina 27599-3270; e-mail: Rusbult@unc.edu
2
Department of Social Psychology, Free University at Amsterdam,
Van der Boechorsstraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam;
e-mail: PAM.van.Lange@psy.vu.nl
Key Words affordance, attribution, communication, interpersonal processes,
self-presentation, social motivation, transformation processes
■ Abstract Interdependence theory presents a logical analysis of the structure of
interpersonalsituations,offeringaconceptualframeworkinwhichinterdependencesit-
uations can be analyzed in terms of six dimensions. Specific situations present specific
problems and opportunities, logically implying the relevance of specific motives and
permitting their expression. Via the concept of transformation, the theory explains how
interaction is shaped by broader considerations such as long-term goals and concern for
a partner’s welfare. The theory illuminates our understanding of social-cognitive pro-
cesses that are of longstanding interest to psychologists such as cognition and affect,
attribution, and self-presentation. The theory also explains adaptation to repeatedly
encountered interdependence patterns, as well as the embodiment of such adaptations
in interpersonal dispositions, relationship-specific motives, and social norms.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 352
INTERDEPENDENCE STRUCTURE AND PROCESSES .................... 353
Interdependence Structure ............................................. 353
Interdependence Processes ............................................ 358
INTERDEPENDENCE AND INTERACTION .............................. 362
Conflicting Interests and Interaction ..................................... 362
Dependence and Interaction ........................................... 363
Information and Interaction ............................................ 365
Situation Selection ................................................... 366
STABLE PATTERNS OF ADAPTATION .................................. 367
Interpersonal Dispositions ............................................. 367
Relationship-Specific Motives .......................................... 368
Social Norms ....................................................... 369
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 369
0066-4308/03/0203-0351$14.00
351
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2003.54:351-375. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT-Amsterdam-Library on 11/30/10. For personal use only.
15 Nov 2002 17:55 AR AR178-PS54-14.tex AR178-PS54-14.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IBD
352 RUSBULT
¥
VAN LANGE
INTRODUCTION
The essence of a social psychological way of thinking frequently is described in
terms of the “power of the situation.” Indeed, the familiar equation B = f (P, E)
embodies our shared desire to understand the ways in which behavior (B) is shaped
not only by properties of the person (P), but also by features of the situation, or
socialenvironment (E)(Lewin1936).Perhapstheessence of a socialpsychological
analysis can be even more fully expressed by construing our goals in terms of the
relationships between people. To develop a truly social psychology, we may need
to expand our formulation, noting that an interaction (I) between persons A and B
can be conceptualized in terms of their needs, thoughts, and motives in relation to
one another (A and B) in the context of the specific social situation (S) in which
their interaction transpires (Holmes 2002, Kelley et al. 2002). Expressed in an
equation, I = f (S, A, B).
To illustrate the utility of an interaction-based analysis, imagine two scenarios
for John and Mary, who are deciding where to spend their summer vacation. In one
scenario their interests conflict: John wants to go to a beach resort, whereas Mary
wants to go to Rome. In this type of situation each person will seek to explainhis or
her preference (“I need the excitement of Rome”) and each will engage in cognitive
activityoriented toward understanding the other’s needs (“Does John want to relax
becausehehadastressfulyear?”).Thesituationmakes itpossibleforeachpersonto
display his or her goals and motives (self-centered vs. prosocial). Communication
and information-seeking will center on each person’s needs, goals, and motives
in relation to those of the partner (“Whose needs are more pressing?” “Will Mary
be responsive to my needs?”). The two may rely on fairness norms to resolve
their problem (“It’s my turn” or “You deserve a break”). Thus, situations involving
conflicting interests are interpersonally rich, affording psychological processes
such as self-presentation and attributional activity and activating morality- and
benevolence-relevant motives and norms.
In a second scenario John’s and Mary’s interests correspond: Both want to
vacation in Rome. Neither is likely to be particularly concerned with information-
seeking, self-presentation, or attribution, as there is no problem and “nothing to
think about.” It is not possible for either person to display benevolent motives be-
cause the course of action that would benefit John simultaneously benefits Mary.
Interaction is a coordination problem—the two must agree on a date for their
vacation, and one person must arrange for travel and lodging. Thus, in compar-
ison to situations with conflicting interests, situations with corresponding inter-
ests are relatively simple, in that they are less likely to inspire activities such as
information-seeking or self-presentation and are unlikely to present moral dilem-
mas or questions of benevolence. Instead, they entail coordinating to enjoy the
good outcomes that are readily available to the pair (“If we’re separated, meet me
at the Piazza Navonna”).
These scenarios very simply illustrate an important claim: The field of social
psychology would benefit from a situation-based understanding of interaction—an
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2003.54:351-375. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT-Amsterdam-Library on 11/30/10. For personal use only.
15 Nov 2002 17:55 AR AR178-PS54-14.tex AR178-PS54-14.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IBD
INTERDEPENDENCE, INTERACTION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 353
analysis that examines each person’s needs, cognitions, and motives in relation to
one another and in the context of the situation in which the interaction transpires.
We suggest that interdependence theory provides a comprehensive account of
interaction and relationships by delineating the ways in which social situations
shape both intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (Kelley et al. 2002, Kelley
& Thibaut 1978, Thibaut & Kelley 1959). Interdependence theory advances a
taxonomic model of situations, or a functional analysis of the structure of the
social situations interacting people encounter. The theory also relates classes of
situations to the particular types of goals and motives that are relevant to dealing
with them.
