SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

How do we choose a partner to initiate a relationship with, and what makes us stay
in a given relationship over time? These questions are most often pursued by
scholars with an emphasis on the internal thoughts, feelings, and motivations of
individual decision-makers. Conversely, this volume highlights the importance
of considering external influences on individual decision-making in close relation-
ships. Featuring contributions from internationally renowned scholars, the
volume is divided into two interrelated sections. The first section considers global
and societal influences on romantic relationships and the second focuses on
social network and communicative influences on romantic relationships. Taken
together, this collection helps us to better understand how external factors influ-
ence the internal machinations of those involved in intimate relationships.

Christopher R. Agnew is Professor and Head of the Department of Psychological

Sciences at Purdue University. His research focuses on close, interpersonal rela-
tionships and the use of relational models to understand broader social and health
processes. Professor Agnew has published and presented his research widely,
and has served on the editorial boards for the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Personal Relationships
(on which he served as Associate Editor). He was the recipient of the Early Career
Award from the Relationships Researchers Interest Group of the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology and served as President of the International
Association for Relationship Research.
 Advances in Personal Relationships
Christopher R. Agnew
Purdue University
John P. Caughlin
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Susan Sprecher
Illinois State University
C. Raymond Knee
University of Houston
Although scholars from a variety of disciplines have written and conversed about the
importance of personal relationships for decades, the emergence of personal relationships
as a field of study is relatively recent. Advances in Personal Relationships represents the
culmination of years of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary work on personal relation-
ships. Sponsored by the International Association for Relationship Research, the series
offers readers cutting-edge research and theory in the field. Contributing authors are
internationally known scholars from a variety of disciplines, including social psychology,
clinical psychology, communication, history, sociology, gerontology, and family studies.
Volumes include integrative reviews, conceptual pieces, summaries of research programs,
and major theoretical works. Advances in Personal Relationships presents first-rate scholar-
ship that is both provocative and theoretically grounded. The theoretical and empirical
work described by authors will stimulate readers and advance the field by offering new ideas
and retooling old ones. The series will be of interest to upper-division undergraduate
students, graduate students, researchers, and practitioners.

Other Books in the Series

Attribution, Communication Behavior, and Close Relationships
Valerie Manusov and John H. Harvey, editors
Stability and Change in Relationships
Anita L. Vangelisti, Harry T. Reis, and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick, editors
Understanding Marriage: Developments in the Study of Couple Interaction
Patricia Noller and Judith A. Feeney, editors
Growing Together: Personal Relationships across the Life Span
Frieder R. Lang and Karen L. Fingerman, editors
Communicating Social Support
Daena J. Goldsmith
Communicating Affection: Interpersonal Behavior and Social Context
Kory Floyd
Changing Relations: Achieving Intimacy in a Time of Social Transition
Robin Goodwin
Feeling Hurt in Close Relationships
Anita L. Vangelisti, editor
Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood
Frank D. Fincham and Ming Cui, editors
Responding to Intimate Violence against Women: The Role of Informal Networks
Renate Klein
Social Influences on Romantic
Relationships
BEYOND THE DYAD

Christopher R. Agnew
 University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107029361
© Cambridge University Press 2014
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2014
Printed in the United Kingdom by Clays, St Ives plc
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data
Social influences on romantic relationships : beyond the dyad / [edited by]
Christopher R. Agnew.
pages cm. – (Advances in personal relationships)
ISBN 978-1-107-02936-1 (hardback)
1. Man-woman relationships. 2. Interpersonal relations. 3. Interpersonal
communication. 4. Social networks. I. Agnew, Christopher Rolfe.
HQ801.S659 2014
306.7–dc23
2014012737
ISBN 978-1-107-02936-1 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
 contents

List of figures page vii

List of contributors viii

Introduction: external influences beyond the dyad 1

Christopher R. Agnew

PART I GLOBAL AND SOCIETAL INFLUENCES ON ROMANTIC

RELATIONSHIPS 9

1 The influence of globalization and technological development

on intimate relationships 11
Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin
2 Social capitalization in personal relationships 33
Robert M. Milardo, Heather M. Helms, Eric D. Widmer,
and Stephen R. Marks
3 Family relationships embedded in United States military
culture 58
Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman
4 Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships: implications
for relational and personal health outcomes 83
Justin J. Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger

PART II SOCIAL NETWORK AND COMMUNICATIVE INFLUENCES

ON ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 103

5 The influence of subjective norms on close

relationships 105
Paul E. Etcheverry and Benjamin Le

v
vi Contents

6 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 126

Elizabeth Keneski and Timothy J. Loving
7 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 148
H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe
8 Third-party forgiveness: social influences on intimate dyads 171
Jeffrey D. Green, Jody L. Davis, and Chelsea A. Reid
9 Relationship advice 188
Erina L. MacGeorge and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

Index 209
 figures

2.1 Global networks page 39

5.1 Subjective norms, commitment level, and relationship
persistence 114
6.1 Social Network Evaluation and Transmission (S-NET) Model 136
7.1 Interaction of friend and parent opinions on relationship affect
among daters 153
7.2 Liking of prospective dating partners as predicted by network
opinions 155
7.3 Three-way interaction of destiny, growth, and parent opinion on
commitment and investment 159
7.4 Three-way interaction of independent reactance and friend and
parent opinion on love 163
7.5 Interaction of network opinion and reactive responses on
commitment of hypothetical partner 165

vii
 contributors

C H R I S TO P H E R R . A G N E W, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue Uni-

versity, USA
J O D Y L . D AV I S , Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth Unive-
rsity, USA
CHELSEA N. ELLITHORPE, Department of Psychology, Mississippi State Unive-
rsity, USA
PA U L E . E T C H E V E R RY, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale, USA
ROBIN GOODWIN, Department of Psychology, Brunel University, UK
JEFFREY D. GREEN, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth Unive-
rsity, USA
ELIZABETH DORRANCE HALL, Department of Communication, Purdue Unive-
rsity, USA
H E AT H E R M . H E L M S ,
Human Development and Family Studies, University of
North Carolina Greensboro, USA
MICHAEL IOERGER, Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, USA
ELIZABETH KENESKI, Human Development and Family Sciences, University of
Texas at Austin, USA
LEANNE K. KNOBLOCH, Department of Communication, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, USA
BENJAMIN LE, Department of Psychology, Haverford College, USA
JUSTIN J. LEHMILLER, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, USA
TIMOTHY J. LOVING, Human Development and Family Sciences, University of
Texas at Austin, USA

viii
 List of contributors ix

ERINA L. MACGEORGE, Communication Arts and Sciences, Pennsylvania State

University, USA
STEPHEN R. MARKS, Department of Sociology, University of Maine, USA
R O B E RT M . M I L A R D O , Human Development and Family Studies, University of
Maine, USA
CHELSEA A . R E I D , Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth
University, USA
ÇAĞLA SANRI, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Australia
H. COLLEEN SINCLAIR, Department of Psychology and the Social Science Research
Center, Mississippi State University, USA
ERIN C. WEHRMAN, Department of Communication, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, USA
ERIC D. WIDMER, Department of Sociology, University of Geneva, Switzerland
 Introduction: external influences beyond the dyad

christopher r. agnew

Think about some decisions that you have made in your life, both small and
big: what you tend to eat, what clothes you choose to wear, what car you drive,
what schools you attended, what career you pursue. Would it surprise you to
learn that these decisions were influenced by others around you, that you
regularly take input from your broader social world in charting what to do? My
strong suspicion is that it would not – you recognize that what people decide to
do, in lots of different domains of life, is impacted at some level by those
around them. Whether acting on advice from your mother or reacting to a
targeted marketing campaign by Google, many of the decisions you make
reflect, at least in part, external influences. In this sense, you are recognizing
that people are social beings, ones whose thoughts, emotions, motivations, and
behaviors are subject to influence from the world outside.
Now think about decisions you have made with respect to your closest
relationships: who you choose to date, to whom you tell your most intimate
secrets, who you marry, with whom you have sex. Would these decisions be
ones you would acknowledge as just as influenced by others as the ones listed in
the above paragraph? I would guess that the answer to this would be no – you
would think that decisions regarding with whom you are going to engage in
particularly close relations is subject to little (or at least significantly less)
external or “outside” influence. While acknowledging that forces beyond you
may impact what cereal you eat, what labels you wear, and what model of car
you drive, you might reasonably think that areas central to your interpersonal
well-being would be particularly under your own control. That choosing a life
partner, for example, would be a decision for you alone. One goal of this book is
to convince you that you would be mistaken.
We live in a world saturated with external influences on our behavior. Even
in what might be considered our most intimate decision-making realms, ele-
ments beyond us impact what we value and what we do. This volume focuses on
social influences on those involved in intimate interpersonal relationships. Social
influences are pervasive in the world, including on our most intimate decisions.

1
2 Christopher R. Agnew

This book features work from an internationally renowned set of scholars and is
divided into two broad and interrelated sections. The first section considers
global and societal influences on romantic relationships. Social influence can be
facilitated by technology and technological developments. When we consider
external influences on close relationships, the focus tends to be on the impact of
specific individuals or of small groups close to us. However, influences beyond
the dyad abound, well beyond one’s immediate social network. The past twenty-
five years have witnessed truly remarkable advances in technology that have
opened up new channels of connections between people.
As Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin point out in Chapter 1, globalization
and technological developments, particularly the advent and now ubiquity of
the internet, have influenced how interpersonal relationships are formed and
maintained across cultures. Individuals can now quite easily form both short-
term and long-term relationships with others without regard to geographic
boundaries, something unheard of prior to the internet age. Facebook, for
example, now keeps people connected with others across both time (e.g.,
facilitates maintaining friendships from one’s distant past) and space (e.g.,
keeps family members close when circumstances keep them physically distant –
such as during parental work trips that keep them from being at home with
their children). It also can place people from very different cultures in very
direct and immediate contact, with multifarious implications for relationship
development. Sanrı and Goodwin also consider how some of the attendant
negative consequences of globalization, specifically the rise of terrorism and of
pandemics, influence interpersonal relationships (Goodwin, 2008). As they put
it: “In a world where risk is ‘global’, relationships (particularly with intimates)
can potentially become closer during times of stress, while relationships with
many others, particularly those from another group, can become more distant,
with negative stereotyping of others increasing. This suggests that external
stressors can act as amplifiers of relationship processes, both acting to cement
relationships with close others but also, due to fear of infection or other
negative outcomes, making us quicker to categorize potential threatening
others” (p. 24 below). Despite rapid changes in technological development
and related global ramifications, they also point to the important continuities
in relationship processes that have transcended such changes.
Individuals can derive significant benefits from relationships with others.
Of course, not everyone has the same quantity and quality of relationships with
others, nor are people’s relationships uniformly similar in what they may
provide. In Chapter 2, Robert Milardo, Heather Helms, Eric Widmer, and
Stephen Marks describe the role of social capitalization in understanding
family relationships. They discuss how individuals invest in their family
members, engage in numerous interactions with them, and work to capitalize
on their investments (Milardo and Helms-Erikson, 2000). Viewing social
capitalization as a process, these authors work to provide clarity to a concept
 Introduction: external influences beyond the dyad 3

that is often misunderstood, focusing on five core components of the concept,

including “(1) an investment on the part of an individual, a dyad, a group, or
some other social entity; (2) an available relationship or network of relation-
ships to which the investment is directed or targeted; (3) a social interaction or
set of interactions through which one or more of the alters in these relation-
ships is mobilized, or pressed into service; (4) an intended recipient of that
benefit, whether that beneficiary be oneself, someone else, several people, or
some social entity such as an extended family; and (5) an anticipated, expected
or actual return, profit, or benefit” (p. 34 below). One premise of this approach
to social capitalization is that people who invest in close personal relationships
expect returns in various forms, including with respect to the organization of
relationships relative to one another. Such organization, often referred to as
social network structure, can have significant implications for relationship
maintenance and functioning.
External influences on close relationships also come in the form of societal
structures that serve specific purposes at national and global levels and that have
developed their own unique cultures. The United States military is one such
structure. In Chapter 3, Leanne Knobloch and Erin Wehrman consider how
family relationships among those who work for (or have close relatives who work
for) the military are influenced by military culture. Military culture emerges and
evolves over time and is multifaceted (Ulmer, Collins, and Jacobs, 2000). The
authors consider in detail specific aspects of military culture that envelop the
interpersonal relationships of service members and their families, and how their
influence can be understand within extant theoretical frameworks of personal
relationships. These cultural aspects include (a) warrior identity, (b) author-
itarian structure, (c) overriding commitment to mission, (d) geographic mobility
and periodic separations, and (e) perpetual risk of disaster, injury, and death.
Attachment theory (e.g., Bowlby, 1982), family stress theory (e.g., McCubbin and
Patterson, 1983), ambiguous loss frameworks (e.g., Boss, 2006), and the relational
turbulence model (e.g., Knobloch and Theiss, 2012) are drawn upon to help
explain how these aspects of military culture influence close relationships within
a family. The authors conclude by discussing how these particular theories can be
more responsive to features of military culture.
Not every relationship receives support from others. Indeed, whole cate-
gories of relational pairing have been and continue to be the target of signifi-
cant negativity from others. Being on the receiving end of such sentiment
presents a host of challenges and has in recent years been the focus of increas-
ing research. Past research on prejudice and discrimination has focused on
aspects of individuals that generate such biased attitudes and actions from
others. For example, people in particular racial groups or in particular age
groups have served as the target of social disdain. In contrast, prejudice toward
particular types of relationships offers a new kind of situation (Lehmiller and
Agnew, 2006). As Justin Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger note in Chapter 4
4 Christopher R. Agnew

regarding different types of socially marginalized relationships, “[a]ll of these

relationship variations share a common bias that stems from some aspect of
the relationship itself. Outside of their relationship, these individuals may not
be subject to other forms of bias in their everyday life (e.g., someone involved in
an interracial relationship may only feel stigmatized when their partner is
known to others). In this respect, relationship status can be viewed as a distinct
social identity that is independent of other personal identities an individual
might possess (Brewer, 2008)” (p. 83 below). Being in a marginalized relation-
ship has implications for relationship stability, as one of the significant pre-
dictors of commitment is perceived social approval (Lehmiller and Agnew,
2007). Lack of perceived approval from others undermines feelings of commit-
ment toward a partner. Moreover, if there is a reduction in the amount of
support received from one’s social network during inevitable periods of rela-
tionship stress, a person’s stress level may remain chronically high, resulting in
health problems. Furthermore, being in a marginalized relationship is often
associated with keeping the relationship from others, and maintaining secrets
has been shown to have attendant costs to physical health.
Part II of this volume focuses on social network and communicative
influences on romantic relationships. Perceptions figure prominently in
understanding the psychological processes underlying the initiation and main-
tenance of dyadic relationships and, beyond the dyad, members of one’s social
network have their own perceptions regarding others’ closest relationships. In
Chapter 5, Paul Etcheverry and Benjamin Le discuss the influence of subjective
norms on close relationships. The concept of subjective norms comes from the
social psychology literature on attitudes and their association with behavior
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Subjective norms refer to one’s beliefs regarding
what one thinks important others want one to do. The concept is composed of
two separate constructs: normative beliefs (what one believes others think
about one performing an action) and motivation to comply (degree to which
one wants to follow a given social referent’s perceived beliefs). With respect to
close relationship involvement, subjective norms have been shown to be a
significant predictor of an individual’s relationship commitment, above and
beyond other potent predictors such as perceived satisfaction level, quality of
alternatives, and investment size (Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004). These authors
review past findings involving the subjective norms construct and outline
future avenues for research in this burgeoning area (e.g., predictors of norma-
tive beliefs and of motivation to comply).
In their chapter on network perceptions of daters’ romances (Chapter 6),
Elizabeth Keneski and Tim Loving distill the extant literature on outsiders’
perceptions of couple relationships and present a new and exciting theoretical
model that details how social network members’ perceptions of a given rela-
tionship can ultimately influence outcomes in those relationships. The S-NET
Model, or Social Network Evaluation and Transmission Model, describes two
 Introduction: external influences beyond the dyad 5

specific pathways by which social network members’ initial relationship obser-

vations may impact outcomes. First, observations by social network members
result in perceptions about a relationship. These perceptions may lead to (dis)-
approval of the relationship, which, in turn, may yield (a lack of) supportive
actions toward the couple members, which helps to (deflate) sustain the
couple’s relationship. A second pathway springs from the couple members
themselves: couple members may disclose to network members about their
intimate relationship, which then fuels network perceptions, (possible) appro-
val, and (possible) supportive actions. The model includes reciprocal paths in
places, consistent with evidence from past empirical studies of network sup-
port processes (e.g., Loving, 2006). The S-NET Model represents a very useful
distillation of past theorizing and is likely to generate empirical efforts in line
with its tenets for years to come.
Of course, not everyone in a person’s social network may approve of his or
her choice of intimate relationship partner. Differences in opinion as to who is
“right” for someone abound and have served as the storyline in many well-
known dramas, both in real life and in fiction. For example, in Shakespeare’s
classic story of young love Romeo and Juliet, readers are presented with two
young people whose families are at odds and are adamantly opposed to a
relationship between their offspring. However, familial efforts to interfere with
the romance backfire and, instead, fuel greater love between Romeo and Juliet.
Perhaps not surprisingly, this notion, that outside interference can result in the
opposite of what outsiders intend, has been the subject of research. Early
research efforts yielded results consistent with what some have labeled “the
Romeo and Juliet effect”: the more outside pressure against a given romance,
the greater the commitment to that romance. Subsequent research efforts have
failed to replicate these early findings, calling into question what is truth and
what is fiction. In “The new story of Romeo and Juliet” presented in Chapter 7,
Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea Ellithorpe provide data that highlight the nuances
of the effect: “In contrast to the idea that adversity heightens relationship
quality, we did not find that adversity enhanced love, satisfaction, commit-
ment, or investment in any of our studies. Rather, consistent with vulnerability
stress adaptation models (e.g., Karney and Bradbury, 1995), there were situa-
tions or individual differences that enabled couple members to be better able to
weather the storm of network disapproval. We believe modern-day Romeos
and Juliets exist but they are couples who stay together despite disapproval, not
because of it” (p. 166 below).
Social influences on relationships can take a number of different forms and
be studied from a number of different angles. Consider the following common
interpersonal situation. Your sister has a fight with her husband over his failure
to remember their wedding anniversary. She tells you about this and, eventually,
forgives her husband’s forgetfulness. But do you forgive him? And what might be
the consequences of your (not) doing so? This is the kind of situation explored by
6 Christopher R. Agnew

Jeff Green, Jody Davis, and Chelsea Reid in Chapter 8, on what they call “third-
party forgiveness.” The concept highlights how interpersonal relationships
between couple members are embedded within a complex web of other inter-
personal relationships (Green, Burnette, and Davis, 2008). Conflicts between
individuals are often assumed to involve only the immediate conflicting parties,
but a moment’s reflection reveals that this assumption is faulty. Spillover effects
abound and the authors describe mediators, moderators, and consequences of
such effects. Third-party processes that impact intimate dyads are acknowledged
but woefully underresearched and this chapter contributes to bringing further
attention to a particularly interesting twist on external influences on dyads.
The volume concludes with a thorough review of what is known in the
extant research literature about the topic of relationship advice. Given the
ubiquity of such advice all around us, one might expect a sizeable research
literature on the topic (e.g., MacGeorge, Feng, and Thompson, 2008).
However, as Erina MacGeorge and Elizabeth Hall reveal in Chapter 9, there
is much room for advancement in this area: “Indeed, in our review of relevant
scholarly literature, we found that research on relationship advice is both
scattered and sparse, largely unconnected either to research on advice more
generally, or to research on relationships and social networks. We also found
very little direct attention to advice in studies of social network effects on
dyads” (p. 190 below). The authors review findings from two discrete areas of
relationship advice that are most prominent in the literature: (1) advice to
young people about dating and sexuality, and (2) advice from experienced
parents to new parents about child rearing. From their review, the authors then
lay out a research agenda that would provide much-needed additional data on
all aspects of relationship advice in the social influence process.
Why does a person choose to initiate a relationship with one intimate
partner rather than another? Beyond initiating a relationship, why does a person
stay in a given relationship over time? To date, these critical questions have most
often been pursued by scholars via an emphasis on the thoughts, feelings, and
motivations of individual decision-makers. That emphasis is well placed and has
contributed much to our knowledge of how interpersonal relationships operate.
However, the work featured in this volume highlights the importance of consid-
ering external influences on individual decision-making in close relationships. It
is hoped that the collection of chapters included here will spur further efforts to
elucidate the influence of external factors on the internal machinations of those
involved in intimate relationships.

references
Boss, P. (2006). Loss, trauma, and resilience: therapeutic work with ambiguous loss. New
York: W. W. Norton.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd edn.). New York: Basic
Books.
 Introduction: external influences beyond the dyad 7

Brewer, M. B. (2008). Social identity and close relationships. In J. P. Forgas and

J. Fitness (eds.), Social relationships: cognitive, affective, and motivational processes
(pp. 167–184). New York: Psychology Press.
Etcheverry, P. E., and Agnew, C. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of
romantic relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11, 409–428.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an intro-
duction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Goodwin, R. (2008). Changing relations: achieving intimacy in a time of social tran-
sition. Cambridge University Press.
Green, J. D., Burnette, J. L., and Davis, J. L. (2008). Third-party forgiveness: (not)
forgiving your close other’s betrayer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
34, 407–418.
Karney, B. R., and Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality
and stability: a review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118,
3–34.
Knobloch, L. K., and Theiss, J. A. (2012). Experiences of U.S. military couples during the
post-deployment transition: applying the relational turbulence model. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 423–450.
Lehmiller, J. J. (2009). Secret romantic relationships: consequences for personal and
relational well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1452–1466.
Lehmiller, J. J., and Agnew, C. R. (2006). Marginalized relationships: The impact of
social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 40–51.
(2007). Perceived marginalization and the prediction of romantic relationship
stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1036–1049.
Loving, T. J. (2006). Predicting dating relationship fate with insiders’ and outsiders’
perspectives: who and what is asked matters. Personal Relationships, 13, 349–362.
MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., and Thompson, E. R. (2008). “Good” and “bad” advice: how
to advise more effectively. In M. T. Motley (ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal
communication (pp. 145–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCubbin, H. I., and Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family stress process: the double
ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. Marriage and Family Review, 6, 7–37.
Milardo, R. M., and Helms-Erikson, H. E. (2000). Network overlap and third-party
influence in close relationships. In C. Hendrick and S. Hendrick (eds.), Close
relationships: a sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ulmer, W. F., Jr., Collins, J. J., and Jacobs, T. O. (2000). American military culture in the
twenty-first century. Washington, DC: CSIS Press.
 PART I

G L O B A L A N D S O C I E T A L IN F L U E N C E S
ON ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
 1

The influence of globalization and technological

development on intimate relationships
Ç a Ğ la sanr I and robin goodwin

introduction
In the twenty-first century, globalization is one of the most influential forces in
the psychological development of people – and one of the most widely dis-
cussed (Arnett, 2002). Indeed, it has been argued that “in recent years, global-
ization has become one of the most widely used terms to describe the current
state of the world” (Arnett, 2002, p. 774, italics original). Trade, immigration,
and the exchange of information have led to cultural exchanges, while advances
in telecommunications and economic interdependence have enabled a wide
variety of connections among people from different nations (Arnett, 2002). In
this chapter, we focus on particular features of globalization that we believe
illustrate key relational aspects of this phenomenon. We begin by considering
the formation of relationships, in particular via the internet, and relate this to
the development of relationships across cultures. We contend that, as a result
of the internet and other means of global communication, it is no longer
unusual to form contacts with foreign individuals and to gain greater exposure
to other cultures (Kim, 2008), although the novel forms of interactions that
have sometimes emerged have potentially complex ramifications on the close
relationships of those involved. We then examine the development and main-
tenance of broader social networks, once again considering technological
advances in social media sites (such as Facebook) as well as the emergence of
new networks that accompany the societal movements often associated with
globilization. We next consider a characteristic frequently associated with
globilization: the emergence of global threats such as terrorism and pandemics,
and some of their implications for relationship maintenance and quality.
Finally, we conclude by probing the concept of globalization a little deeper,
arguing that, despite the undeniable technological and environmental changes
evident in many countries in recent decades, there are still continuities, resis-
tances, and ‘re-claiming’ of some traditional behavioral patterns that challenge
simple caricatures of the impact of globilization on close relationships.

11
12 Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin

forming new relationships

The rise of online dating

Increased societal mobility, a delay in marriage, and greater consumerism in
society have contributed to the demand for new ways to find partners
(Frazzetto, 2010; Sautter, Tippett, and Morgan, 2010). Long working hours
have meant many people have a limited time to date (Barraket and Henry-
Waring, 2008). Partly as a result of new demands for dating opportunities and
partly as a consequence of new technologies, the emergence of the internet has
served to greatly ease the accessibility of individuals to one other. At its
inception, online dating was seen as socially unacceptable (Goodwin, 1990)
and it only began to achieve widespread prominence in the late 1990s (Orr,
2004; Sautter et al., 2010). High rates of internet connectivity, as well as the
ability to use dynamic web-pages (which came with Web 2.0 technologies in
1997), accelerated a phenomenal growth in the use of online dating websites
(Hogan, Li and Dutton, 2011). In addition to facilitating connections with weak
ties (such as old and distant friends), meeting new people including potential
romantic partners online has become easier than ever before (Hogan et al.,
2011). Not surpringly, then, the number of online meeting platforms has
increased significantly in recent years.
Online forums, personal websites, chat rooms, online gaming, social
networking sites, applications on smartphones, and online dating sites have
emerged as the principal new platforms that enable encounters and sharing
with strangers (Finkel et al., 2012). Hogan and colleagues (2011) note that dating
websites are the most common way to meet among couples who meet online,
followed by chat rooms and social network websites. Recently, the advent of
smartphones has provided a new dimension to online dating. Smartphone
applications such as Badoo and Zoosk disclose users’ location, allowing them
to notify members in their immediate proximity (Finkel et al., 2012). The use of
social media and social network diffusion has led to the sharing and learning of
online dating behaviors (Christakis and Fowler, 2009). Rosenfeld and Thomas
(2010) found that internet dating was the second most common way to meet
partners among participants who met their partners between 2007 and 2009.
Similarly, Dutton and colleagues (2009) show that during 2007–2008 one in
every twenty couples met their future spouse online, most often through a
dating website, chat room, or instant messaging.
The tendency for online dating and preferences among the online plat-
forms varies considerably cross-nationally (Dutton et al., 2009; Hogan et al.,
2011). Dutton and colleagues (2009) found that in the UK, Australia, and Spain
the internet is playing a significant role in introducing couples; however,
Spanish and Portuguese individuals prefer meeting in chat rooms or social
network contexts when compared to Scandinavia, where online dating sites are
 The influence of globalization on relationships 13

more popular (Hogan et al., 2011). Hogan and colleagues (2011) also found that
Japanese people are less likely to use online dating websites despite the
advanced technology available in that country, whereas Brazilian respondents
were more positive toward online dating. Besides cross-cultural differences,
there are also intracultural differences in online behaviors (Sautter et al., 2010).
Citizens living in urban locations, especially large metropolitan cities, are more
likely to actively use online dating accounts (Sautter et al., 2010). Forming
social and romantic relationships online is also highly dependent on socio-
demographic characteristics (Dutton et al., 2009). Meeting partners online has
become particularly popular among those who have relatively fewer options in
the relational marketplace (Rosenfeld and Thomas, 2010). For example, studies
show that homosexuals (Rosenfeld and Thomas, 2010; Savic, Berglund, and
Lindstrom, 2005) and middle-aged heterosexuals are more prone to use online
dating websites (Hogan et al., 2011; Valkenburg and Peter, 2007; Whitty and
Buchanan, 2009). Furthermore, Sautter and colleagues (2010) found that
divorced individuals are more in favor of internet dating than those who
have never married. In addition, Dutton and colleagues (2009) found that
individuals who value common interests, personality characteristics, and emo-
tional attraction above age and education considerations are more likely to try
online dating.

How has online dating altered the courtship process?

Online dating has greatly influenced the dating process (Finkel et al., 2012). First,
by allowing users to access profiles of a large pool of potential partners, members
are able to meet a wide range of single people whom they are otherwise unlikely
to encounter (Dutton et al., 2009). Online dating sites not only offer access to a
database full of single people, but also enable the ability to converse with
thousands of them online contemporaneously (Finkel et al., 2012). Second,
without the pressure of seeing someone in person, computer mediated commu-
nication may lead to easier conversations, especially for shy people unable to
keep calm in face-to-face interactions (Stritzke, Nguyen and Durkin, 2004). As a
result, computer mediated communication is likely to contribute positively to
relationship formation (McKenna, Green, and Gleason, 2002; Ramirez and
Zhang, 2007), so long as there is not a long break between the initial online
conversation and the face-to-face interaction (Finkel et al., 2012; Ramirez and
Zhang, 2007). Rosenfeld and Thomas (2010) argue that the rise of the internet
has led to an increase in the overall partnership rate, pointing to a positive
correlation between adults having internet access at home and being in a
relationship.
Online dating may also potentially influence initial communication patterns
between couples. Rosen, Cheever, Cummings, and Felt (2008) noted the impor-
tance of using strong emotional words in computer mediated communication,
14 Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin

finding that the amount of emotionality and self-disclosure in these means of

communication plays a significant role in individuals’ perception of a potential
partner. Indeed, more than half of their participants preferred to date individuals
who used strong emotional words in their computer mediated communication.
Unlike in traditional dating whereby people gradually discover aspects about
each other over a period of time, online conversations provide the opportunity to
learn a broad range of information about partners before actually meeting them
(Finkel et al., 2012). Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, the majority of the online
daters in a study by Rosen and colleagues (2008) rated their online dating
experience positively and would recommend it to others.
In addition, many contemporary online dating websites attempt a more
“scientific approach” for the matching of compatible people. In recent years
online dating websites have turned to behavioral scientists in order to assist in
the matching process (Finkel et al., 2012; Frazzetto, 2010). Learning about a
candidate’s personality, values, and interests may be advantageous, as similar-
ity in values predicts higher relationship satisfaction (Acitelli, Kenny, and
Weiner, 2001; Hitsch, Hortaçsu, and Ariely, 2010). The prevailing methodology
used by online dating firms such as eHarmony for gathering information on
partners is still self-report questionnaires, which assess members’ personal
interests, hobbies, values, life goals, personalities, backgrounds, relationship
skills, etc. Compatibility is then sought via a range of personality tests and
psychological assessments (Frazzetto, 2010). More recently, however, online
dating services have added new methods to assess biological compatibility with
the support of biological anthropologists and neuroscientists (Frazzetto, 2010).
Genetic factors and neural circuits that purport to be relevant to the study of
love (Bartels and Zeki, 2004; Fisher et al., 2002) are increasingly used to assess
couples’ compatibility (Frazzetto, 2010). Previous research has indicated that
individuals are attracted to those with an opposite immune system to their own
(Wedekind et al. 1995). Differences in the immune systems are tested using
genetic testing/biological research, with a number of dating services promis-
ing a more “scientific” basis to their matching (e.g., ScientificMatch.com,
GenePartner.com; Frazzeto, 2010).
Several ongoing projects are currently examining the outcomes of online
dating. Although having the opportunity to meet thousands of singles at once
may seem advantageous, less obvious drawbacks may mitigate this advantage.
Finkel and colleagues (2012) state that browsing so many potential partners’
profiles may encourage a user to lose interest and not focus on a specific
person, and eventually weaken levels of commitment and relationship satis-
faction when that relationship proceeds. While matching based on similarity in
values and interests may appear to be desirable, members may fail to recognize
the hidden unique attributes of potential partners while browsing the profiles
on a web-page (Finkel et al., 2012). Indeed, Finkel and colleagues (2012) point
out that members may be unable to determine the attributes of a candidate that
 The influence of globalization on relationships 15

will actually make them happy in a face-to-face interaction. Moreover, with

respect to matching on the basis of biological markers, considerable disagree-
ment persists among biological anthropologists and neuroscientists over the
best methodologies required to accomplish such matching (Frazzetto, 2010).
To conclude, therefore, online dating accelerates the whole process of
dating (Rosen et al., 2008), and facilitates relationship initiation and commu-
nication with prospective partners. However, being able to reach potential
partners and their information so easily may result in less investment in a
particular partner. As Rusbult’s investment model (1980; Rusbult, Agnew, and
Arriaga, 2012) notes, the increased availability of alternatives, and lower levels
of investment, may undermine relationship commitment. Online dating both
increases the availability of alternatives and reduces initial investment, with
ramifications for long-term relationship commitment.

Globalized relationships
Developments on the internet have not only changed the nature of courtship
but also increased the opportunities to date people across borders. Alongside
such improvements in telecommunication technologies, an exponential
increase in international mobility and rapid industrialization have encouraged
people to move into big cities for educational or career purposes. As a result of
globalization and international migration, national boundaries have become
weaker, with intercultural marriages being one of the most noticeable results
(Qian and Lichter, 2007). Indeed, recent evidence suggests a rapid increase in
the rates of intercultural marriage (Frame, 2004; Molina, Estrada, and Burnett,
2004; Jones and Shen, 2008; Waldman and Rubalcava, 2005; Zhang and Van
Hook, 2009).
Although globalization and immigration are key factors in the increase of
intercultural relationships, communities and families also have an influential
role in encouraging or discouraging individuals in commiting to a partner
from another culture (Khatib-Chahidi, Hill, and Paton, 1998). This may
depend partly on the individualism level in a given society (Hofstede, 2001),
as higher levels make individuals less dependent on their community (Blau,
Beeker, and Fitzpatrick, 1984). Similarly, if families encourage their children to
work, study, or travel abroad, those children become familiar with people from
diverse cultures, and are more likely to marry interculturally (Khatib-Chahidi
et al., 1998; McFadden and Moore, 2001). When people are exposed to different
cultures at a young age they learn to appreciate, respect, and adapt to
cultural variations (Crippen and Brew, 2007) and are likely to be more flexible
in their relationship choices (Khatib-Chahidi et al., 1998).
In addition, certain individual characteristics make individuals more prone
to intermarry. Those in intercultural relationships tend to be more adventurous,
open-minded, and assertive (Khatib-Chahidi et al., 1998; McGoldrick and Preto,
16 Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin

1984). In addition, flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity, appreciation for cultural

blending, and a sense of curiosity can facilitate relationship adjustment (Silva,
Campbell, and Wright, 2012).

Challenges for intercultural marriages

Past research indicated that intercultural marriages are typically inherently
problematic (Barron, 1972). Recent studies, while being more optimistic, sug-
gest that intercultural marriages face particular challenges stemming from
differences in background as well as issues related to citizenship and language
(Bratter and Eschbach, 2006; Bystydzienski, 2011; Reiter and Gee, 2008; Frame,
2004; Romano, 2008). Lack of support and disapproval by families and social
networks may adversely affect a couple’s adjustment to marriage (Frame, 2004;
Romano, 2008). Where families or social networks are resistant to accepting
the foreign partner, tension is likely to occur between the members of the
intercultural couple (Baltas and Steptoe, 2000). According to Romano (2008),
child rearing practices, gender roles, values, and religion are the areas most
likely to cause conflict. Failing to approach these differences appropriately may
result in the dissolution of the relationship. Even if couples manage to mini-
mize their differences, events such as the birth or death of a family member
may trigger conflict, as partners often have different coping strategies and
cultural expectations about these events (McGoldrick and Preto, 1984). In
addition to the potential for misunderstanding within the dyad, there is a
high risk of resentments linked to the differing cultural practices of the
extended family (Waldman and Rubalcava, 2005).
In addition to these challenges, one partner in an intercultural relationship
may need to live far from his or her original home. As a result, that person may
feel lonely and homesick as well as being deprived of familial support in areas
such as childcare. Isolating oneself from one’s family and country is likely to
result in partners’ overreliance on each other for social needs, with the attend-
ant increased pressure on the relationship (Silva et al., 2012). However, thanks
to developments in technology and telecommunications, maintaining contact
with distant family and social networks is now much easier than in previous
times, regardless of the distances involved (Wilding, 2006).
Despite the above, hardships may be turned into an advantage by couples
in some cases. Differences in the other may be an attractive feature, and even
the major factor in initiating an intercultural relationship (Kohn, 1998).
Couples may become determined to overcome any cultural conflicts, discrim-
ination, and prejudice (Gaines and Agnew, 2003). Indeed, disapproval from the
social network may actually boost a couple’s commitment (Gaines and Agnew,
2003) and their motivation to overcome any difficulties (Axinn and Thornton,
2002; Crohn, 1995). Moreover, being exposed to another culture intimately
gives individuals the opportunity to develop a variety of cultural frames, which
 The influence of globalization on relationships 17

may help them to look at a problem from multiple angles (Romano, 2008).
Many couples state that their lives are consistently interesting and enriched as
their intercultural marriage allows them exposure to different cultures, countries,
languages, customs, and rites (Romano, 2008). Successful intercultural couples
are aware of their areas of conflict and recognize similarities (Bystydzienski,
2011). They not only accept the differences but achieve cultural understanding
and remember to negotiate differences continuously (Crohn, 1995). Conflicts
based on social differences diminish when couples discover their common
values, commitments, and cultural similarities (Bystydzienski, 2011). As a result
of paying attention to, and responding to, each other’s requests, understanding
of each other’s culture and points of view can strengthen the couple bond
(Bystydzienski, 2011).
To sum up, increased globalization and immigration have been associated
with a growth in numbers of intercultural couples (McFadden and Moore,
2001). Even if intercultural couples are at a high risk of experiencing adjust-
ment problems, they also attain valuable relationship characteristics that
intracultural couples may not enjoy. Recent studies demonstrate that many
intercultural relationships manage to overcome their differences and difficul-
ties (Bratter and King, 2008), with relationship satisfaction similar to or even
higher than intracultural couple relationships (Reiter and Gee, 2008).
Additionally, children of intercultural couples are observed to have a wider
worldview and a higher rate of adaptability (Romano, 2008). While individuals
should not underestimate their differences (Molina et al., 2004), marrying an
individual from a different culture involves getting “married with that culture”
(Rohrlich, 1988). For healthy relationships, partners should be familiar with
both their own and their partner’s culture (Tseng, McDermott, and Maretzki,
1977), and make an active attempt to become familiar with each other’s culture
and, as necessary, to learn each other’s languages, for the health of their
relationship (Romano, 2008).

maintaining and enhancing existing

relationships and networks

The rise of social network websites

Developments in technology are taking interpersonal communications to a new
level. At the time of writing the most popular social network site, Facebook,
claims a billion members with more than 500 million daily active users
(Facebook, 2012). Although social network sites have been common for many
years, the advent of Facebook has had particularly large implications for social
relationships (Muise, Christofides, and Desmarais, 2009). A study by Stern and
Taylor (2007) showed that even shortly after its public launch in 2006 Facebook
had rapidly become the most common medium of communication among
18 Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin

college students. Although the users of social network sites are mostly young
adults (Porter et al., 2012), the involvement of people aged between 45 and 54 in
the use of social network sites grew exponentially between 2011 and 2012
(Quelman, 2012). Photo/video sharing, new communication mediums, and
mobile connectivity allow social network sites to connect users to an existing
social network, rather than simply introducing them to new people (Boyd and
Ellison, 2008). Recent statistics show that 54 percent of Facebook members have
used the social network via mobile devices, and 33 percent use a phone as their
primary way to access the site (Qualman, 2012). Such sites allow individuals to
display personal information to large numbers and, by displaying their offline
social network, can also allow users to be easily identified in “real life” (Zhao,
Sosik, and Cosley, 2012). Additionally, social network sites offer a platform to
create desirable identities, fuelled by impression management motives (Krämer
and Winter, 2008) and for some they can act as a medium to increase their
personal popularity (Zhao et al., 2012). However, as with the development of
online dating agencies, such technology and communication tools also raise
important questions about their benefits or detriments for interpersonal rela-
tionships (Mod, 2010; Muise et al., 2009; Utz and Beukeboom, 2011).
Social network sites are evidently advantageous in bringing together long-
lost friends (Muise et al., 2009), maintaining long-distance friendships (Chan
and Cheng, 2004; Johnson, 2001), helping develop “weak ties,” and enhancing
social capital (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe, 2007; Lewis and West, 2009;
Walther et al., 2008). They also allow for the initiation of new connections
and interactions, and for the expression of individual identities (Stern and
Taylor, 2007). As the facts about users are available to a large number of people,
the impact of information on the social network sites is often “stronger” than
the information revealed in an offline context (Afifi, Falato, and Weiner, 2001).
Hobbies, interests, and beliefs are displayed, allowing easy access to others’
information. Stern and Taylor (2007) suggest that Facebook is widely used to
reduce uncertainty about another by friends, acquaintances, and even roman-
tic partners. On applications such as Facebook, several features are related to
individuals’ intimate relationships (such as relationship status) while individ-
uals or couples can publicly show their affection via wall posts or photographs
(Mod, 2010). These public demonstrations of love can “officially” validate a
couple’s relationship (Zhao et al., 2012). Changing the relationship status to “in
a relationship” may display signs of commitment (Utz and Beukeboom, 2011),
and has the potential to change the dynamics of the relationship offline.
Consequently, social network sites are the most public place for a couple to
present themselves and to publicly display their romantic relationship (Mod,
2010; Utz and Beukeboom, 2011). These sites allow couples to make a public
declaration to a large number of people, which would not be possible previ-
ously until one’s engagement or wedding (Mod, 2010). In addition to revealing
relationship status, couples also may show public displays of affection through
 The influence of globalization on relationships 19

photographs and wall posts (Mod, 2010), with evidence suggesting that such
displays increase partners’ happiness and satisfaction (Mod, 2010; Utz and
Beukeboom, 2011; Zhao et al., 2012). In addition, displaying a partner’s name
using the “in a relationship with” function may be seen as a sign of possession
and may inhibit other people from flirting with one’s partner (Mod, 2010).
Some, however, have been less positive about the growth of such online
networking services. Individuals may find these tools intrusive, as they may be
used to check up on partners’ commitment and fidelity (Stern and Taylor, 2007).
While displays of affection may increase the satisfaction of a couple, the wider
online community may not always see these displays so favorably (Mod, 2010):
the demonstration of affection in the online world may create resentment in
observers (Mod, 2010), particularly in cultures where the overt display of affec-
tion is less widely accepted (Bogle, 2008). Frequently, the range of others who
may view such declarations (family members, formal contacts, acquaintances)
may make such displays on social network sites risky and embarrassing (Stern
and Taylor, 2007). Relationship partners can access a great deal of information
about each other that would be otherwise hardly accessible (Utz and Beukeboom,
2011); timeline features allow access to past conversations and to information
about previous relationships. Consequently, social network sites can change the
amount of information known about romantic partners’ past and present net-
works and actions (Utz and Beukeboom, 2011). Users may have hundreds of
friends, and past romantic partners and unknown individuals are likely to be in
their friend list. Accordingly, increased exposure to information without a
proper context related to these unknown people can increase jealousy (Muise
et al., 2009). This is likely to be particularly the case with photographs (Mod,
2010). Photos related to past relationships, or current photos of a partner with an
unknown person, are reported as the main reasons for jealousy (Mod, 2010;
Muise et al., 2009; Persch, 2007). In long-distance relationships, excessive infor-
mation about a partner through social network sites can lead to particularly high
levels of jealousy (Persh, 2007). In addition to engendering jealousy, pictures of a
partner with another person on a network site can create discomfort, being seen
by all family, friends, and acquaintances, and creating misunderstandings about
fidelity among other people (Utz and Beukeboom, 2011).
Several factors may moderate individuals’ experiences of social network
sites, including their relationship satisfaction and self-esteem: Utz and
Beukeboom (2011) found that individuals with low self-esteem are more likely
to experience jealousy when using social network sites, while relationship
satisfaction can help lead to positive social network site experiences amongst
those with low self-esteem (Utz and Beukeboom, 2011). Muise and collegues
(2009) found a correlation between the time a user spends on Facebook and
relationship jealousy. However, time spent may not be directly related to
jealousy (Tokunaga, 2011); rather, it might be the act of surveillance that
engenders such jealousy (Elphinston and Noller, 2011).
20 Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin

In conclusion, it is difficult to provide a simplistic message about the

impact of social network websites on romantic relationships. On the one
hand, social network sites can allow self-disclosure and a show of commitment,
and can increase interaction with common friends and a partner, all of which
may contribute positively to relationship satisfaction (Mod, 2010; Stern and
Taylor, 2007). Social network sites can positively contribute to relationship
satisfaction through explicit displays of affection (Mod, 2010; Utz and
Beukeboom, 2011) as well as facilitating more frequent interaction between
partners (Porter et al., 2012). On the other hand, recent studies make it evident
that social network sites can create threats for some intimate partners (Muise
et al., 2009). Traces from previous relationships, or current photos and wall
posts by strangers, may create jealousy detrimental to a romance. As is fre-
quently the case with close relationships, much may depend on relevant
individual- and relationship-level variables.