As such, situation structure specifies the interpersonal reality that social cogni-
tive activity is about, in that cognition frequently is oriented toward understanding
(a) situations, or the unique problems and opportunities inherent a given situation
(“Can both persons’ needs be met?”), and (b) persons, or a given interaction part-
ner’s goals and motives (“Will she be responsive to my needs?”) (Holmes 2002;
Kelley 1984a, 1997). In addition, situation structure specifies the interpersonal
reality that social motivation is about, in that (a) specific motives are relevant to
specificclasses ofsituation and(b) froma historicperspective,motives reflect prior
adaptation to specific classes of situation (Kelley 1983, Kelley & Holmes 2002,
Kelley et al. 2002). Given that cognition and motivation are embedded in the fabric
of social situations, the structure and functions of many interpersonal phenomena
may be best understood by adopting an interdependence-based analysis. This pa-
per outlines the main principles of interdependence theory, illustrating the utility
of this orientation via a review of recent work on interaction and relationships.
INTERDEPENDENCE STRUCTURE AND PROCESSES
Interdependence Structure
MATRICES AND TRANSITION LISTS The options and outcomes of interaction can
be represented using a tool from classic game theory, the outcome matrix (Luce &
Raiffa 1957, Von Neumann & Morgenstern 1944). An outcome matrix describes
interdependencepatterns involving twopersons (A and B), each of whom can enact
either of two behaviors, yielding four combinations representing the consequences
ofthe persons’ choicesin terms ofoutcomes for personsA and B(Kelley&Thibaut
1978). Despite their apparent simplicity, matrices are very useful descriptions of
social situations, in that matrix patterns describe the intricate ways in which (and
degree to which) interaction partners affect their own and one another’s well-
being. Of course, the matrix is a snapshot of interdependence as it exists at one
time. To deal with the sequential and temporal properties of interdependence,
a second formal tool was developed. A transition list not only represents the
behavioral options and outcomes for persons A and B but also specifies the means
by which they proceed from one pattern of interdependence to another (Kelley
1984b). Individuals may thus be interdependent not only in affecting one another’s
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2003.54:351-375. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT-Amsterdam-Library on 11/30/10. For personal use only.
15 Nov 2002 17:55 AR AR178-PS54-14.tex AR178-PS54-14.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IBD
354 RUSBULT
¥
VAN LANGE
immediate outcomes but also in their pursuit of temporally extended goals and in
their movement from one situation to another. (Note that matrices and transition
lists are theoretical tools and are not intended as literal depictions of lay cognition
or motivation.)
NEEDS, PREFERENCES, AND OUTCOMES What makes specific combinations of be-
havior on the part of persons A and B pleasurable versus painful? Interdependence
theory does not identify an overarching need or drive that fuels interpersonal be-
havior (e.g., reproduction, security, mastery) (Kelley & Thibaut 1985, Rusbult &
Van Lange 1996). Instead, it is assumed that humans have diverse instrumental
and social-emotional needs, that some are biologically based whereas others are
learned, that needs cover a spectrum from survival to spirituality, and that some
needs are pervasive whereas others are unique to specific situations and partners.
Many needs are inherently interpersonal and can be gratified only in the context of
dyads or groups (e.g., belonging, sexuality, security) (Baumeister & Leary 1995,
Drigotas & Rusbult 1992, Hazan & Shaver 1994). Interactions are experienced as
pleasurable to the extent that they gratify one or more important needs and are
experienced as unpleasant or painful to the extent that they fail to gratify or are
antithetical to important needs.
Interaction frequently yields not only concrete outcomes, or direct experiences
of pleasure versus displeasure, but also symbolic outcomes, or experiences that
rest on the broader implications of interaction (Holmes 1981, Kelley 1979). For
example, when John and Mary disagree about where to vacation and John suggests
Mary’s preferred choice of Rome, Mary enjoys relatively concrete benefits—the
disagreement is resolved and Mary enjoys rewards in the form of cultural stim-
ulation, good food and wine, and the pleasure of John’s company. At the same
time, the fact that John accedes to Mary’s preference has symbolic meaning for
Mary, yielding positive affect because John has demonstrated that he loves her
and is responsive to her needs. The interaction also has symbolic meaning for
John, yielding positive affect because he has communicated his love, served as the
agent of Mary’s pleasure, and confirmed his belief that he is a caring and generous
person.
DIMENSIONS OF SITUATION STRUCTURE Matrices and transition lists provide a
means to represent the ways in which interacting peoples’ needs are gratified
(vs. not gratified) during the course of interaction. That is, these tools allow us
to analyze situation structure (Kelley et al. 2002, Kelley & Thibaut 1978). By
examining the main effects and interaction of each person’s possible behaviors,
we can discern the impact on each person’s outcomes of the person’s own actions
(actor control: a main effect of Mary’s actions on Mary’s outcomes), the partner’s
actions (partner control: a main effect of John’s actions on Mary’s outcomes), and
thepartners’jointactions (joint control: aninteractionof John’s and Mary’sactions
on Mary’s outcomes). By examining within-cell associations between the partners’
outcomes, we can discern the extent to which outcomes for actor and partner
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2003.54:351-375. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT-Amsterdam-Library on 11/30/10. For personal use only.