The social networks of migrants

Above we argue that one important facet of globilization – technological
development – can play a potentially important part in relationship mainte-
nance and the development of social networks. A second important aspect of
globilization is migration, particularly between countries. Migration is often
seen as a critical life event and a time of particular psychological challenge
(Kirkcaldy, Furnham, and Siefen, 2009; Weishaar, 2008). Migrants frequently
face difficult economic conditions and long working hours (Kirkcaldy et al.,
2009), and, not surprisingly, frequently report stress symptoms (Berry, 1997).
Partly as a direct consequence of a migration (e.g., when seeking work or
somewhere to live), and partly as a result of a search for psychological solace in
new, often difficult circumstances, migrants may urgently seek the support of
others, from both their new culture and their culture of origin. Supportive
others can provide important psychological support in stressful circumstances
(Kirkcaldy et al., 2005). Some of this support will be via the technologies listed
above. Computer mediated networks can allow individuals to share their
experiences anonymously, and give important new information about a cul-
ture to those new to a country (Chen and Choi, 2011). However, in a new
cultural setting, behaviors of others are not necessarily so predictable, with
interactions often novel and uncertain (Kosic et al., 2004). As a consequence,
individuals often rely on established networks ‘back home’ to provide at least
some emotional support when moving between countries.
The expansion of the European Union eastwards in 2004 provided a
chance for the large-scale movement of migrants westward, leading to the
largest and most rapid migrant movement to the United Kingdom in recent
history. Between May 2004 and September 2009, some 1.6 million workers
from the EU moved to the UK, approximately two-thirds of whom were Poles
 The influence of globalization on relationships 21

(Sumption and Somerville, 2010). In a longitudinal three-wave study of these

migrants (Goodwin, 2011; Goodwin, Polek, and Goodwin, 2013), we found that
transnational networks (networks back home) had a direct impact on per-
ceived physical well-being in the new country. Developing positive relation-
ships with the new culture was moderated by the values and beliefs of these on
arrival: “self-transcendent values” (values that stressed universalism and
benevolence) permitted the establishment of supportive relationships with
the receiving country. In contrast, migrants who hold more traditional values
are likely to maintain close ties with their immediate, country-based social
network (Smith and Schwartz, 1997) but may be reluctant to explore the full
range of social interactions with members from outside their ethnic commun-
ity. Similarly, beliefs such as social complexity act as cognitive resources (Bond
et al., 2004) when trying to adjust to building networks in a new country. Those
who believe that there are no simple rigid rules, and that people will sometimes
behave in an inconsistent manner, may enjoy better relations with others,
including strangers (Leung et al., 2007; Singelis et al., 2003), and are more
tolerant toward different others (Safdar et al., 2008).
Social support in a new country, however, is often far from simple, and can
sometimes have apparently paradoxical effects. Maintaining strong ties with
members of one’s own ethnic group in one area can lead to ghettoization and
social stratification (Griffiths et al., 2005). Apparent ethnic group solidarity is
often something of a myth (Nauck and Settles, 2001). Polish migrants to the UK,
for example, may compete with each for work, and apparent “support” networks
may be accompanied by considerable interpersonal distrust (Ryan, Tilki, and
Siara, 2008; White and Ryan, 2008). Notably, community organizations may be
seen to be of lesser relevance for new migrants than often assumed by those from
the “outside” (Ryan et al., 2008). Such organizations may just be seen as
representing particular sectarian interests, or an older migrant community less
relevant to newer waves of population movement.

Relational implications of global risks: a relationship

amplification hypothesis
In contemporary society, risk is globalized; in the words of Beck (1992, p. 36),
risks “dip under borders.” International terrorism, novel pandemics, environ-
mental threats arising from new methods of agriculture or technological
practices (e.g., genetically modified crops, global warming) – all can be directly
or indirectly attributed to aspects of globalization. During times of rapid social
change or following dramatic events, intimate relationships are likely to be
affected (Silbereisen and Tomasik, 2011). While Bonanno argues that “large
numbers of people manage to endure the temporary upheaval of loss or
potentially traumatic events remarkably well, with no apparent disruption in
their . . . close relationships” (2004, p. 20), there are other data to suggest
22 Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin

external events can provide significant challenges to close relationships.

Indeed, following dramatic events, relationship well-being can act as either a
mediator of psychological outcomes or a direct outcome of stressors (Norris
et al., 2002).
A number of theoreticians have pointed to some of the positive aspects of
threat or traumatic events on close relationships. As attachment theorists have
long since noted, one important way of coping with personal threats to one’s
safety and mortality is to seek support from others (Bowlby, 1969). We often
cling to others when threatened, and are more likely to contact and maintain
close relationships in times of anxiety. Terror management theorists (TMT;
e.g., Florian, Mikulincer, and Hirschberger, 2002) have suggested that close
relationships provide a sense of security that allows people to function with
relative ease during periods of personal existential concern. In stressful times,
close relationships can act as a fundamental anxiety buffer, providing a “sym-
bolic shield against the awareness of one’s finitude” (Mikulincer, Florian, and
Hirschberger, 2003, p. 37). In particular, death awareness (or “mortality sali-
ence” in the terminology of TMT) leads to a desire for long-term, committed,
and emotionally-driven relationships with significant others, and the avoid-
ance of conflict with these others during times of anxiety. Clinical studies have
demonstrated how such support may be of importance during times of war or
following the witnessing of a terrorist incident (Applewhite and Dickins, 1997;
Kalicanin and Lecic-Tosevski, 1994). For example, in their study of those
directly affected by bombings in Yugoslavia, Putnik and Lauri (2004) found
interpersonal relationships became closer, with respondents reporting the
provision and receipt of heightened levels of support. In particularly, the
strongest support is likely to be derived from romantic partners and friends
and family (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). In their study of responses to the 2001
World Trade Center attacks on New York, Huddy and colleagues (2002)
reported that 31 percent had made adjustments to their daily routine in order
to spend more time with their families. A nationally representative poll in the
UK (MORI, September 2005; www.mori.com) found 76 percent of 1,010
respondents tried to check the safety of immediate family members or friends
on the day of the bombings, and more than half spoke about their feelings of
the bombings to close family or friends on the day itself. In our own work
conducted in the immediate aftermath of the “7/7” suicide bombing attacks in
London in 2005 (Goodwin and Gaines, 2009), those most anxious were more
likely to seek out friends and family to discuss their concerns. This might even
extend to enhancing marital stability and commitment. Following the April
1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Nakoney, Reddick and Rodgers (2004) exam-
ined divorce rates from 1985 to 2000. Using TMT and attachment theory, they
predicted and found a significant decline in divorce rates in the state of
Oklahoma one to two years after the bombing, with this effect decreasing
over time. This they interpret as suggesting that those who might otherwise
 The influence of globalization on relationships 23

have divorced sought spousal comfort at this time. According to a survey of

10,000 residents of the Kanto area, Japan, by Axa Life Insurance Company in
June (2011), 85.4 percent of married people said their opinion of their partners
improved after the massive March 2011 earthquake. And while 46.4 percent of
single people in a previous survey said they would not rush into marriage, that
number fell to 40.8 percent after the quake, tsunami, and nuclear disasters
(www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120101f1.html).
The above suggests that major threats can lead us to turn to our loved ones
for support and may discourage us from dissolving even less-than-perfect
relationships. This is not, however, to suggest that marital stresses do not
also increase following a disaster, with this stress contributing toward already
heightened levels of anxiety (Norris et al., 2002). Furthermore, while there is
evidence that traumatic events can initially enhance closeness to one’s social
networks, encouraging us to share emotions following an event such as a
terrorist attack (Páez Rovira, Martinez-Sanchez and Rimé, 2004), this greater
affinity may be relatively short-lived. Research from natural environmental
disasters shows a relatively rapid decline in the quality and frequency of friend
and family contact following a major incident (Kaniasty and Norris, 1993).
Indeed, in our own research on value change following the 7/7 London bomb-
ings, we found that while security values increased and remained higher over
the following several months, levels of benevolence (reflecting a greater pos-
itivity towards those in one’s “in-group”) rose but then returned to pre-attack
levels (Goodwin, 2011). Traumatologists and others examining responses to
dramatic events have long recognized that while individuals may seek support
from close others, close relations and friends may often feel very uncomfort-
able when faced with providing such succorance, often feeling unsure what to
say or, in some instances, experiencing guilt about their own relative escape
from a traumatic event (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). Hence, ironically, at the very
time when support is most needed, significant others around us may feel
awkward or embarrassed and thus be reluctant to provide any – or may be
too willing to offer apparently “supportive” advice that is less than ideal
(Janoff-Bulman, 1992).
Globalized risks may have even more deleterious effects on our relation-
ships when “the other” is seen as the source of life-threatening disease. Major
societal transitions affecting the association between the environment and
social behavioral factors have important implications for disease spread
(Rhodes et al., 1999). Indeed, in contemporary societies infectious diseases,
even in “far-flung” places, quickly come to the attention of people worldwide
(Joffe and Haarhoff, 2002). For example, modern travel, and mass transporta-
tion, mean that human-transmitted influenzas may take only days to travel
worldwide (Fielding et al., 2005; Washer, 2004). Evidence of the threat posed by
infectious disease on interpersonal relationships suggests that relationships
amongst those who are less close may be negatively impacted by the threat of
24 Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin

infection. From an evolutionary theory perspective, as intergroup contact

increases so does risk of diseases. Disease avoidance mechanisms then mean
that individuals or groups foreign to an environment need to be treated with
suspicion (Green et al., 2010). Social representations theorists note how new
epidemics are placed within existing concerns about the risks associated with
contemporary societies and the consequences of globilization (Joffe and
Haarhoff, 2002; Washer, 2004). From this perspective, those thought to be at
risk from infectious diseases might be stigmatized and seen as “moral outcasts”
(Mak et al., 2006), allowing individuals to “cope” by defensively distancing
themselves from those “outsiders” they feel pose a threat (Joffe and Haarhoff,
2002; Washer, 2004). We found evidence for this in our own work during the
2009 swine flu epidemic. In data collected in both Europe and Malaysia, certain
societal “out-groups” were also seen as at risk (prostitutes; those highly sexually
active; homosexuals) – even if their actual risks of infection were no higher
than those of the wider population (Goodwin et al., 2009).
Taken together, the above suggests two apparently contradictory findings.
In a world where risk is “global,” relationships (particularly with intimates) can
potentially become closer during times of stress, while relationships with many
others, particularly those from another group, can become more distant, with
negative stereotyping of others increasing. This suggests that external stressors
can act as amplifiers of relationship processes, both acting to cement relation-
ships with close others but also, due to fear of infection or other negative
outcomes, making us quicker to categorize potential threatening others.
Indeed, traumatic events appear to inflate (amplify) underlying relationship
characteristics responses, particularly amongst those stressed by events. There
is still much work to be done in more fully exploring such a hypothesis.
However, such a mixture of “approach” and “avoidance” responses (Elliot
and Thrash, 2002) is likely to have important implications: while relations
with close others and the community may grow following the most stressful of
events, the rejection of some already vulnerable communities needs to be
acknowledged. These communities need to be protected to avoid “secondary
victimisation” following trauma.

conclusion
An increasingly globalized world has made it far easier for a huge variety of people
from different nationalities, age groups, and socio-economic backgrounds to meet
and form intimate relationships or friendships. Immigration, increased opportu-
nities for short-term travel or study overseas, the internet and other technologies
have led to new opportunities for relationship initiation while permitting the
maintenance of “weak ties” and thus the continuation of relationships across
territories that would otherwise have long perished. As we argue above, these
relationship developments have rarely been unambiguous in their effects: online
 The influence of globalization on relationships 25

dating may lead to less committed relationships; the use of social network sites
may increase jealousy amongst established partners, while within-group network
formation among migrant groups can exacerbate existing rivalries. Further, while
the new threats often associated with globalization may help sustain relationships
with close others, these threats may also increase interpersonal hostility toward
those outside one’s in-group.
Throughout this chapter we have portrayed globalization in a rather
uncritical manner, assuming that technological changes and migratory move-
ments have inevitable, primarily individualizing, impacts on intimate relation-
ships. However, globalization is rarely simple (Arnett, 2002), with many young
people holding an identity which is part local, part global. While the “internet
generation” can communicate with ease, a continuing sense of local obligation,
and an identity located at least partly in the immediate community, can lead to
a hybrid identity. For some this may help contribute toward a sense of margin-
alization and confusion that can then lead to a host of negative outcomes (e.g.,
drug use, depression, suicide). Breaking away from established kin networks
and relationships may lead to considerable personal sacrifices, as well as those
at a broader community level. Resistance to globalization has been little
researched by relationships researchers, even as more violent protests propa-
gated through terrorist activities – often facilitated by the use of modern
technology – have inevitably captured great attention. Others have argued
that there has been relatively little evidence of change in global values, at least
over the last few decades (Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 2004). This is particularly
the case for the majority of the world’s population, living in less economically
developed countries (Kagitçibaşi, 1996). While an individual in a traditionally
collectivist, non-Western society may be communicating freely about relation-
ships across the world, strong family pressure and more traditional influences
on their relationships are likely to persist. Kagitçibasi (2006) describes three
family patterns: the traditional family, totally materially and emotional inter-
dependent on each other; the independent, “individualistic family,” character-
istic of richer Western societies (neither materially nor emotionally dependent
on the family); and a newer, emergent “interdependent” family, often affluent,
urbanized, and technologically advanced, but still emotionally, if not materi-
ally, interdependent. This she finds evident not only in many immigrant
groups in Western countries, but also in many other globalizing societies
across the world.
As an economic, political and also a social and cultural term, globalization –
like allied concepts, including “Westernization” and “individualization”
(Goodwin, 2008) – has long been seen as having important implications for
personal lives (Tönnies, 1957). In this chapter, we touch on just a few of the
complexities and ramifications of this concept, arguing that each technological
development and potential environmental threat can have a range of implications
for the functioning and maintenance of close relationships. We strongly
26 Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin

encourage other relationship researchers to collect new data on relationship

trends, across time, cultures, and communities, in order to help us better under-
stand the full impact of globalization on close relationships, and the further
influence of “globalized” relationships on their wider societies.

references
Acitelli, L. K., Kenny, D. A., and Weiner, D. (2001). The importance of similarity and
understanding of partners’ marital ideals to relationship satisfaction. Personal
Relationships, 8, 167–185.
Afifi, W. A., Falato, W. L., and Weiner, J. L. (2001). Identity concerns following a severe
relational transgression: the role of discovery method for the relational outcomes
of infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 291–308.
Applewhite, L., and Dickins, C. (1997). Coping with terrorism: the OPM-SANG
experience. Military Medicine, 162, 240–243.
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57, 774–783.
Axinn, W. G., and Thornton, A. (2002). The transformation in the meaning of marriage.
In L. J. Waite, C. Bachrach, M. Hindon, E. Thomson, and A. Thornton (eds.), The
ties that bind: perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 147–165). New York:
Walter de Gruyter.
Baltas, Z., and Steptoe, A. (2000). Migration, culture conflict and psychological well-
being among Turkish–British married couples. Ethnicity and health, 5, 173–180.
Barraket, J., and Henry-Waring, M. S. (2008). Getting it on(line): sociological perspec-
tives on e-dating. Journal of Sociology, 4, 149–165.
Barron, M. L. (1972). Intergroup aspects of choosing a mate. In M. L. Barron (ed.), The
blending American (pp. 36–48). Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
Bartels, A., and Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love.
Neuroimage, 21, 1155–1166.
Beck, U. (1992). The risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 46, 1–30.
Blau, P. M., Beeker, C., and Fitzpatrick, K. M. (1984). Intersecting social affiliations and
intermarriage. Social Forces, 62, 585–606.
Bogle, K. (2008). Hooking up: sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: NYU
Press.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience. American Psychologist, 59,
20–28.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K. K., and Chemonges-Nielson, Z. (2004).
Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviors. European
Journal of Personality, 18, 177–191.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Boyd, D., and Ellison, N. (2008). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholar-
ship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.
Bratter, J. L., and Eschbach, K. (2006). “What about the couple?” Interracial marriage
and psychological distress. Social Science Research, 35, 1025–1047.
Bratter, J. L., and King, R. B. (2008). “But will it last?” Marital instability among inter-
racial and same-race couples. Family Relations, 57, 160–171.
Bystydzienski, J. M. (2011). Intercultural couples: crossing boundaries, negotiating differ-
ence. New York: NYU Press.
 The influence of globalization on relationships 27

Chan, D. K. S., and Cheng, G. H. L. (2004). A comparison of offline and online friend-
ship qualities at different stages of relationship development. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 21, 305–320.
Chen, W., and Choi, A. S. K. (2011). Internet and social support among Chinese
migrants in Singapore. New Media Society, 13, 1067–1084.
Christakis, N. A., and Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: the surprising power of our social
networks and how they shape our lives. New York: Little Brown.
Crippen, C., and Brew, L. (2007). Intercultural parenting and the transcultural family: a
literature review. The Family Journal, 15, 107–115.
Crohn, J. (1995). How to create successful interracial, interethnic, and interfaith relation-
ships. New York: Ballantine Books.
Dutton, W. H., Helsper, E. J., Whitty, M. T., Li, N., Buckwalter, J. G., and Lee, E. (2009).
The role of the internet in reconfiguring marriages: a crossnational study.
Interpersona, 3, 3–18.
Elliot, A. J., and Thrash, T. M. (2002), Approach-avoidance motivation in personality:
approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 804–818.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”:
social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.
Elphinston, R. A., and Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the
implications for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 631–635.
Facebook. (2012). Key facts. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.
aspx?NewsAreaId=22.
Fielding, R., Lam, W. W., Ho, E. Y., Lam, T. H., Hedley, A. J., and Leung, G. M. (2005).
Avian influenza risk perception, Hong Kong. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11,
677–682.
Finkel, E. J,. Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., and Sprecher, S. (2012). Online
dating: a critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 13, 3–66.
Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., and Brown, L. L. (2002). Defining the brain
systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
31, 413–419.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., and Hirschberger, G. (2002). The anxiety-buffering function
of close relationships: evidence that relationship commitment acts as terror manage-
ment mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 527–542.
Frame, M. W. (2004). The challenges of intercultural marriage: strategies for pastoral
care. Pastoral Psychology, 52, 219–232.
Frazzetto, G. (2010). The science of online dating. EMBO Reports, 11, 25–27.
Gaines, S. O., and Agnew, C. R. (2003). Relationship maintenance in intercultural
couples: an interdependence analysis. In D. J. Canary and M. Dainton (eds.),
Maintaining relationships through communication: relational, contextual, and
cultural variations (pp. 231–253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goodwin, R. (1990). Dating agency members: are they “different”? Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 7, 423–430.
(2008). Changing relations: achieving intimacy in a time of social transition.
Cambridge University Press.
(2011). Modelling the psychological impacts of major societal changes and chal-
lenges: a new, integrative model. 37th Global COE. Lecture, Kyoto University,
Japan.
28 Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin

Goodwin, R., and Gaines, S. (2009). Terrorism perception and its consequences
following the 7th July 2005 London bombings. Behavioural Sciences of Terrorism
and Political Aggression, 1, 50–65.
Goodwin, R., Haque, S., Neto, F., and Myers, L. (2009). Initial psychological responses
to Influenza A, H1N1 (“swine flu”). BMC Infectious Diseases, 9, 166. Available at
www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2334-9-166.pdf.
Goodwin, R., Polek, E., and Bardi, A. (2012). The temporal reciprocity of values and
beliefs: a longitudinal study within a major life transition. European Journal of
Personality, 26, 360–370.
Goodwin, R., Polek, E., and Goodwin, K. (2013). Perceived changes in health and
interactions with “the paracetamol force”: a multimethod study. Journal of
Mixed-Methods Research, 7, 152–172.
Green, E., Krings, F., Staerklé, C., Bangerter, A., Clémence, A., Wagner-Egger, P., and
Bornand, T. (2010). Keeping the vermin out: perceived disease threat and ideo-
logical orientations as predictors of exclusionary immigration attitudes. Journal of
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 299–316.
Griffiths, D. N., Sigona, R., Zetter, R., and Sigona, D. (2005). Refugee community
organisations and dispersal: networks, resources and social capital. Bristol: The
Policy Press.
Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., and Ariely, D. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating.
American Economic Review, 100, 130–163.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions,
and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hogan, B., Dutton, W., and Li, N. (2011). A global shift in the social relationships of networked
individuals: meeting and dating online comes of age. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute,
Oxford University. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=176388.
Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Capleos, T., and Provost, C. (2002). The consequences of
terrorism: disentangling the effects of personal and national threat. Political
Psychology, 23, 485–507.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: towards a new psychology of trauma.
New York: Free Press.
Joffe, H., and Haarhoff, G. (2002). Representations of far-flung illnesses: the case of
Ebola in Britain. Social Science and Medicine, 54, 955–969.
Johnson, A. (2001). Examining the maintenance of friendships: are there differences
between geographically close and long-distance friends? Communication
Quarterly, 49, 424–435.
Jones, G., and Shen, H. H. (2008). International marriage in East and Southeast Asia:
trends and research emphasis. Citizenship Studies, 12, 9–25.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures: the view from the
other side. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(2006). Autonomous-related self in family and culture: toward a healthy human
model. Paper presented at the IARR Conference, Crete, Greece.
Kalicanin, P., and Lecic Tosevski, D. (1994). Prevention and mitigation of the psycho-
social consequences of the sanctions and associated exceptional circumstances in
FR Yugoslavia. In P. Kalicanin, D. Lecic Tosevski, J. Bukelic, and V. Ispanovic
Radojkovic (eds.), The stress of war and sanctions (pp. 143–155). Belgrade: Institute
for Mental Health.
Kaniasty, K., and Norris, F. H. (1993). A test of the social support deterioration model in
the context of natural disaster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
395–408.
 The influence of globalization on relationships 29

Khatib-Chahidi, J., Hill, R., and Paton, R. (1998). Chance, choice and circumstance: a
study of women in cross-cultural marriages. In R. Breger and R. Hill (eds.), Cross-
cultural marriage: identity and choice (pp. 49–56). New York: Berg.
Kim, Y. Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: globalization and a way of being.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 359–368.
Kirkcaldy, B. D., Furnham. A., and Siefen, G. (2009). Migration and health: psychoso-
cial determinants. In G. Chrousos, C. Cooper, M. Eysenck, C. Spielberger, and
G. Stamatios-Anthoniou (eds.), Handbook of managerial behavior and occupa-
tional health (pp. 328–344). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Kirkcaldy, B. D., Siefen, R. G., Wittig, U., Schüller, A., Brähler, E., and Merbach, M.
(2005). Health and emigration: subjective evaluation of health status and physical
symptoms in Russian-speaking migrants. Stress and Health, 21, 205–309.
Kohn, T. (1998). The seduction of the exotic: notes on mixed marriage in East Nepal.
In R. Breger and R. Hill (eds.), Cross-cultural marriage: identity and choice
(pp. 93–106). Oxford: Berg.
Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., and Mannetti, L. (2004). The social cognition of
immigrants’ acculturation: effects of the need for closure and the reference group
at entry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 796–813.
Krämer, N. C., and Winter, S. (2008). Impression Management 2.0. Journal of Media
Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 20, 106–116.
Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Leung, K., Au, A., Huang, X., Kurman, J., Niit, T., and Niit, K. K. (2007). Social axioms
and values: a cross-cultural examination. European Journal of Personality, 21, 91–111.
Lewis, J., and West, A. (2009). “Friending”: London-based undergraduates’ experience
of Facebook. New Media and Society, 11, 1209–1229.
Mak, W. W. S., Ho, P. K. H., Cheung, R. Y. M., Woo, J., Cheung, F. M., and Lee, D.
(2006). Comparative stigma of HIV/AIDS, SARS, and tuberculosis in Hong Kong.
Social Science and Medicine, 63, 1912–1922.
McFadden, J., and Moore, J. L. (2001). Intercultural marriage and intimacy: beyond the
continental divide. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 23,
261–268.
McGoldrick, M., and Preto, N. G. (1984). Ethnic intermarriage: implications for ther-
apy. Family Process, 23, 347–364.
McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., and Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation
on the internet: what’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., and Hirschberger, G. (2003). The existential function of
close relationships: introducing death into the science of love. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 20–40.
Mod, G. B. B. (2010). Reading romance: the impact Facebook rituals can have on a
romantic relationship. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and
Sociology, 2, 61.
Molina, B., Estrada, D., and Burnett, J. A. (2004). Cultural communities: challenges and
opportunities in the creation of “happily ever after” stories of intercultural couple-
hood. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 12,
139–147.
Muise, A., Christofides, E., and Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever
wanted: does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12, 441–444.
Nakoney, P. A., Reddick, R., and Rodgers, J. L. (2004). Did divorces decline after the
Oklahoma City bombing? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 90–100.
30 Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin

Nauck, B., and Settles, B. H. (2001). Immigrant and ethnic minority families: an
introduction. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32, 461–464.
Norris, F. H., Friedman, M. J., Watson, P. J., Bryne, C. M., Diaz, E., and Kaniasty, K.
(2002). 60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical
literature, 1981–2001. Psychiatry, 65, 207–239.
Orr, A. (2004). Meeting, mating, and cheating: sex, love, and the new world of online
dating. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Reuters Prentice Hall.
Páez Rovira, D., Martinez-Sánchez, F., and Rimé, B. (2004). Los efectos del comparti-
miento social de las emociones sobre el trauma del 11 de Marzo en personas no
afectadas directamente [Effects of social sharing of emotion about March 11
trauma on vicarious victims]. Ansiedad y Estrés, 10, 219–232.
Persch, J. A. (2007). Jealous much? MySpace, Facebook can spark it. MSNBC Online.
Retrieved from www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20431006/.
Porter, K., Mitchell, J., Grace, M., Shinosky, S., and Gordon, V. (2012). A study of the
effects of social media use and addiction on relationship satisfaction. Meta-
communicate: Chapman University Communication Studies Undergraduate
Research Journal, 2, 1–27.
Putnik, K., and Lauri, M. A. (2004). Coping mechanisms and social support during
aerial bombing. Social Psychology Review, 6, 14–29.
Qian, Z., and Lichter, D. T. (2007). Social boundaries and marital assimilation: inter-
preting trends in racial and ethnic intermarriage. American Sociological Review,
72, 68–94.
Qualman, E. (2012). 10 new 2012 social media stats. Retrieved from www.socialnomics.
net/2012/06/06/10-new-2012-social-media-stats-wow/.
Ramirez, A., and Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: the effect of modality
switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74,
287–310.
Reiter, M. J., and Gee, C. B. (2008). Open communication and partner support in
intercultural and interfaith romantic relationships: a relational maintenance
approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 539–559.
Rhodes, T., Stimson, G. V., Crofts, N., Ball, A., Dehne, K., and Khodakevich, L. (1999).
Drug injecting, rapid HIV spread, and the “risk environment”: implications for
assessment and response. AIDS, 13, 259–270.
Rohrlich, B. F. (1988). Dual-cultural marriage and communication. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 35–44.
Romano, D. (2008). Intercultural marriage: promises and pitfalls. Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press.
Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., Cummings, C., and Felt, J. (2008). The impact of emo-
tionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating. Computers
in Human Behavior, 24, 2124–2157.
Rosenfeld, M. J., and Thomas, R. J. (2010). Meeting online: the rise of the internet as a
social intermediary. Retrieved from www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_
How_Couples_Meet_Working_Paper.pdf.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: a test of
the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C. R., and Arriaga, X. B. (2012). The investment model of commit-
ment processes. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins (eds.),
Handbook of theories of social psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 218–231). Los Angeles: Sage.
Ryan, L., Tilki, M., and Siara, B. (2008). Social networks, social support and social capital:
the experiences of recent Polish migrants in London. Sociology, 42, 672–689.
 The influence of globalization on relationships 31

Safdar, S., Dupuis, D. R., Lewis, J. R., El-Geledi, S., and Bourhis, R. Y. (2008). Social axioms
and acculturation orientations of English Canadians toward British and Arab
Muslim immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 415–426.
Sautter, J., Tippett, R. M., and Morgan, S. P. (2010). The social demography of internet
dating in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 91, 554–575.
Savic, I., Berglund, H., and Lindstrom, P. (2005). Brain response to putative phero-
mones in homosexual men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA,
102, 7356–7361.
Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the
world. In H. Vinken., J. Soeters., and P. Ester (eds.), Comparing cultures: dimen-
sions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 43–73). Leiden: Brill.
Silbereisen, R. K., and Tomasik, M. J. (2011). Mapping demands of social change.
LLAKES Research Paper 21. Retrieved from www.llakes.org/wp-content/
uploads/2011/02/21.-Silbereisen-Tomasik-final-reduced.pdf.
Silva, L., Campbell, K., and Wright, D. W. (2012). Intercultural relationships: entry,
adjustment, and cultural negotiation. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43,
857–870.
Singelis, T. M., Hubbard, C., Her, P., and An, S. (2003). Convergent validation of the
Social Axioms Survey. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 269–282.
Smith, P. B., and Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Values. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, and
C. Kagitcibasi (eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 3, 2nd edn.
(pp. 77–118). Boston: Allen and Bacon.
Stern, L. A., and Taylor, K. (2007). Social networking on Facebook. Journal of the
Communication, Speech and Theatre Association of North Dakota, 20, 9–20.
Stritzke, W. G. K., Nguyen, A., and Durkin, K. (2004). Shyness and computer-mediated
communication: a self-presentational theory perspective. Media Psychology, 6, 1–22.
Sumption, M., and Somerville, W. (2010). The UK’s new Europeans: progress and
challenges five years after accession. London: Equality and Human Rights
Commission.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding
the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 705–713.
Tönnies, F. (1957). Community and society. Trans. C. P. Loomis. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University Press.
Tseng, W., McDermott, J. F., and Maretzki, T. W. (1977). Adjustment in intercultural
marriage. Honolulu, HI: University Press.
Utz, S., and Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic
relationships: effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 511–527.
Valkenburg, P. M., and Peter, J. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some
characteristics of online daters. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 849–852.
Waldman, K., and Rubalcava, L. (2005). Psychotherapy with intercultural couples: a
contemporary psychodynamic approach. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 59,
227–245.
Walther, J. B., van der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., Westerman, D., and Tong, S. T. (2008). The
role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on
Facebook: are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication
Research, 34, 28–49.
Washer, P. (2004). Representations of SARS in the British newspapers. Social Science
and Medicine, 59, 2561–71.
32 Çağla Sanrı and Robin Goodwin

Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., and Paepke, A. J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate
preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 260,
245–249.
Weishaar, H. B. (2008). Consequences of international migration: a qualitative study on
stress among Polish migrant workers in Scotland. Public Health, 122, 1250–1256.
White, A., and Ryan, L. (2008). Polish “temporary” migration: the formation and
significance of social networks. Europe-Asia Studies, 60, 1467–1502.
Whitty, M. T., and Buchanan, T. (2009). Looking for love in so many places: character-
istics of online daters and speed daters. Interpersona: An International Journal of
Personal Relationships, 3, 63–86.
Wilding, R. (2006). “Virtual” intimacies: families communicating across transnational
contexts. Global Networks, 6, 125–142.
Zhang, Y., and Van Hook, J. (2009). Marital dissolution among interracial couples.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 95–107.
Zhao, X., Sosik, V. S., and Cosley, D. (2012). It’s complicated: how romantic partners use
Facebook. In J. A. Konstan (ed.), Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 771–780). New York: ACM.
 2

Social capitalization in personal relationships

robert m. milardo, heather m. helms,
eric d. widmer, and stephen r. marks

Families accrue advantages through their investments in their immediate mem-

bers and in their relationships with kin and a variety of personal associates.
Although the term investment is quite familiar to relationship and family
scholars (e.g., Goodfriend and Agnew, 2008; Rusbult, Drigotas, and Verette,
1994), in recent decades it has been given new focus through the idea of social
capital, a concept that has found a captive audience principally among network
scholars and sociologists. Despite the controversies that have arisen concerning
this construct (Lin, 2001a; Portes, 1998; Sandefur and Laumann, 1998), we believe
that its value warrants further attempts to clarify the essential meaning of the
concept. In particular, we believe that family and relationship scholarship is
especially well suited both to guide this clarification and to benefit from inte-
grating this concept into its work. In this chapter, we present an understanding
of how this integration might unfold.
We regard social capital as a sensitizing concept (Marsiglio, 2004) in that
it does not necessarily identify new ways of viewing social behavior, but rather
serves as a conceptual means to integrate common relational and structural
influences on family outcomes and individual behavior, a position that others
have suggested as well (Coleman, 1990; Portes, 1998; Sandefur and Laumann,
1998). We argue that the fund of social capital is represented by an individual
family member’s network of personal relationships, with each particular rela-
tionship representing a range of capital investments with the potential to
provide a yield (Widmer, 2006; 2010). We eschew definitions that broaden
the meaning of social capital so much that any sense of the actual intersections
of individuals in personal relationships is lost. For example, we avoid defini-
tions that view social capital as an undifferentiated property of social structure
(Furstenberg, 2005) or as a property of a society, culture, or nation (Putnam,
1993) in favor of definitions that clearly link social capital to personal relation-
ships and their social organization. This chapter is organized in three sections.
First, we offer a new model of the social capitalization process. Second, we briefly
visit contemporary network theory, review methods for sampling networks, and

33
34 Robert M. Milardo et al.

show how structural features of local social systems are important in establishing
the value of capital investments. Finally, we illustrate our model of social capita-
lization using exemplary research on families. Our first task, however, will be to
clarify the term itself.

defining social capital

Although widespread interest in the concept of social capital arguably sprang
from the work of French sociologist Bourdieu (1986), who situated social capital
within a triumvirate that also included economic capital and cultural capital, we
begin with the more intuitively accessible formulations offered by Portes and
by Lin. Portes (1998, p. 6) notes that social capital “stands for the ability of actors
to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social
structures.” Lin’s (2001a, p. 6) notion is quite similar: “The premise behind the
notion of social capital is rather simple and straightforward: investment in
social relations with expected returns” (original italics). Lin adds, “Individuals
engage in interactions and networking in order to produce profits” (p. 6).
Portes’s and Lin’s simple conceptual umbrellas harbor some enormous
complexity, and we suggest that this complexity is best expressed as a process
of social capitalization consisting of five core components: (1) an investment
on the part of an individual, a dyad, a group, or some other social entity; (2) an
available relationship or network of relationships to which the investment is
directed or targeted; (3) a social interaction or set of interactions through which
one or more of the alters in these relationships is mobilized, or pressed into
service; (4) an intended recipient of that benefit, whether that beneficiary be
oneself, someone else, several people, or some social entity such as an extended
family; and 5) an anticipated, expected or actual return, profit, or benefit. Each
of these components may be further specified as follows:
1. Types of investments. Investments are the initial or ongoing inputs of
the social capitalization process. These investment inputs may be either mate-
rial or non-material (Goodfriend and Agnew, 2008), and we provisionally
suggest a threefold typology that includes sentiments (e.g., love, trust), services
(e.g., aid, attention, encouragement, approbation, care, help, unpaid work,
and other inputs of time), and materials (e.g., goods or money). All three of
these investment categories may be driven either by instrumental or expressive
purposes or by a combination of both. For example, love may be freely and
generously extended (expressive), but sometimes love may have some strings
attached to it (instrumental). Similarly, spending time with another may be
driven purely by anticipated enjoyment (expressive), but it may sometimes
include elements of relational obligation that are honored because of the desire
to safeguard other benefits of the relationship (instrumental).
2. Relationship targets. The people to whom we direct these investments are
those who comprise our personal networks. Of course, many of these network
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 35

members may be intimates, replete with an emotional history, such as a spouse

or intimate partner, or parents, children, close kin, and friends. As network
researchers have shown us, however, people invest in relationships with a variety
of others, most of whom are mere acquaintances (Fingerman, 2009), and with
a variety of benefits in mind. The reciprocal services that neighbors may offer
do not require a close relationship, nor does the useful information that an
acquaintance may provide (Burt, 1992). Later, we demonstrate that the structure
of networks may prove pivotal in the amplification of the value of our social
investments. We should mention, however, that although relationships are
often based upon some degree of personal choice, interest, and attraction as
well as the anticipation of a benefit now or in the future, others are based upon
a sense of personal or family obligation without the anticipation of a direct
benefit as in the case of caring for an ailing, but previously distant relative or
ex-spouse (Cooney et al., 2011; Stein et al., 1998). Relationships are neither
entirely rational nor always governed by the anticipation of direct benefit,
and at times they may be decidedly costly, but nonetheless necessary, as in the
case of a troublesome co-worker, employer, or relative (Fingerman, Hay, and
Birditt, 2004; Rook, 2003).
3. Interaction. Typically, the motor of the social capitalization process is
contact with one’s network members, or more technically, social interaction.
I meet my friend for coffee, he tells me about a tutor he hired for his daughter,
and I now have a new piece of information that may someday be useful for my
own children. The examples could be multiplied, but the basic idea here is that
our ongoing investments or inputs into our relationships require some interac-
tion. Contacts may be in person, and perhaps most often are, but new technologies
in the form of cell phones and other forms of computer mediated communica-
tions (such as Facebook and Twitter) represent increasingly important inter-
personal platforms for interaction (Rainie and Wellman, 2012).
4. Beneficiaries. The recipient of the benefit from the contact may be the
investor herself/himself, or it may be someone else in the investor’s personal
network. Family and relationship scholars are of course disposed to focus
especially on a select set of close, personal associates including immediate kin
(grandparents, parents, and children) and close friends, while excluding other
potentially important kin (Johnson, 2000) such as aunts and uncles (Ellingson,
and Sotirin, 2006; Milardo, 2010) and other associates who form important parts
of family life (Fingerman et al., 2004). We regard all network members, both
intimates and non-intimates, as potentially important in the social capitalization
process. That is, anyone in a person’s network may at times become a beneficiary
of this process, not simply family and kin.
5. Returns, profits, and benefits. The actual return on the investment (the
yield) demonstrates the circularity of the social capitalization process, as signaled
in the adage what goes around comes around. Specifically, what from ego’s point
of view may be a return or outcome of his or her previous investments into a
36 Robert M. Milardo et al.

relationship may be from alter’s point of view a new investment input, replete
with the anticipation of some future yield from ego. For example, Beatrice
invests in her relationship with her sister Angela by watching Angela’s child
while Angela runs an errand. Angela is able to call on Beatrice’s services in part
because Angela herself has sometimes provided the same child-watching serv-
ices for Beatrice. Assuming continuing reciprocity, Beatrice’s investment will
eventually culminate in a new return-in-kind for Beatrice. Notice that what may
feel like an investment on one side of the relationship may feel like a return on
the other side, and therefore the types of returns can be none other than the
types of investments specified previously – sentiments, services, and materials
(for a somewhat different discussion of types of returns see Lin, 2001a, especially
pp. 6–7, 13, 19). This does not mean that all relationships are based upon rational
assessments of need or benefit, or are otherwise lacking in altruistic motives with
little regard for future outcomes. Relationships can vary from the decidedly
utilitarian business or exchange oriented to the decidedly intimate or communal
(Clark and Mills, 1993).
In fields other than family studies, social capital, and the return on invest-
ments, are often associated with practical or financial support, as well as the
transmission of useful information. In the study of families and personal
relationships, investment may mean spending money in order to support a
partner, an aging parent, or a young child, but such transfers only constitute a
parcel of the resources that are invested in personal relationships. Emotional
investments are a prime transfer in such relationships, as gifts and support
are often interpreted as signs of emotional interdependency (Jallinoja and
Widmer, 2011; Schneider, 1980). Individuals in personal and family relation-
ships do not always primarily seek a tangible return to an investment, as the
investment in itself is considered as a return in such relationships. Indeed,
helping others and spending time with them is often perceived as rewarding in
itself (Coenen-Huther et al., 1994). An imbalance of exchanges and investment
between network members is not necessarily detrimental, as it is compensated
by feelings of indebtedness linked to the shared history of people (Godbout,
2007). Therefore, quantifiable returns do not need to be actively sought out in
such relationships. This does not mean that personal and family relationships
do not provide returns. Research shows that family and friends are keys in
helping people dealing with developmental and identity issues, as well as
providing instrumental support in key transitions and periods of the life course
(Widmer, 2004). The capitalization process is part of a history of exchanges
among individuals linked together by long-lasting emotional ties, which make
the computation of what is given and received less decisive than in other
settings (Smart, 2007).
To summarize, we believe that the foregoing five elements are the essen-
tial components of the social capitalization process. We take exception to
recent formulations in which social capital is defined simply as a system
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 37

of shared social norms and a sense of common community membership

(Furstenberg, 2005; Parcel, Dufur and Zito, 2010). Whether or not individuals
share norms or feel some sort of common membership with the people in
whom they invest their trust, love, money, time, support and so on remains an
empirical question. We would argue that at times individuals’ networks may
yield rich returns with only minimal, if any, guidance from shared norms or
sense of common membership, and in the case of loosely structured networks
shared norms are unlikely (Milardo and Allan, 2000). As Johnson, Caughlin,
and Huston (1999) have shown, people sometimes make inputs into a relation-
ship for purely moral or structural reasons; the investment is driven more by a
sense of personal duty or by a feeling of having no other choice than by a sense of
commonality.

locating social capitalization in personal

relationships and network structures
Through their investments individuals are advantaged to the extent that their
connections to others in their networks provide access to resources. A basic
premise of our model of social capitalization is that individuals who invest in
personal relationships can expect various returns (i.e., sentiments, services, and
materials). This premise underlies a variety of definitions of social capital and
suggests that social capital is embedded in social relationships (Bourdieu, 1986;
Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1990; Lin, 2001a; Portes, 1998; Sandefur and Laumann,
1998). The relational location of social capital becomes immediately apparent
when we consider the consequences of relationship loss. Investments of senti-
ments, services, or materials have greatly diminished value when one partner
exits the relationship and there is little possibility of future interaction or a
return on the initial capital investments (Burt, 2001a). For example, in addition
to the well-documented effects of divorce on partners’ incomes, as well as
on spouses’ and children’s well-being (Amato, 2000), divorce has important
impacts on social capital investments. A significant proportion of pre-divorce
contacts are lost following divorce, including relationships with in-laws and
the former spouses’ mutual friends; these declines seem to persist over sub-
sequent years but are tempered with concomitant increases in the development
of new personal friendships (Albeck and Kaydar, 2002; Kalmijn and van
Groenou, 2005; Terhell, Groenou, and van Tilburg, 2004). Divorce and in
fact a variety of other normative events, like widowhood or major geographic
relocations, all directly impact personal relationships and the availability of
social capital (Guiaux, van Tilberg, and van Groenou, 2007). Each requires the
development of new personal relationships, or in some cases the reinterpre-
tation of an existing relationship (e.g., a former in-law is redefined as a friend;
Allen, Blieszner, and Roberto, 2011); each of these circumstances effects a
recapitalization of one’s personal network.
38 Robert M. Milardo et al.

Whereas human capital is linked to a personal status, quality, or skill,

social capital is linked to interactions that occur with others, the relationships
that result, and the organization of those relationships relative to one another.
It is this latter feature, or the organization of personal relationships into
networks, that we turn to next. The simple enumeration of a personal network
represents one way to measure elements of the capitalization process. Put
simply, families with larger networks have access to more investments, poten-
tially more diverse investments, and therefore may realize greater returns. In
addition, the value of capital investments is influenced in important ways by
the form of a network’s structure. As we will see, an exchange of trustworthy
behavior, for instance, has a different and more limited value if it occurs in a
singular relationship within a network in which the individual members are
unknown to one another, in comparison to a dense network in which members
know one another. If for no other reason, members of a dense network are
capable, since they know one another, of encouraging trustworthy actions and
sanctioning the non-trustworthy behavior of any member. In this way, net-
work structure thus locates capital investments and may amplify their value. In
order to fully understand the effect of structure, we first review how networks
can be defined and enumerated.

Defining social networks

In a general sense networks can be defined as the total number of people
known to a person. When defined in this way, the number of people known by
a North American is estimated at 1,700 (+/− 400) individuals, although some
methods would place this figure over 2,000 (Milardo, 1992). To date, variations
in the size of active networks is unknown and questions remain regarding, for
instance, how such networks vary across gender, race or class, and relational
or parental status. Nonetheless, the size of an active network is one funda-
mental way in which to measure elements of an individual’s potential for social
capitalization. Each of the five components of the social capitalization process
identified earlier operates within the active network. This suggests that one
useful way to sample types of investments, relationship targets, interactions,
beneficiaries, or returns is to develop representative samples of the active net-
work. For this reason we briefly review the major methods for enumerating
personal networks and denote their relative advantages for investigating social
capitalization.
Family scholars typically sample a limited range of the active network and
each of these subsets is depicted in Figure 2.1.
Generally, the methods for sampling from a global network fall into two
types, which we refer to as networks consisting largely of sentimental ties that
may or may not include frequent contact or the actual exchange of support, and
interactive networks (Surra and Milardo, 1991). Sentimental ties comprise those
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 39

Acquaintances

Distant friends & kin

Near intimates

Interactive network
Intimates
Exchange network

figure 2.1 Global networks

alters we refer to as intimates or significant others. Networks of significant others

average six or fewer members, are largely comprised of immediate kin and
intimate friends, and are relatively stable in membership over time (Campbell
and Lee, 1991; Martin and Yeung, 2006; Milardo, 1992; Wellman et al., 1997).
The simple enumeration of intimates is often supplemented with addi-
tional questions that aim to elicit the names of near intimates or alters who are
not quite as close as the most intimate members but still considered important
(Antonucci, 1986), or with specific questions regarding intimate ties with kin,
and non-kin (Morgan, Neal, and Carder, 1996). In one alternate variation that
examines intimates and near intimates, Fingerman and colleagues (2004)
elicited the names of those individuals who are particularly troublesome in
the network of intimates. Alters identified in the core network of intimates are
far more likely to be identified additionally as problematic ties, relative to alters
identified as near intimates or more distant associates, and ties with kin are
more likely to be identified as problematic than ties with non-kin (Fingerman
et al., 2004; Pagel, Erdly, and Becker, 1987).
Although the core network of intimates appears stable over time, the more
peripheral members of the second and third tiers, wherein a larger proportion
40 Robert M. Milardo et al.

of non-kin are enumerated, are not (Martin and Yeung, 2006; Morgan et al.,
1996). Curiously, however, the size of these peripheral sectors is relatively stable,
suggesting that occupancy of a social position is more important than the
identity of the incumbent. For instance, having friends in the workplace is
desirable and commonplace (Degenne and Lebeaux, 2005; Marks, 1994a),
although the precise identity of such friends may vary with occupational mobi-
lity. As regards such peripheral network sectors, people apparently recapitalize
routinely and quite easily, although there are likely to be important exceptions.
In a study of spouses and their friends, 25 percent of husbands and 6 percent
of wives reported having no close friends (Helms, Crouter, and McHale, 2003).
This finding raises several important questions. If spouses report no intimate
friends, what are the consequences? Are such individuals truly social isolates, or
do they maintain typical numbers of intermediate friends and acquaintances
either in person or via social media? Any limitation on the number of network
members may limit the range and depth of capital investments, and conse-
quently the potential for returns, profits, and benefits, as well as limiting the
potential for direct normative influence through network members.
Additional methods have been developed that center on enumerating the
occupants of particular role relations (Lin, 2001b; van Sonderen et al., 1990),
networks of individuals who are believed to provide material or emotional
assistance or are particularly noteworthy because they fail to do so (Fischer,
1982; Schweizer, Schnegg, and Berzborn, 1998; van der Poel, 1993), as well as a
target person’s network comprised of social media contacts, such as through
Facebook and Twitter (Rainie and Wellman, 2012; Takhteyu, Gruzd, and
Wellman, 2012). The potential relationship targets sampled include possible
recreational companions, persons who are relied on for their judgment in regard
to important family matters, alters who provide material aid or symbolic aid, or
those who refuse to provide such aid. This latter method is unique because it
samples across a variety of sectors of the global network (see Figure 2.1). Typically
exchange networks so identified average about twenty members, include a
smaller proportion of kin relative to networks of intimates, and a broader
array of friends, neighbors, and co-workers, and are stable over a one-month
period of time (Milardo, 1992). In one variation of this method, Milardo (1989)
included a name-eliciting question that asked spouses to identify the people with
whom they routinely experienced conflict. Such conflictual ties were typically
co-workers or blood kin, but not in-laws, contrary to popular belief. The issue
of conflictual ties is important as they have been shown to be associated with
emotional health, stress, and well-being (Pagel et al., 1987; Rook, 2003), as well as
spouses’ mood states (Bolger et al., 1989). In addition, the presence of conflictual
ties underscores an important element of the social capitalization model in that
investments in personal relationships can, and perhaps typically do, yield a mix
of positive and negative returns. In families this mix of potential benefits and
returns can vary across members. For example, in their study of low-income
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 41

families, Dodson and Dickert (2004) demonstrate that the household labor of
older girls benefits parents and younger siblings, but is costly for elder daughters
who as a consequence of their caregiving limit their own educational and career
development. In these families the educational and career development of oldest
daughters is secondary to the needs of the family.
In contrast to networks of intimates, and ties with a high probability of
social exchange, interactive networks are comprised of those alters with whom
contact occurs during a specific period of time, usually 7 to 14 days. Interactive
networks are identified through experience sampling techniques (Laireiter
et al., 1997; Milardo, 1989). Enumerations of interactive networks draw upon
a broad array of network sectors, including intimates, more distant kin, friends
and acquaintances (see Figure 2.1). However, unlike other methods, they uniquely
provide opportunities to investigate routine interaction and its importance in
the social capitalization process. It is precisely because of the accumulated
evidence, as well as our underlying conceptual model of social capitalization,
that we distinguish between networks that are based largely in sentiment,
and interactive networks that represent the people with whom respondents
routinely interact. The distinction is important because the two classes of
networks are apt to be built on different types of investments, and yield
different returns. Networks of intimates seem to be based upon strong senti-
ments (e.g., love), represent individuals’ beliefs about their ties to alters, and
include members who are likely to provide both positive returns (e.g., social
support) and negative returns (e.g., interference or criticism). Interactive
networks represent contemporary social experience, and are perhaps more
likely to be based upon common social situations (e.g., work, neighborhood),
lower investments of sentiments, and higher investments of services and
material resources (e.g., mutual childcare). We suspect each is differentially
predictive of individual and relationship outcomes. Because of an implicit
assumption that mass survey techniques accurately represent social partic-
ipation, which is unlikely, systematic assessments of interactive networks
are rare (Bernard et al., 1984; Bondonio, 1998; Casciaro, 1998; Milardo, 1992).
In contrast, experience sampling techniques for monitoring social interaction
provide a more direct measure of the content of capital investments and returns,
and they have the potential to do so with greater precision than simple survey
techniques (Huston, 2000).
The enumeration of global networks, networks of intimates, and interac-
tive networks permits a means to concretely operationalize critical compo-
nents of the social capitalization model and test associations with family
outcomes such as marital stability or the success of parents in promoting child-
ren’s well-being. The constituencies (i.e., relationship targets and beneficiaries)
identified will undoubtedly vary depending on the method adopted, with
measures of exchange and interactive networks providing the greatest diversity
(other than fully enumerating global networks). Simple undifferentiated
42 Robert M. Milardo et al.

enumerations of the number of kin and friends are likely to be inadequate for
capturing the elements of social capitalization, and they rarely are successful
in predicting family outcomes, as a variety of research has shown (Milardo
and Helms-Erikson, 2000). Simple measures of network size or the size of a
so-called support network can obscure important distinctions between inti-
mates and more distant ties and each is likely to represent different invest-
ments and potential benefits. While intimates provide support and are more
apt to include conflict (Fingerman et al., 2004; Rook, 2003), more distant ties
(i.e., acquaintances) provide access to scarce resources and information (Burt,
1992; Uehara, 1994).
In addition, capital investments and potential returns vary across relation-
ships within the same social category. Recent work has shown that kin vary in
their influence across generations and relational distance. For example, the
influence of parents differs from that of adult siblings (Burger and Milardo, 1995;
Wellman and Frank, 2001). Some uncles act like father substitutes for their
nephews, some like close friends, while others are entirely distant (Milardo,
2010). Furthermore, friendships among adults are typically specialized, with
different individuals serving different functions (Helms et al., 2003; Weiss and
Lowenthal, 1975). In short, capital investments vary in important ways across
and within the social categories of kinship and friendship. For these reasons, we
recommend methods of enumerating relationship targets that sample across a
variety of network sectors in order to maximize diversity, provide more repre-
sentative portraits of active networks, and a more representative sample of the
core elements of social capitalization such as the types of targets, investments
and returns, and as a consequence provide a richer understanding of the
potential consequences for beneficiaries. Network sectors, for instance kin,
friends, and acquaintances, are also likely to vary substantially in terms of
their structure or the pattern of ties linking network members to one another,
and network structure has an important influence on several elements of the
capitalization process. We turn to these issues in the next section.

Network structure and capital value

Some of the confusion surrounding the definition and measurement of social
capital is the result of misunderstanding the relational basis of capital and how
network structure may amplify the value of investments in personal relation-
ships. For example, Coleman (1988; 1990) devotes a great deal of attention to
the collective nature of social capital, suggesting that highly interconnected
or dense networks characterized by high degrees of trust, shared norms, and
commonly understood sanctions are the source of social capital, and that social
capital is in fact defined by these functions. Lin (2001b) argues that social
capital should be conceptualized as primarily a network attribute and defined
as “resources embedded in social networks accessed and used by actors for
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 43

actions” (p. 25). Again, we believe social capital is best defined in terms of
personal relationships and the investments people make in them. Like any
capital investment, the value of that investment in terms of its potential return
or benefit is variable and depends in part on the context in which it occurs. In
the case of human capital investments, the value of an advanced educational
degree is dependent on variable competitive market forces. Similarly the value
of social capital investments (in personal relationships) is dependent in part
on the social arrangement of all such relationships. A close relationship with
a friend is valuable in that the friend may reciprocate instances of support.
However, in a network of similar close friends who all know one another, the
capital value of each particular friendship is amplified because the friends
can coordinate mutual support and influence. Then, too, investments in one
member of a dense network can have benefits for all members. A surprise
anniversary party, for instance, planned by one family member can benefit all
family members by encouraging a sense of family solidarity. Such spillover effects
are less likely in loosely structured networks in which members are relatively
unknown to one another and consequently the investment of one member with
another is largely unknown outside of the dyad.
Another way in which network structure can influence the value of capital
investments occurs among acquaintances producing the so-called strength
of weak ties (Burt, 1992; Fingerman, 2009; Granovetter, 1982). For example,
the value of a parent’s relationship with an acquaintance is enhanced when
that individual links the parent with a previously unknown network and all
the resources it may contain (Jarrett, 1999). In addition, network structure
can interact with relational properties, adding more value to investments in
personal relationships. For example, women are more supportive in networks
comprised of other women, kin in networks of other kin, and parents in
networks of other parents (Wellman and Frank, 2001). In each of these
examples, network structure influences the value of capital investments and
enriches our understanding of the components of the social capitalization
process.
In short, investments in personal relationships embedded in larger social
networks create a competitive advantage; better-connected families and indi-
viduals enjoy greater returns (Burt, 2001a; Lin, 2001a; Widmer, 2010). This is
not to say that intimate ties are of greater benefit than weak ties, or that dense
networks are more influential than loosely connected networks. Such simple
comparative analyses diminish important distinctions. The value of an invest-
ment is dependent on the interaction of structure and need. Results across
several studies suggest that dense networks are particularly useful for establish-
ing and enforcing common norms as well as preserving and maintaining
within-group resources (Coleman, 1990; Milardo and Allan, 2000), whereas
weaker ties that bridge networks that would otherwise be unknown to one
another (i.e., structural holes) have a relative advantage when searching for and
44 Robert M. Milardo et al.

obtaining resources not readily available within one’s network of intimates

(Burt, 2001a; Lin, 2001b).

Forms of social capital

We can build on the interconnection of social capitalization and network
structure with the companion concepts of bridging and bonding social capitals
(Putnam, 2000). Bonding social capitalization refers to capitalization embed-
ded in a high density of relationships, where most, if not all, network members
develop long-lasting relationships with a high frequency of contacts. This
situation enhances expectations, claims, obligations, and trust among them
because of the increase of the collective nature of support and normative
control (Coleman, 1988). If any network member fails to conform to the others’
expectations, s/he is likely to have several other family members jointly react
against the situation. Bridging social capitalization is an alternative to bonding
social capitalization based on the development of brokerage opportunities by
individuals in more heterogeneous networks (Burt, 2001b; Granovetter, 1973).
Some individuals are able and willing to use the absence of some conne-
ctions and the diversity of their circles of sociability to become brokers, with
opportunities to mediate the flow of information and exchanges among their
alters and, therefore, control and influence others. Such persons benefit from
developing a mediating role between individuals otherwise not directly con-
nected to each other. There is a greater likelihood for individuals that two of
their acquaintances, rather than two of their close friends or family members,
do not know each other (Widmer and La Farga, 1999). Therefore, bridging
social capitalization is present in networks where weak ties are dominant
(Granovetter, 1973).
Bridging social capitalization proves to have positive consequences in a
variety of domains as it stimulates the ability of individuals to innovate and to
adjust to a complex and changing environment (Davidsson and Honig, 2003;
Szreter and Woolcock, 2004). The structural dimensions of the relational
context of dyads are important in further developing an understanding of
the social capitalization process. When bonding social capital is present, third
parties conjointly participate in the capitalization process occurring in each
dyad, as all network members are interconnected. Bridging ties may compete
in personal networks, as investments made by individuals in one dyad may
take resources that might have been invested in another dyad. The capital-
ization process in that case follows individual lines, which makes it a personal
resource rather than a collective good shared by network members (Widmer,
2010). In any case, both bridging and bonding social capitalization go beyond
a dyadic logic involving two individuals and the exchanges that they have
developed throughout their lifespan.
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 45

Contextualizing capital value

By locating the process of social capitalization in personal relationships and
the structural attributes of collectives of personal relationships, we are not
suggesting that a complete understanding of social capital in families can be
accessed by a simple count of members’ social contacts. Social capital is more
than the mere presence of social relationships. Capital investments include the
exchange of a variety of resources for a variety of purposes. Social relations and
network locations are necessary conditions that provide access to social capital
and establish value. Capital is accrued through relationships that individuals
have with family members, friends, and acquaintances and may be enhanced
by structural properties of networks. Identifying network memberships and
structures can provide details on certain elements of the capitalization process,
but such simple enumerations are only suggestive of capital investments and
their value, and they leave other elements under-identified, like returns, or
potential outcomes for beneficiaries. For example, it is not enough to know that
a mother has five friends in her network and that her friends all know one
another, her husband, and her children. To appreciate the elements of the
social capitalization process, we must ascertain the resources that are embed-
ded and exchanged within this mother’s relationships with her five friends
and this may reveal that two friends serve as a source of marriage work (e.g.,
talk about a spouse), another provides a wealth of knowledge regarding child
rearing, another has strong ties in the community that might lead to a new,
better-paying job, and yet another seems to know everything about home repairs.
Of course, the fact that network members may have provided ego with
some valuable resource in the past is no guarantee that they will do so in the
future. Our process model specifies interaction episodes as a core element of
social capitalization, and future research will need to uncover the conditions
under which ego will or will not seek out, or return the initiatives of, an alter
through interaction. Phone calls are not always returned, and many people
surprise themselves by the amount of time they allow to transpire between
contacts with even a resource-rich network member. Personality variables may
be partly at work in driving rates of interaction, but a spouse’s or partner’s
interference with or resistance to potential interactions should also be consid-
ered (Proulx et al., 2009).
The extent to which an individual accesses and utilizes the resources
embedded in her network directly predicts her advantage as well as the advan-
tages that may accrue to her family members. This does not mean that all ties
lead to positive outcomes as capital investments can have negative consequences
for individuals and communities, which is yet another reason for distinguishing
between investments and outcomes. Women forgo personal development in
providing for others (Dodson and Dickert, 2004), kin place onerous demands
for resource sharing on individual members (de Falco and Bulte, 2011), friends
46 Robert M. Milardo et al.

sometimes forsake one another (Fingerman et al., 2004), family members are
occasionally decidedly critical (Milardo and Helms-Erikson, 2000; Proulx et al.,
2009; Rook, 2003), and co-workers may become competitive (Marks, 1994b).
Highly capitalized networks of kin preserve family traditions (i.e., norms and
sanctions) but at the cost of diminished innovation (de Falco and Bulte, 2011;
Milardo and Allan, 2000), and interference in ego’s personal life (Johnson and
Milardo, 1984; Julien et al., 1994) or other close relationships outside the family
(Proulx et al., 2009).
Indeed, empirical research points at a curvilinear effect of the support of
family members and friends on partnerships (Johnson and Milardo, 1984).
When network members are too involved in providing support, the “support”
they provide may come to be viewed as interference. For instance, intervention
by a third party in a conjugal problem may be interpreted by one or the other
partner as taking sides. Social support often triggers ambivalent feelings, either
from the donor’s or from the recipient’s perspective: support given for a long
period of time to an older adult endangers the relationships that a caregiver
maintains with a spouse or children, because of the difficulty of investing in
all relationships at the same time (Pillemer and Lüscher, 2004). Social capita-
lization is a curvilinear process in which the optimum level of positive support
is not necessarily equivalent to providing the maximum support possible
(Widmer et al., 2009).
In summary, future study of social capitalization can best be directed at
sampling a diversity of network members, identifying their structural place-
ment relative to one another, and the resources invested in personal relation-
ships, while attending to the potential for both positive and negative returns for
beneficiaries.

family relationships and social capitalization

Because the foregoing framework contains elements that are all too familiar
to family and relationship scholars, it is reasonable to ask what is new in this
formulation. Indeed, it could well be argued that the model may be applied to
virtually every study of families and relationships. After all, most of our research
focuses in some way on how people routinely invest in their family members
and initiate countless interactions with them, on the basis of which they seek to
capitalize on these investments in an enormous variety of ways. What good is a
model that may apply to everything we study?
We suggest that researchers who use the social capitalization model to
inform their work will find new ways of addressing family issues at individual,
relational, and social structural levels of analysis. Social capital is a metaphoric
extension of financial capital. People invest money because they seek appreci-
ation of their total assets, but there is a difference between shrewd investments
and poor ones. Shrewd investors minimize their risks and expand their potential
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 47

rewards by diversifying their portfolios. Capital appreciation certainly might

occur via wildly speculative investments, or through singular investments, but
people who invest in multiple sectors of the economy may realize gain over the
long term, in part because they are hedged against losses in any single sector.
Social capitalization is best seen as a process through which people may
maximize their rewards on the basis of diversifying their social portfolios.
Partners who are largely dependent on one another and essentially withdraw
from interacting with others are making potentially risky unions precisely
because they are single-sector investments. Although narrow investments
within the family may prove beneficial to family members in the short term
(Jarrett and Jefferson, 2004), in the long term such narrow investments limit the
range of potential benefactors and therefore diminish the magnitude and/or the
variety of returns that individuals can secure for themselves and for their family
members. In contrast, as people expand and diversify their network invest-
ments, they enhance their opportunities for social capital appreciation.
Of course, family scholars may use our model to describe family-specific
processes. For example, we can model how a parent’s investments of love in a
child result in interactions with that child, who then benefits in some way
from the interaction. In this scenario the investment, the relationship target,
the interaction, the beneficiary, and the benefit or return all boil down to
something transacting between just two people within a family (although if
the benefit includes an expansion of the human capital of the child, there
may of course be predictable consequences for the child that reach outside of
that family). Yet although the interaction begins with two individuals, as
we have tried to show, social context plays an important role in the capita-
lization process by affecting the need to acquire capital. In the case of
relatively disadvantaged families in communities with few public provisions,
like adequate schools and after-school programs, and with limited health
care systems, or neighborhood violence, individuals are forced into assem-
bling private provisions (Jarrett and Jefferson, 2004; Jarrett, Jefferson, and
Kelly, 2010). Diminished community resources place additional require-
ments on families to acquire social capital.
This storyline is unexceptionable enough, and, in fact, is close to the one
offered by Crosnoe (2004) in a paper titled “Social capital and the interplay of
families and schools.” Crosnoe suggests that emotional closeness between
parents and their adolescent children is a conduit of social capital: “Close ties
facilitated the transmission of certain instrumental resources – such as parents’
aspirations – that cultivated the human capital of adolescents” (p. 276). We do
appreciate Crosnoe’s finding that “adolescent emotional distance [from parents]
in one year predicted lower academic performance a year later” (p. 273). Likewise,
we value the mesolevel finding that those students with higher emotional close-
ness at home were the ones who “benefited the most from social capital at school”
(p. 277; note: social capital at school was measured by the simple proxy of the
48 Robert M. Milardo et al.

student population’s general feelings about the population of the school’s

teachers).
As useful as Crosnoe’s findings are, we see little benefit in adopting the
concept of social capital in this study. There are no direct measures of situated
interaction, and no measures of what explicit benefits actually got transmitted
from parent to child or from teacher to child, although we do learn about
some implied benefits. Most important, social networks are missing from this
analysis. There is no sense of a person actively drawing on network invest-
ments that forge connections beyond the single sector of the immediate family.
Therefore, there is scant opportunity to study capital appreciation in terms of
the expansion and diversification of people’s social portfolios.
In contrast, Jarrett and her colleagues (1999; Jarrett and Jefferson, 2003) offer
a domain of inquiry and some findings that could be meaningfully reframed
in terms of the social capitalization model. The authors show how mothers
promote their children’s development within inner-city neighborhoods that
pose multiple risks for children and offer greatly diminished institutional and
economic resources. Cultural and community resources in the form of schools,
libraries, parks, and other public and private institutions are limited in facilities,
funding, and staffing, and compare poorly with middle-class communities
relatively rich in cultural, social, and educational opportunities for children
(Burton and Jarrett, 2000). In addition, impoverished neighborhoods are beset
with ample negative role models consisting of persons engaged in crime, gang-
related activities, and delinquent schooling. Such neighborhoods are character-
ized by high rates of unemployment and single parenthood (Seccombe, 2000).
Children in such communities can routinely witness street violence (Ceballo
et al., 2001). These are not communities that immediately bring to mind a wealth
of potential social capital, of relationship targets, investment opportunities, or
benefactors. Opportunities for social capitalization are sparse, and yet the irony
is that what makes some parents in these communities so successful in enriching
their children’s development is precisely their ability to generate social capital.
Although impoverished communities are strained in terms of cultural,
community, and human capital, parents nevertheless encourage the success
and safety of their children in a number of ways that suggest the utility of the
social capitalization model. Parents call upon kin in distant communities who
offer greater resources for children. For example, a parent from an impoverished
neighborhood calls upon a child’s uncle living in a more advantaged middle-
class community to sponsor the child’s enrollment in a better-functioning
school. Parents routinely draw upon older siblings to chaperone younger chil-
dren. Parents seek to advantage their children by calling upon the services and
material resources that grandparents, godparents, other kin, and people who
act like kin can provide. They call upon acquaintances such as church members,
teachers, and other community members to usher their children into programs
that enhance academic, physical, and social development, and they eagerly seek
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 49

information on such scarce opportunities from neighbors to further advance

their children’s opportunities.
The qualitative studies of Jarrett and her co-workers amply demonstrate
how social capital is acquired by parents through their interactions with a
variety of kin and friends, both close and distant, as well as with professionals
and mere acquaintances. Their work demonstrates how relationship targets,
and the investments parents make in them, are managed for the benefit of
children, and how the enrichment opportunities that parents create occur
through interaction and personal relationships. The findings illustrate the
importance of broadly defining personal networks particularly because non-
intimates figure so importantly in providing the material resources and services
that parents require for their children. We would be remiss, however, if we did
not acknowledge the determination and skill of the parents themselves who
engage their children at home in family-based activities, often with an educa-
tional purpose (e.g., playing word games) and otherwise complement their
children’s academic success.
The social capitalization model suggests additional questions we can ask
of these mothers and their communities. The balance of intimates, including
close kin, to non-intimates is unknown. The model suggests that this is an
important issue, as investments and benefits likely vary across types of rela-
tionship targets. For some poor inner-city women, no adult kin or trustworthy
friends are available (Dodson and Dickert, 2004; Jarrett and Jefferson, 2004;
Roy, Tubbs, and Burton, 2004), a condition that likely further stresses families
and perhaps their ability to establish alternate relationships and sources of
social capital. Mothers clearly seek out other mothers in order to share knowl-
edge of programs, persons, or opportunities that might benefit their children.
How these mothers are connected in networks is unknown but the model
would suggest acquaintances (i.e., weak ties or consequential strangers) are apt
to bring the greatest net gain in previously unknown information regarding
programs or potential benefactors. Network structure is also apt to amplify the
value of investments a parent makes in her child by potentially spilling over
and affecting other parents. In this application, the social capitalization model
is valuable because it sensitizes us to processes that are essential among resilient
families, and because it may illuminate activity that would otherwise be obfus-
cated or unexplored.
Of course, the social capitalization process is likely to vary extensively
according to the specifics of families and, in particular, the structure or config-
uration of their social networks. In a series of empirical studies, Widmer and his
colleagues examined how family structures influence social capitalization
(Widmer, 2006, 2010; Widmer et al., 2012). Previous research found that stepfa-
milies include a larger number of weak ties than first-time families, especially
between stepparents and stepchildren, former partners, or between stepsiblings
(Cherlin and Furstenberg, 1994). It is not uncommon for individuals in such
50 Robert M. Milardo et al.

family contexts to develop an intermediary position between a large number

of weakly connected alters. The capitalization process in stepfamilies follows a
distinct line of development compared to first-time families, with bridging social
capitalization gaining more importance.
The capitalization process does not only respond to the logic imposed by
family structures. Families have ambiguous boundaries (Stewart, 2005) and the
strategies using the space left by such ambiguity is part of the capitalization
process occurring in families (Widmer, 2010). Family recomposition creates
multisited or multilocal families (Schier and Proske, 2010) where children often
circulate between households and, consequently, become multilocal agents
as they travel between the mother’s and the father’s home. Such children are
likely to develop bridging social capital as they face a quite complex and diverse
family environment in their daily interactions. However, family recomposition
after divorce does not necessarily lead to the new extended family model where
a large number of individuals are interconnected by meaningful roles (Cherlin,
2004; Furstenberg, 1987). This organization varies from family to family depend-
ing on the development of role relationships between various actors. After a
separation and a re-partnership, some individuals maintain strong relationships
with their previous partner, whereas others invest in their new partner and
stepchildren (Widmer et al., 2012). Still others focus on their biological parents
and children. Moreover, some close friends, who were met across the life course,
might play a family role in such circumstances. Similarly, all available family
members are not involved in meaningful relationships. Re-partnership creates
interdependencies among a large number of individuals, with feelings and roles
pertaining to kinship solidarity beyond the household. Solidarity toward rela-
tives is, however, not automatically achieved in stepfamilies (Allan, Hawker,
and Crow, 2001). Children in stepfamilies unequally acknowledge their step-
father and stepsiblings as family members (Furstenberg, 1987). In addition,
women may provide end-of-life care to their former husbands, although their
prior post-divorce contact may have been minimal (Cooney et al., 2011). Overall,
various evidence shows that separation and re-partnership lead to diverse
processes of social capitalization (Castren, 2008).
This diversity does not only concern stepfamilies, as it is also relevant for
families who have not experienced divorce (Widmer, 2010). Scholars have
stressed the uncertainty associated with many family roles in adulthood, includ-
ing siblings (Cicirelli, 1995), aunts and uncles (Milardo, 2010), parents and
grandparents (Mueller, Wilhelm, and Elder, 2002; Silverstein and Marenco,
2001). Some individuals develop or maintain strong relationships with them in
adulthood while others disengage from them (Carroll, Olson, and Buckmiller,
2007). In some cases, pseudo-kinship ties or fictive kin, such as friends consid-
ered as family members, play a significant role, and in other cases they do not
(Allen et al., 2011; Weston, 1997). Overall, the ambiguity of family boundaries
does not only concern stepfamilies. The ways in which individuals set up the
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 51

boundaries of their family influences the capitalization process in first-time

families as well. Indeed, in a study of 300 families, half being first-time families
and half stepfamilies (Widmer et al., 2012), bridging social capitalization was
found to be more commonly developed in family configurations that were
primarily based on friends and in-laws, whereas bonding social capitalization
was paramount in family configurations that were primarily based on close
blood-relatives. Individuals who have friends and in-laws, along with blood ties,
in their family configurations, benefit from several separate family circles which
they bridge for their own benefit. They may gain from this capitalization process
a larger autonomy in their family realm and more openness toward social
heterogeneity. Those who build their significant family contexts around their
children, spouse, parents, and siblings develop stronger bonding social capitali-
zation, creating a highly connected network of intimate ties around them, with
much more collective orientation of support and a more closely monitored
system of normative controls and expectations. The capitalization process,
therefore, takes various avenues depending on the composition of family con-
figurations. Making specific alters part of our family world is an intricate part of
the capitalization process, which requires investments but also provides rewards.

conclusion
There is much to be gained by integrating social capitalization processes within
a relational framework for family scholars. By conceptualizing capital invest-
ments in terms of their sentiments, services, and material components, we
suggest ways in which to operationalize measures of capital investments, and
to distinguish between capital investments and the outcomes of those invest-
ments. By firmly grounding social capitalization within a network perspective
we can benefit from a theoretical and empirical literature that has developed
over half a century. Here we introduced a theoretical framework for under-
standing the essential ways of defining and measuring personal networks. We
have distinguished between broad types of networks because they differ in their
relationship targets and, perhaps, in their influence. In addition to providing a
way to initially measure elements of the social capitalization process, by virtue
of enumerating personal relationships, we show how network structure or the
social organization of relationships figures in the meaning of capital and the
value capital investments in relationships take on. Network structure poten-
tially adds advantage to individual investments in personal relationships, and
in this way assessments of network structure are apt to improve our under-
standing of the impact of social capital investments on the lives of families and
their members.
Future work may profitably examine links between each of the elements of
our process model: investments, relationship targets, interaction, beneficiaries,
and returns. Certainly individuals will vary in terms of breadth and depth of
52 Robert M. Milardo et al.

investments they make, in the variety of targets with whom they develop
relationships, and what they do or do not do with those individuals, as well as
in the structural dimensions of their social capital. They will undoubtedly vary
in how well they manage their relationships or how well they capitalize on those
relationships for the benefit of children and other family members. Perhaps the
advantage of the model lies in its grounding within personal relationships, the
precision it offers in locating the essential components of social capital, and
the emphasis it places on social context and community.

references
Albeck, S., and Kaydar, D. (2002). Divorced mothers: their network of friends pre- and
post-divorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 36, 111–138.
Allan, G., Hawker, S., and Crow, G. (2001). Family diversity and change in Britain and
Western Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 819–837.
Allen, K., Blieszner, R., and Roberto, K. (2011). Perspectives on extended family and
fictive kin in the later years: strategies and meanings of kin reinterpretation.
Journal of Family Issues, 32, 1159–1177.
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287.
Antonucci, T. C. (1986). Measuring social support networks: hierarchical mapping
technique. Generations: Journal of the Western Gerontological Society, 10, 10–12.
Bernard, R. H., Killworth, P. D., Kronenfeld, D., and Sailer, L. (1984). On the validity of
retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495–517.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R., and Schilling, E. (1989). Effects of daily stress on
negative mood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 57, 808–818.
Bondonio, D. (1998). Predictors of accuracy in perceiving informal social networks.
Social Networks, 20, 301–330.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Burger, E., and Milardo, R. M. (1995). Marital interdependence and social networks.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 403–415.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
(2001a). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook,
and R. S. Burt (eds.), Social capital: theory and research (pp. 31–56). Hawthorne,
NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
(2001b). The social capital of structural holes. In M. F. Guilléen, R. Collins, and
M. Meyer (eds.), New directions in economic sociology. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Burton, L. M., and Jarrett, R. L. (2000). In the mix, yet on the margins: the place of
families in urban neighborhood and child development research. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 61, 1114–1135.
Campbell, K. E., and Lee, B. A. (1991). Name generators in surveys of personal net-
works. Social Networks, 13, 203–221.
Carroll, J. S., Olson, C. D., and Buckmiller, N. (2007). Family boundary ambiguity: a
30-year review of theory, research, and measurement. Family Relations, 56, 210–230.
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 53

Casciaro, T. (1998). Seeing things clearly: social structure, personality, and accuracy in
social network perception. Social Networks, 20, 331–351.
Castren, A. M. (2008). Post-divorce family configurations. In E. D. Widmer and
R. Jallinoja (eds.), Beyond the nuclear family: families in a configurational perspec-
tive. Berne: Peter Lang.
Ceballo, R., Dahl, T., Aretakis, M., and Ramirez, C. (2001). Inner-city children’s exposure
to community violence: how much do parents know? Journal of Marriage and
Family, 63, 927–940.
Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 66, 848–861.
Cherlin, A. J., and Furstenberg, F. F. (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States: a recon-
sideration. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 359–381.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York: Plenum Press.
Clark, M. S., and Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange
relationships: what it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19,
684–691.
Coenen-Huther, J., Kellerhals, J., Von Allmen, M., Hagmann, H., Jeannerat, F., and
Widmer, E. D. (1994). Les réseaux de solidarité dans la famille. Lausanne: Réalités
Sociales.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, S95–S121.
(1990). The foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Cooney, T. M., Proulx, C., Snyder, L., Benson, J., and Wood, C. (2011). Role ambiguity
among women providing care for ex-husbands. Paper presented at the Gerontological
Society of America, Boston.
Crosnoe, R. (2004). Social capital and the interplay of families and schools. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 66, 267–280.
Davidsson, P., and Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among
nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301–331.
Degenne, A., and Lebeaux, M. O. (2005). The dynamics of personal networks at the
time of entry into adult life. Social Networks, 27, 337–358.
Di Falco, S., and Bulte, E. (2011). The dark side of social capital: kinship consumption
and Investment. Journal of Development Studies, 47, 1128–1151.
Dodson, L., and Dickert, J. (2004). Girls’ family labour in low-income households: a
decade of qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 318–332.
Ellingson, L. L., and Sotirin, P. J. (2006). Exploring young adults’ perspectives on
communication with aunts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23,
483–501.
Fingerman, K. (2009). Consequential strangers and peripheral partners: the impor-
tance of unimportant relationships. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1,
69–82.
Fingerman, K. L., Hay, E. L., and Birditt, K. S. (2004). The best of ties, the worst of ties:
close, problematic, and ambivalent social relationships. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 66, 792–808.
Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends. University of Chicago Press.
Furstenberg, F. F. (1987). The new extended family: the experience of parents and
children after remariage. In K. Pasley and M. Ihinger-Tallman (eds.), Remarriage
and stepparenting: current research and theory (pp. 42–61). New York: Guilford
Press.
54 Robert M. Milardo et al.

(2005). Banking on families: how families generate and distribute social capital.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 809–821.
Godbout, J. (2007). Ce qui circule entre nous: donner, recevoir, rendre. Paris: Seuil.
Goodfriend, W., and Agnew, C. R. (2008). Sunken costs and desired plans: examining
different types of investments in close relationships. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1639–1652.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,
1360–1380.
(1982). The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. In P. Marsden and
N. Lin (eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105–130). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Guiaux, M., van Tilberg, T., and van Groenou, M. B. (2007). Changes in contact and
support exchange in personal networks after widowhood. Personal Relationships,
14, 457–473.
Helms, H. M., Crouter, A. C., and McHale, S. M. (2003). Marital quality and spouses’
marriage work with close friends and each other. Journal of Marriage and Family,
65, 963–977.
Huston, T. L. (2000). The social ecology of marriage and other intimate unions. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 62, 298–320.
Jallinoja, R., and Widmer, E. (2011). Families and kinship in contemporary Europe: rules
and practices of relatedness. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jarrett, R. L. (1999). Successful parenting in high-risk neighborhoods. The Future of
Children, 9, 45–50.
Jarrett, R. L., and Jefferson, S. R. (2003). “A good mother got to fight for her kids”:
maternal management strategies in a high-risk, African-American neighborhood.
Journal of Children and Poverty, 9, 21–39.
(2004). Women’s danger management strategies in an inner-city housing project.
Family Relations, 53, 138–147.
Jarrett, R. L., Jefferson, S. R., and Kelley, K. N. (2010). Finding community in family:
neighborhood effects and African American kin networks. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies, 30, 177–187.
Johnson, C. L. (2000). Kinship and gender. In D. Demo, K. Allen, and M. A. Fine (eds.),
Handbook of family diversity (pp. 128–148). Oxford University Press.
Johnson, M. J., and Milardo, R. M. (1984). Network interference in pair relationships: a
social psychological recasting of Slater’s theory of social regression. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 46, 893–899.
Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., and Huston, T. L. (1999). The tripartite nature of marital
commitment: personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 60, 160–177.
Julien, D., Markman, H. J., Leveille, S., Chartrand, E., and Begin, J. (1994). Networks’
support and interference with regard to marriage: disclosure of marital problems
to confidants. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 16–31.
Kalmijn, M., and van Groenou, M. B. (2005). Differential effects of divorce on social
integration. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 455–476.
Laireiter, A., Baumann, U., Reisenzein, E., and Untner, A. (1997). A diary method for
the assessment of interactive social networks: the interval-contingent diary
SONET-T. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 56, 217–238.
Lin, N. (2001a). Building a network theory of social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, and
R. S. Burt (eds.), Social capital: theory and research (pp. 3–29). Hawthorne, NY:
Aldine de Gruyter.
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 55

(2001b). Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University
Press.
Marks, S. R. (1994a). Intimacy in the public realm: the case of coworkers. Social Forces,
72, 843–858.
(1994b). Studying workplace intimacy: havens at work. In D. L. Sollie and L. A. Leslie
(eds.), Gender, families, and close relationships: feminist research journeys
(pp. 101–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsiglio, W. (2004). Studying fathering trajectories: in-depth interviewing and sensitiz-
ing concepts. In R. D. Day and M. E. Lamb (eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring
father involvement (pp. 61–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Martin, J. L., and Yeung, K. T. (2006). Persistence of close personal ties over a 12-year
period. Social Networks, 28, 331–362.
Milardo, R. M. (1989). Theoretical and methodological issues in the identification of the
social networks of spouses. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 413–425.
(1992). Comparative methods for delineating social networks. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 9, 447–461.
(2010). The forgotten kin: aunts and uncles. Cambridge University Press.
Milardo, R. M., and Allan, G. (2000). Social networks and marital relationships. In
R. Milardo and S. Duck (eds.), Families as relationships (pp. 117–133). London:
J. Wiley.
Milardo, R. M., and Helms-Erikson, H. E. (2000). Network overlap and third-party
influence in close relationships. In C. Hendrick and S. Hendrick (eds.), Close
relationships: a sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. L., Neal, M. B., and Carder, P. (1996). The stability of core and peripheral
networks over time. Social Networks, 19, 9–25.
Mueller, M. M., Wilhelm, B., and Elder, G. H. (2002). Variations in grandparenting.
Research on Aging, 24, 360–388.
Pagel, M. D., Erdly, W. W., and Becker, J. (1987). Social networks: we get by with (and in
spite of) a little help from our friends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
53, 793–804.
Parcel, T. L., Dufur, M. J., and Zito, R. C. (2010). Capital at home and at school. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 72, 828–846.
Pillemer, K., and Lüscher, K. (2004). Intergenerational ambivalences: new perspectives
on parent–child relations in later life. New York: Elsevier/JAI.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., Milardo, R. M., and Payne, C. C. (2009). Relational
support from friends and wives’ family relationships: the role of husbands’
interference. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 195–210.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The
American Prospect, 13, 35–42.
(2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Rainie, L., and Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: the new social operating system.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rook, K. S. (2003). Exposure and reactivity to negative social exchanges: a preliminary
investigation using daily diary data. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences,
58B, P100–P111.
Roy, K. M., Tubbs, C. Y., and Burton, L. M. (2004). Don’t have no time: daily rhythms
and the organization of time for low-income families. Family Relations, 53, 168–178.
56 Robert M. Milardo et al.

Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., and Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: an
interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance
phenomena. In D. J. Canary and L. Stafford (eds.), Communication and relational
maintenance (pp. 115–140). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sandefur, R. L., and Laumann, E. O. (1998). A paradigm for social capital. Rationality
and Society, 10, 481–501.
Schier, M., and Proske, A. (2010). One child, two homes. Deutsche Jungend Institut,
Bulletin, 16–18.
Schneider, M. D. (1980). American kinship: a cultural account. University of Chicago
Press.
Schwiezer, T., Schnegg, M., and Berzborn, S. (1998). Personal networks and social
support in a multiethnic community of southern California. Social Networks, 20,
1–21.
Seccombe, K. (2000). Families in poverty in the 1990s: trends, causes, consequences,
and lessons learned. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 1094–1113.
Silverstein, M., and Marenco, A. (2001). How Americans enact the grandparent role
across the family life course. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 493–522.
Smart, C. (2007). Personal life: new directions in sociological thinking. London: Polity
Press.
Stein, C. H., Wemmerus, V., Ward, M., Gaines, M., Freeberg, A., and Jewell, T. (1998).
“Because they’re my parents”: an intergenerational study of felt obligation and
parental caregiving. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 611–622.
Stewart, S. D. (2005). Boundary ambiguity in stepfamilies. Journal of Family Issues, 26,
1002–1029.
Surra, C., and Milardo, R. M. (1991). The social psychological context of developing
relationships: psychological and interactive networks. In D. Perlman and W. Jones
(eds.), Advances in personal relationships (pp. 1–36). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Szreter, S., and Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social
theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of
Epidemiology, 33, 650–667.
Takhteyu, Y., Gruzd, A., and Wellman, B. (2012). The geography of Twitter networks.
Social Networks, 34, 73–81.
Terhell, E. L., van Groenou, M. I. B., and van Tilburg, T. (2004). Network dynamics in
the long-term period after divorce. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21,
719–738.
Uehara, E. (1994). The influence of the social network’s “second order zone” on social
support mobilization: A case example. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
11, 277–294.
van der Poel, M. G. M. (1993). Delineating personal support networks. Social Networks,
15, 49–70.
van Sonderen, E., Ormel, J., Brilman, E., and van den Heuvell, C. (1990). Personal
network delineation. In C. P. M. Knipscheer and T. C. Antonucci (eds.), Social
Network Research (pp. 101–120). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Weiss, L., and Lowenthal, M. (1975). Life-course perspectives on friendship. In
M. F. Lowenthal, M. Thurnher, and D. Chiriboga (eds.), Four stages of life
(pp. 48–61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wellman, B., and Frank, K. A. (2001). Network capital in a multilevel world: getting
support from personal communities. In N. Lin, K. Cook, and R. S. Burt (eds.),
Social capital: theory and research (pp. 233–273). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de
Gruyter.
 Social capitalization in personal relationships 57

Wellman, B., Wong, R., Tindall, D., and Nazer, N. (1997). A decade of network change:
turnover, persistence, and stability in personal communities. Social Networks, 19,
27–50.
Weston, K. (1997). Families we choose: lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Widmer, E. D. (2004). Couples and their networks. In M. Richards, J. Scott, and J. Treas
(eds.), Blackwell companion to the sociology of families (pp. 356–373). London:
Blackwell.
(2006). Who are my family members? Bridging and binding social capital in family
configurations. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 23, 979–998.
(2010). Family configurations: a structural approach to family diversity. London:
Ashgate.
Widmer, E. D., Favez, N., Aeby, G., De Carlo, I., and Doan, M. T. (2012). Capital social
et coparentage dans les familles recomposées et de première union (Tech. Rep.).
Available at: www.unige.ch/ses/socio/rechetpub/rsoc/thematiques/famille/famre
comp.html.
Widmer, E. D., Giudici, F., Le Goff, J., and Pollien, A. (2009). From support to control: a
configurational perspective on conjugal quality. Journal of Marriage and Family,
71, 437–448.
Widmer, E. D., and La Farga, L. A. (1999). Boundedness and connectivity of contem-
porary families: a case study. Connections, 22, 30–36.
 3

Family relationships embedded in United States

military culture
leanne k. knobloch and erin c. wehrman

United States military personnel and their families have made substantial sacri-
fices to protect and defend their country in the service of the post-9/11 global
war on terrorism (MacDermid Wadsworth, 2010; Willerton, MacDermid
Wadsworth, and Riggs, 2011). Service members, their romantic partners, and
their children have handled the increased operational tempo of deployments
resulting from both Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF) with impressive resilience (Bonanno et al., 2012; Cozza, Chun,
and Polo, 2005; Lester et al., 2010), although the challenges of war can take a
substantial toll on people’s physical health (Badr, Barker, and Milbury, 2011;
Gorman, Eide, and Hilse-Gorman, 2010), mental health (Mansfield et al., 2010;
Milliken, Auchterlonie, and Hoge, 2007; Pfefferbaum et al., 2011), and relation-
ship health (Adams, Durand, and Castro, 2006; Allen et al., 2010; Nelson Goff
et al., 2007). One foundation of this resilience is undoubtedly the strong military
identity that many families embrace. US military culture espouses the ideals of
courage, fortitude, strength, fairness, discipline, loyalty, respect for authority,
determination, and valor (Coll, Weiss, and Yarvis, 2011; Greene et al., 2010b;
Ulmer, Collins, and Jacobs, 2000), and these qualities are the signature values of
many active duty and reserve component military families (Hall, 2008). To be a
US military family is to be proud, to be strong, and to be brave (Hall 2011a; 2011b;
Park, 2011).
Although military culture provides a pervasive backdrop for how service
members and their families navigate domestic life (Hall 2008; 2011a; Sherman
and Bowling, 2011), scholarship on the interpersonal functioning of military
couples and families has not always been sensitive to the unique parameters at
play. With some notable exceptions (Palmer, 2008; Pincus et al., 2001; Riggs
and Riggs, 2011), scholars have tended to apply established theories of relation-
ship functioning to the military context without fully taking into account the
social circumstances that envelop military personnel, their romantic partners,
and their children. The result is a body of work (including some of our own
research) that underemphasizes the distinctive trademarks of military life. As

58
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 59

Wiens and Boss (2006) noted, “To understand how best to support today’s
military families, it is essential to understand their contexts. What are the
contextual sources of their stress and resiliency?” (p. 25). This chapter takes up
that question.
Our goal is to demonstrate ways that scholars of close relationships can
better tailor their work to the hallmarks of military culture. We begin by
describing features of US military culture that provide a milieu for the relation-
ships among service members, their romantic partners, and their children.
Then, we review four theories of close relationships that are germane to military
couples and families. We explicate the main premises of each theory and
describe empirical investigations of them in the military context. We conclude
by assessing the state of the literature and identifying how the theories can be
more responsive to features of military culture.

us military culture as a backdrop

for family relationships
“Be all you can be.” “Army strong.” “Called to duty, boots on the ground.”
“This we’ll defend.” “Duty, honor, country.” “A global force for good.” “Not for
ourselves, but for our country.” “Honor, courage, commitment.” “Aim high.”
“Do something amazing.” “Above all.” “Integrity first, service before self, and
excellence in all we do.” “The few. The proud.” “Always faithful.” “To lead
by example.” Although civilians may have only passing familiarity with these
mission statements and recruitment messages, many active duty and reserve
component military families have adopted them as words to live by (e.g., Hall,
2008; 2011b; Ulmer et al., 2000). Of course, military culture runs far deeper than
catchy slogans or even time-honored mottos.
Military culture refers to “how things are done in a military organiza-
tion. It consists of the accepted values, philosophies, traditions, and customs
that are passed along to each successive generation of service members to
create a shared professional ethos” (Ulmer et al., 2000, p. 7). Military culture
not only stems from the US Constitution and national and international law,
but also emerges from the customs, procedures, and practices that have
evolved over the course of the nation’s history (Collins, 1998; Howard,
2006; Ulmer et al., 2000). Military culture can be divided (quite arbitrarily)
into an array of core themes, but its primary components include (a) a
warrior identity, (b) an authoritarian structure, (c) an overriding commit-
ment to the mission, (d) geographic mobility and periodic separations, and
(e) the perpetual risk of disaster, injury, and death. We devote the following
subsections to describing how these aspects of military culture encircle and
influence the relationships among service members, their romantic partners,
and their children.
60 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

Warrior identity
First and foremost, military culture is marked by a warrior identity (Dunivin,
1994; Greene et al., 2010b; Hall, 2011b). The main mission of the military is
combat, of course, which permeates all aspects of military life (Dunivin, 1994;
Ulmer et al., 2000). Military personnel are expected to uphold the persona of
a warrior identity, including loyalty, discipline, strength, self-sacrifice, and
courage (Collins, 1998; Hall, 2011a; Reger et al., 2008). A warrior ethos provides
many service members with a sense of purpose, a distinctive identity, and an
honor-based code of values (Hall, 2011a). Whereas military culture embodies
the ideals of solidarity and self-sacrifice, civilian culture embraces the ideals
of liberty and autonomy (Collins, 1998). Consequently, the warrior identity
adopted by military personnel and their family members often is at odds with
the individualistic proclivity of civilian life (Collins, 1998; Hall, 2008; 2011a).
Closely tied to the warrior identity is the masculine orientation of military
culture (Dunivin, 1994), whereby individuals are expected to project stoicism,
hide weakness, maintain secrecy, and deny fear (Hall, 2011b; Langston, Gould,
and Greenberg, 2007). Historically, the military has been a male-dominated
profession, and although women are joining the military and rising through
the leadership ranks more than ever (Kelty, Kleykamp, and Segal, 2010), women
face the added pressure of proving their capability in the midst of the masculine
atmosphere (Collins, 1998; Dunivin, 1994). Women may have difficulty negoti-
ating their gender identity as they move forward in their military career (Kelty
et al., 2010; Silva, 2008) while balancing their roles as service members, spouses,
and mothers (Goodman et al., 2013). More generally, the masculine focus of
military culture can pose difficulty for families who are expected to handle strain
by avoiding outward displays of emotion, adopting rigid boundaries around
private information, and disavowing difficulties (Hall, 2011a). Military families
who take this approach to problem solving may be reluctant to seek help when
they need it (Langston et al., 2007), thereby leaving serious health issues such
as mental illness (Gorman et al., 2011; Hoge et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2010) and
substance abuse (Skidmore and Roy, 2011) unaddressed.
The warrior identity that forms the backbone of military culture, together
with the related norms of masculinity and stoicism, requires military families
to meet different standards for behavior compared to their civilian counter-
parts. Spouses and children are expected to maintain the appearance of
strength and to adhere to the standards of excellence championed by military
culture (Kelty et al., 2010). Spouses and children who engage in problematic
behavior can damage the reputation of the service member, which may make it
harder for the service member to obtain promotions, secure desired reloca-
tions, and retain the trust of colleagues (Everson and Camp, 2011; Hall, 2008).
Of course, military families may experience considerable stress as they navigate
the roles and expectations of a warrior identity (Hall, 2011a; 2011b).
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 61

Authoritarian structure
Military culture also is imbued with an authoritarian structure. The military
operates via a rank hierarchy whereby service members obey their superiors
and honor the chain of command (Hall, 2008; 2011a; 2011b). Respect for autho-
rity is a central feature of military life, which allows leaders to maintain order, to
execute missions without question or discord, and to ensure that service mem-
bers work together for a common purpose (e.g., Greene et al., 2010b; Reger et al.,
2008; Ulmer et al., 2000). The authoritarian structure distributes power and
responsibility by rank rather than by age, education, or experience (Reger et al.,
2008). Both military personnel and family life scholars have noted, quite ironi-
cally, that service members risk their lives to preserve democracy across the
globe but do not practice it within their organization (Hall, 2008).
The authoritarian structure is embodied in a class system divided into
enlisted versus officer cohorts, with variations in rank within cohorts. Life on a
military base, camp, or installation can reflect this stratified system in housing,
infrastructure, leisure pursuits, and patterns of socializing (Hall, 2008; 2011a;
2011b). Whereas esprit de corps may be pervasive within rank, segregation
may be the norm across rank. Family members from different cohorts may
be discouraged from mingling across division lines; Hall (2008) pointed to the
tendency of enlisted personnel’s children to play football versus officers’
children to play tennis as an example of this divide. Another example is that
wives of high-ranking officers are expected to volunteer their time freely and
shoulder a disproportionate load of service responsibilities (Everson and
Herzog, 2011; Kelty et al., 2010).
Some military families may mindfully or reflexively adopt an authoritarian
structure at home as well (Hall, 2008; 2011a; 2011b). Families with a rank-based
orientation to domestic life may opt for autocratic parenting practices with
limited tolerance for individualism. Children learn to respect their elders, defer
to authority, refrain from questioning leadership, use formal forms of address
(“yes, sir,” “yes, ma’am”), and keep their belongings neat and tidy. Adolescents
and teenagers who live off-base or attend civilian schools may find it difficult
to reconcile their rigid family structure with the more permissive lifestyle of
their civilian peers (Hall, 2011a; 2011b); some may rebel against their parents
after becoming acquainted with alternative family structures (Hall, 2008).

Primacy of the mission

Another hallmark of military culture is the primacy of the mission. Military
service demands a total commitment to operational activities (Greene et al.,
2010b; Ulmer et al., 2000). A mission-first mantra unites service members
around a common purpose and infuses their work with shared meaning (Hall,
2008; Reger et al., 2008). Individuals who hope to succeed in military life are
62 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

expected to put their assignments ahead of other priorities. An all-encompassing

focus on the mission may translate into long hours devoted to intense training,
preserving physical fitness, building unit cohesion, cultivating operational read-
iness, and completing work tasks (Hall, 2008; 2011a; 2011b). The demands of
the mission are unquestionably challenging for enlisted personnel and officers
alike (e.g., Coll et al., 2011).
A service member’s dedication to the mission provides his or her family
with an admirable example of hard work, discipline, and perseverance. At the
same time, however, a service member’s unwavering commitment to opera-
tional duties may be a source of disconnect for families. Service members may
quite naturally develop a “military second family” (Hall, 2008, p. 53) through
shared experiences and allegiance to a common goal. The strong bonds that
military personnel form with others assigned to the same mission may lead
to an emotional triangle among service members, their domestic family, and
their military second family (Hall, 2008; 2011a; 2011b). Service members, their
romantic partners, and their children may experience stress as they attempt to
make sense of their roles, particularly if service members feel compelled to put
the mission ahead of their domestic family’s needs (e.g., Everson and Camp,
2011; Goodman et al., 2013; Greene et al., 2010b).

Geographic mobility and periodic separations

Geographic mobility is a way of life for active duty military families. Serial
relocations to both national and international destinations require active duty
military families to uproot their lives in service to their country (e.g., Burrell
et al., 2006; Segal, 1986; Wertsch, 1991). These relocations can occur every two
to four years or less depending on the branch and rank of the service member.
Although serial relocations offer military families the prospect of diverse
opportunities, worldly experiences, and exciting adventures, they also present
challenges for service members, their romantic partners, and their children
(Burrell et al., 2006). With each move, family members have to adjust to a new
living situation, develop a new support system, and transition to new work and
school environments (Sherman and Bowling, 2011). Civilian spouses may have
difficulty advancing their own careers amidst the transience (Kelty et al., 2010),
and children may lack opportunities to build sustained connections with peers,
teachers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and other extended family
members. Active duty military families may hesitate to put down roots in
any particular place, which could lead to feelings of isolation, alienation, and
detachment from the community (Hall, 2008). This lack of belongingness
may be amplified during relocations overseas if family members are not
familiar with the language, culture, and customs of their new home (Hall
2011a; 2011b). Indeed, research conducted with Army spouses demonstrates
that the demands of geographic mobility are negatively associated with
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 63

their satisfaction with Army life, and the demands of living internationally are
negatively associated with their physical and psychological well-being (Burrell
et al., 2006).
In addition to geographic mobility, the military lifestyle also involves peri-
odic separations from loved ones. Service members may be called away from
their families for activities such as field-training exercises, drill periods, educa-
tional opportunities, and deployments for peacekeeping or combat operations.
These recurring assignments away from home mean that military families
negotiate repeated cycles of departure, separation, and reunion (e.g., Adams
et al., 2005; Everson, Herzog, and Haigler, 2011; Merolla, 2010). Deployments, in
particular, present special hardships (Laser and Stephens, 2011; Sheppard,
Malatras, and Israel, 2010). Service members are absent for holidays, birthdays,
and special occasions, at-home romantic partners take sole responsibility for
running the household and caring for children, and youth adjust to new routines
and responsibilities (Knobloch, Pusateri et al., in press b; Maguire, Heinemann-
LaFave, and Sahlstein, 2013; Sahlstein, Maguire, and Timmerman, 2009).
Technological advances mean more opportunities for families to connect during
deployments (Greene et al., 2010a), but family members may still feel detached
and isolated from each other (e.g., Joseph and Afifi, 2010; Lowe et al., 2012;
Newby et al., 2005). Reunion brings additional changes as the returning service
member is reintegrated into the family system (Knobloch, Pusateri et al., in press
a; Sayers, 2011). All members of military families face the task of renegotiating
their roles in light of the changes that occurred during deployment (Bowling
and Sherman, 2008). Not surprisingly, evidence shows that deployments can be
physically and emotionally challenging for all members of military families
(Chandra, Burns, Tanielan, and Jaycox, 2011; Gorman et al., 2010; Mansfield
et al., 2010; McNulty, 2005).

Risk of disaster, injury, and death

An ominous feature of military culture is the inherent risk of disaster, injury,
and death. Military service, at its core, requires personnel to put themselves
in harm’s way (Greene et al., 2010b; Hall, 2008; Segal, 1986). Service members,
their romantic partners, and their children are confronted with the ever-present
possibility of trauma, most clearly during warzone deployments, but also during
field-training exercises, humanitarian relief efforts, and peacekeeping opera-
tions (Burrell et al., 2006; Hall, 2008). Military culture is indelibly marked by
the prospect that service members may be called on to sacrifice their lives or
limbs in service to their country (Gottman, Gottman, and Atkins, 2011; Hall
2011a; 2011b). Although many military families calmly accept the risk of danger
as a necessary byproduct of their service for the common good, individuals with
substantial anxiety about the service member’s well-being experience poorer
physical and emotional health (e.g., Burrell et al., 2006; Flake et al., 2009).
64 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

To this point, we have described five key elements of military culture that
animate the relationships among service members and their families: (a) a
warrior identity, (b) an authoritarian structure, (c) the primacy of the mission,
(d) geographic mobility and periodic separations, and (e) the risk of disaster,
injury, and death. Implicit in our review is a paradox about the military
lifestyle. On one hand, military culture can be a source of strength and support
for service members, their romantic partners, and their children (Kelty et al.,
2010; Sherman and Bowling, 2011). Military service provides job security,
educational opportunities, a cohesive and stable environment for domestic
life, and a profound sense of purpose, all of which can foster resilience in
military families. On the other hand, military culture can engender enormous
stressors that take a toll on people’s physical, emotional, and relational well-
being (e.g., Burrell et al., 2006; Hall, 2008; Sherman and Bowling, 2011). We
invite our readers to keep these aspects of military culture in mind as we turn
our attention to summarizing theory-driven work on the relationship func-
tioning of military families.

theories of relationship functioning

applied to military families
The warrant for this chapter rests on the premise that scholarship on the
interpersonal relationships of military families would benefit from more empha-
sis on attributes of the external context. Although a sizeable portion of research
on military families is descriptive rather than theoretically driven (Park, 2011), a
growing body of work has employed established theories of close relationships
to understand the dynamics of military families. We focus on four theories that
have spawned a corpus of empirical research on military personnel and their
families: attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982), family stress theory (Hill, 1949;
McCubbin and Patterson, 1983a; 1983b), ambiguous loss frameworks (Boss,
1999; 2006), and the relational turbulence model (Knobloch and Theiss, 2012;
2014). All four theories have been applied to a variety of relationship domains
and processes, but only family stress theory and its kin, ambiguous loss frame-
works, have their genesis in the military arena.

Attachment theory
Attachment theory argues that people’s relational history shapes how they regu-
late stress, view relationships, and behave in interpersonal situations (Bowlby,
1973; 1980; 1982; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007). According to the theory, infants
are born with a strong drive to maintain proximity to their caregivers, who in
turn are equipped to provide infants with comfort in times of distress and a safe
haven for exploring the environment. The quality of caregiving provided by
these attachment figures varies in helpfulness, however, and some children
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 65

benefit from consistent support while others receive only intermittent or

limited support from their caregivers. Children internalize their early expe-
riences with their attachment figures to develop internal working models of
relationships, which they rely on to make sense of the interpersonal relation-
ships they engage in throughout their lives.
An attachment style (or orientation) indexes a person’s expectations for
relationships that stem from his or her previous experiences with caregivers
(Brennan, Clark, and Shaver, 1998; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007). An individ-
ual’s attachment style is the product of two dimensions. Attachment avoidance
refers to the extent to which individuals prefer to be independent rather than
dependent on a partner; attachment anxiety refers to the extent to which people
question whether their partner will offer support when needed. Crossing the two
dimensions produces four attachment styles: fearful, dismissive, preoccupied,
and secure. Individuals with a fearful attachment style are high in both avoid-
ance and anxiety; they feel undeserving of affection and have difficulty depend-
ing on others. People with a dismissive attachment style are high in avoidance
but low in anxiety; they eschew close relationships in favor of cultivating their
independence. Those with a preoccupied attachment style are low in avoidance
but high in anxiety; they desire closeness but find it hard to trust partners.
Finally, individuals with a secure attachment style are low in both avoidance and
anxiety; they are comfortable trusting others and forming close relationships.
Deployment to warzones and exposure to combat are likely to trigger the
attachment system of military family members (Basham, 2008; Miller, Miller,
and Bjorklund, 2010; Posada et al., 2011). Accordingly, people’s attachment
orientation is likely to govern their emotional responses and coping strategies
during deployment (Riggs and Riggs, 2011). Whereas securely attached individ-
uals may be resilient in the face of deployment-related separations, insecurely
attached people may encounter substantial stress, and avoidantly attached
individuals may cope using disengaging and distancing strategies (Cafferty
et al., 1994; Riggs and Riggs, 2011). Upon reunion, people without secure attach-
ment may react with ambivalence, resentment, neediness, fear of rejection,
and/or withdrawal (Riggs and Riggs, 2011; Vormbrock, 1993). The attachment
style of adults also may lay a foundation for the well-being of their offspring.
Indeed, children’s adjustment across the deployment cycle may be rooted in
how the at-home partner copes with the separation (Medway et al., 1995; Riggs
and Riggs, 2011).
Empirical investigations. A robust body of work has examined attachment
styles as a predictor of the resilience, mental health, and coping of military
personnel. For example, military recruits with secure attachment may adjust
to combat training more effectively than recruits with avoidant or ambivalent
attachment (Mikulincer and Florian, 1995). Moreover, military veterans and
former prisoners of war with insecure attachment report more debilitating
symptoms of posttraumatic stress compared to those with secure attachment
66 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

(Dieperink et al., 2001; Ghafoori et al., 2008; Renaud, 2008; Zakin, Solomon,
and Neria, 2003). People’s attachment style also may help them handle war
trauma. Among military veterans experiencing posttraumatic stress symp-
toms, those high in attachment anxiety are likely to experience sleep problems,
but those high in attachment avoidance are less vulnerable to sleep problems,
possibly because of their orientation toward independence (Troxel and Germain,
2011). Military personnel with secure attachment who endured war captivity
exhibit better long-term adjustment than those with anxious or avoidant attach-
ment (Solomon et al., 1998). Combat veterans with a preoccupied attachment
style, in particular, are less responsive to clinical treatments for posttraumatic
stress disorder than combat veterans with other attachment styles (Forbes et al.,
2010). This work implies that a person’s attachment style may be a key risk or
resilience factor for dealing with the stress of military service.
Notably fewer studies have employed attachment theory to understand
the interpersonal dynamics of military couples and families. Medway and
colleagues (1995) examined the outcomes of war-related separation on reserve
component families. Findings indicated that the degree of attachment security
at-home mothers reported was negatively associated with (a) their own expe-
rience of stress during deployment and reunion, and (b) children’s behavioral
problems during reunion. More recently, Ein-Dor and colleagues (2010) evalu-
ated attachment as a predictor of posttraumatic and secondary stress symp-
toms among Israeli war veterans and their wives. Their data suggested spillover
effects: husbands’ attachment anxiety was positively associated with wives’
secondary stress symptoms, and husbands’ attachment avoidance was nega-
tively associated with wives’ secondary stress symptoms. Frey and colleagues
(2011) collected data from twenty couples who had experienced deployment.
They also found spillover effects in the associations that people’s attachment
anxiety shared with their partner’s reports of domestic violence. All three
studies demonstrate how the attachment orientation of one military family
member has implications for the well-being of other family members.

Family stress theory

Family stress theory, which stems from Hill’s (1949) seminal analysis of
135 military families separated and reunited during World War II, illuminates
how families respond to stressful situations (see also Hill, 1958). Hill proposed
the ABCX model where A represents an unexpected precipitating event that
has the potential to spark hardships for the family (e.g., deployment, job loss,
illness). B indexes the resources available to the family for coping with the
precipitating event (e.g., strength of the bonds within the family, supportive
relatives, childcare options). C denotes the meaning that family members
attribute to the event (e.g., interpretation of the circumstances, judgments of
efficacy, appraisals of the situation as a challenge versus an opportunity). Family
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 67

stress theory argues that the event (A) interacts with a family’s resources (B) and
cognitions (C) to govern the magnitude of the crisis, X, defined as the degree
of disruption the family experiences in response to the event. Accordingly, the
theory takes into account both internal and external family parameters to
explain why some families are resilient in the face of stressful events and other
families are propelled into crisis.
The double ABCX model, advanced by McCubbin and Patterson (1983a;
1983b; Patterson and McCubbin, 1984), expanded family stress theory by con-
sidering post-event factors that may govern how family adaptation unfolds over
time. McCubbin and Patterson (1983a; 1983b) based their model on longitudinal
findings from their study of 216 military families in which the husband was
reported missing or held captive during the Vietnam War. The double ABCX
model recognizes that families may encounter pile-ups of additional stressors
and obstacles that occur on top of the initial precipitating event. According to
the model, the family’s ability to cope with the circumstances is a function of
the pile-up of stressors (aA), the new and existing resources available to the
family (bB), and the appraisals the family makes of the event (cC). All three
factors contribute to how well the family adapts to the situation (xX). McCubbin
and Patterson’s (1983a; 1983b) double ABCX model, like Hill’s (1949) ABCX
model, originated in the context of military families but has been widely applied
to other family situations.
Family stress theory has provided a foundation for two other frameworks
tailored to the domain of military life. One is the contextual family stress model,
which accentuates the multilayered contexts that surround military families
(Boss, 2002; Boss et al., 2003; Wiens and Boss, 2006). At its core, the contextual
family stress model argues that military families are embedded in external and
internal contexts that shape how individuals make sense of stressful situations
such as deployment. A family’s external context encompasses four factors
outside the family’s control that contribute to how people handle stress
(Wiens and Boss, 2006). The external context includes historical parameters
(e.g., previous separations, events leading up to the current deployment),
economic parameters (e.g., earning more money or less money during deploy-
ment, taking a leave of absence from a job to care for children), developmental
parameters (e.g., stage of the family life cycle, such as being newly married,
preparing to launch children from the home, caring for elderly parents),
and cultural parameters (e.g., ethnic membership, military identity, majority
or minority status). The family’s internal context reflects the inner life of the
family and contains three factors that are controllable by the members. The
internal context includes structural parameters (e.g., rules, roles, boundaries),
psychological parameters (e.g., appraisals, perceptions, and assessments of
stressful episodes), and philosophical parameters (e.g., values, beliefs, spiritu-
ality). A strength of the contextual family stress model is that it identifies
factors to account for why some military families (even those from the same
68 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

unit) may struggle during deployment while others are resilient during a tour
of duty.
The expanded double ABCX model of adjustment for deployment, advanced
by Huebner (2009), integrates principles from family stress theory with princi-
ples from attachment theory to explain how military families cope with deploy-
ment. The expanded model defines stressors (A) as the transitions that occur
across the cycle of deployment (e.g., pre-deployment, separation, reunion) as
well as the normative changes that occur across the family life cycle (e.g., stage
of marriage, birth of children, aging parents). It characterizes resources (B) as
military and civilian support mechanisms as well as the attachment security of
family members. The model considers cognitions (C) as appraisals of the
situation as well as the internal working models of relationships held by family
members. Finally, the model emphasizes adaptation to deployment (X) as a
function of stressors, resources, and appraisals. Huebner’s (2009) expanded
model positions people’s attachment orientation as a frame that guides how
they make sense of deployment (manageable challenge or insurmountable
crisis?) and whether they are willing to take advantage of the available resources
(will programs be helpful, useless, or harmful?). With respect to intervention,
the expanded model suggests that family life practitioners need to be sensitive
to people’s attachment orientation when constructing and implementing sup-
port activities.
Empirical investigations. Family stress theory and its constellation of related
frameworks have been useful for understanding how service members, their
romantic partners, and their children cope (or fail to cope) with the demands
of military life (e.g., Everson et al., 2013; Figley, 1993; Gibbons, Barnett, and
Hickling, 2012). A direct test of the double ABCX model, involving eighty-two
Navy wives who experienced an eight-month deployment, revealed that the
most resilient wives coped by accepting the military lifestyle and being optimistic
about the future (Patterson and McCubbin, 1984). More recently, family stress
theory has illuminated how active duty single parents adjust to the demands of
military life (Bowen, Orthner, and Zimmerman, 1993), how military adolescents
adapt to frequent relocations (Pittman and Bowen, 1994), how exposure to
violence before enlistment predicts the likelihood that Army recruits will be
discharged before completing basic training (Chapin, 2004), how at-home Army
spouses cope with parenting stress during deployment (Everson et al., 2013), and
how family stress corresponds with symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder
among deployed military personnel (Gibbons et al., 2012).

Ambiguous loss frameworks

Ambiguous loss frameworks, which are rooted in family stress theory, empha-
size the uncertainty that military families face due to work-related separations
and deployments (Boss, 1999; 2002; 2006). Boundary ambiguity occurs when
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 69

individuals are unsure about roles, tasks, and membership in the family (Faber
et al., 2008; Huebner et al., 2007; Wiens and Boss, 2006); military families are
likely to experience boundary ambiguity if service members make frequent
exits from and entries into domestic life. Indeed, the demands of military life
bring numerous occasions for long-distance separations, which parallel the
distinction between normative life stressors versus catastrophic life stressors
(McCubbin and Figley, 1983; Peebles-Kleiger and Kleiger, 1994). Whereas
routine peacekeeping missions and scheduled training exercises may be akin
to normative life stressors because the separations tend to have a definite
location and a planned timetable, combat-related deployments may be akin
to catastrophic life stressors because the location and duration of the missions
tend to be ambiguous (Peebles-Kleiger and Kleiger, 1994; Wiens and Boss,
2006). Indeed, combat-related deployments mean that individuals may not
know how long they have to prepare for the separation, where the service
member will be stationed, what duties he or she will be assigned, when he or
she will leave, or when he or she will return (Wiens and Boss, 2006). Hence,
boundary ambiguity is likely to arise for both adults (Faber et al., 2008; Wiens
and Boss, 2006) and children (Huebner et al., 2007) when military personnel
receive deployment orders.
Combat-related deployments and reunions may spark ambiguous loss,
which occurs when people experience a separation or loss tied to uncertain,
indefinite, or equivocal circumstances (Boss, 1999, 2006; Huebner et al., 2007;
Wiens and Boss, 2006). Ambiguous loss exists in two forms. Ambiguous presence
occurs when a person is physically present but family members perceive him or
her to be psychologically absent (“here but not here”). In contrast, ambiguous
absence occurs when a person is physically absent but family members perceive
him or her to be psychologically present (“there but not there”). Both forms of
ambiguous loss are helpful for understanding military deployments and reun-
ions because they call attention to both the separation and people’s appraisals of
the separation (Faber et al., 2008; see also Campbell and Demi, 2000; Huebner
et al., 2007).
Empirical investigations. A handful of studies have examined people’s
experiences of boundary ambiguity and ambiguous loss across the deployment
cycle. For example, Wiens and Boss (2006) interviewed Army National Guard
spouses whose partners had deployed and returned from a peacekeeping
mission. They found that the pre-deployment stage was marked by ambiguous
presence and emotional detachment: At-home spouses were motivated to spend
quality time together, but service members were preoccupied with preparing
and training for the mission. In contrast, the deployment stage was character-
ized by ambiguous absence and a drive for connection: family members expe-
rienced a strong desire to stay in touch, and they relied on direct communication
with each other (cards, letters, email, Skype) and indirect ways of establishing
presence (looking at pictures, reliving memories) to bridge the distance. The
70 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

reunion stage was defined by a shift to ambiguous presence: returning service

members had formed strong bonds with comrades from their unit and felt
distant from their families, at-home spouses had developed smooth routines
that were disrupted, and family members struggled to reconnect and reestablish
intimacy.
In an investigation elaborating on these ideas, Faber and colleagues (2008)
interviewed thirty-four Army reservists and family members seven times in the
year after service members had returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. During
deployment, family members reported boundary ambiguity about the safety of
the service member, the best ways to redistribute roles and responsibilities, and
how to prepare for reunion. Family members managed their sense of ambig-
uous absence by seeking information from the media and soliciting comfort
from support groups. During reunion, family members experienced boundary
ambiguity about how to resume roles, how to communicate more openly with
each other, and how to help the returning service member transition from
military life to civilian life. They coped with their sense of ambiguous presence
by problem solving with each other and communicating with social network
members who understood their circumstances. These findings, coupled with
those of Wiens and Boss (2006), highlight the relevance of boundary ambiguity
and ambiguous loss to military families across the deployment cycle.

Relational turbulence model

The relational turbulence model considers how people navigate times of tran-
sition within close relationships (Solomon and Knobloch, 2004; Solomon,
Weber, and Steuber, 2010). The model characterizes a transition as a trans-
formative moment in the development of a relationship that has the potential
to spur growth or decline (Knobloch, 2007); it defines relational turbulence as a
state of dyadic turmoil in which people react strongly to episodes that would be
relatively commonplace if the relationship was not in the throes of a transition
(Solomon and Theiss, 2011).
The theory argues that transitions are likely to be turbulent because they
evoke questions about the nature of the relationship and trigger disruptions to
daily routines (Solomon and Knobloch, 2004; Solomon and Theiss, 2011).
More succinctly, the theory delineates relational uncertainty and interference
from partners as two mechanisms of turbulence when relationships are in
flux. Relational uncertainty refers to people’s confidence or lack of confidence
in their perceptions of involvement within a relationship (Knobloch, 2010;
Knobloch, Ebata, McGlaughlin, and Theiss, 2013). Interference from partners
occurs when an individual’s everyday goals are disrupted by a partner
(Knobloch and Solomon, 2004). The relational turbulence model argues
that people’s experiences of upheaval during times of transition are rooted
in relational uncertainty and interference from partners. The model has been
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 71

pressed into service to understand transitions as diverse as how people navigate

serious involvement (Knobloch and Theiss, 2010; Solomon and Theiss, 2008),
embark on parenthood (Theiss, Estlein, and Weber, 2013), contend with a breast
cancer diagnosis (Weber and Solomon, 2008), cope with infertility (Steuber and
Solomon, 2008; 2012), and grapple with depression (Knobloch and Delaney, 2012).
Empirical investigations. We have collaborated with colleagues to employ
the relational turbulence model to illuminate how military couples and families
navigate the transitions embedded in the deployment cycle (Knobloch, Pusateri
et al., in press a; in press b; Knobloch and Theiss, 2011; 2012). To date, the bulk of
our efforts have considered the model’s logic as an explanation for the behavior
of returning service members and at-home romantic partners during the
transition from deployment to reintegration (Knobloch and Theiss, 2014).
A starting point was to identify the issues of relational uncertainty and
interference from partners that military couples encounter when they are
reunited following deployment. Knobloch and Theiss (2012) asked 259 indi-
viduals who had navigated the post-deployment transition during the past
six months to describe any questions about involvement or hindrance from
their partner they had experienced. Results revealed seven themes of relational
uncertainty, including questions about commitment, reintegration, household
stressors, personality changes, sexual behavior and infidelity, the health of the
service member, and communication. Findings also indicated eight issues of
interference from partners, including disruptions regarding everyday routines,
household chores, control issues, feeling smothered, parenting, partner differ-
ences, social networks and social activities, and not having enough time to spend
together. The results of this study are consistent with the model’s assumption
that relational uncertainty and interference from partners are relevant to the
post-deployment transition.
Other work has tested the model’s predictions linking relational uncer-
tainty and interference from partners to upheaval. Two studies speak to this
issue. Knobloch and Theiss (2011) collected online survey data from 220 service
members who had returned home from deployment during the past six months.
Results compatible with the model’s logic demonstrated that the relational
uncertainty and interference from partners reported by military personnel
were negatively associated with their relationship satisfaction. Theiss and
Knobloch (2014), who drew on quantitative data from the sample of returning
service members and at-home romantic partners considered by Knobloch and
Theiss (2012), reported that individuals experiencing relational uncertainty and
interference from partners during the post-deployment transition judged their
relationship to be more tumultuous, viewed their partner as less responsive to
their needs, and were less likely to engage in relationship maintenance behav-
iors. These findings, taken together, imply that relational uncertainty
and interference from partners are tied to turmoil upon reunion following
deployment.
72 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

Another project sought to map how the mechanisms of relational turbu-

lence operate over time during the transition from deployment to reunion.
To examine this issue, Knobloch, Ebata, McGlaughlin, and Ogolsky (2013)
asked 118 military couples to report on their experiences once per month during
the first three months upon reunion. The indicator of relational turbulence
they examined was difficulty with reintegration, defined as the interpersonal
challenges military couples may encounter upon reunion (Chandra et al., 2010;
Chandra, Lara-Cinisomo et al., 2011). Examples include problems getting reac-
quainted, having trouble managing a partner’s mood changes, difficulty reba-
lancing household and parenting responsibilities, and being worried about
the possibility of a future deployment. Results showed that returning service
members and at-home romantic partners who experienced more relational
uncertainty and interference from partners reported more difficulty with rein-
tegration from month to month. These initial findings are promising because
they suggest that the relational turbulence model has utility for depicting how
the post-deployment transition unfolds over time.

synthesizing features of military culture

with theory and research on military families
We opened this chapter by noting that military culture is an integral aspect of
the relationships among service members, their romantic partners, and their
children (Hall, 2008; 2011a; 2011b). Our review highlighted five features of
military culture that are especially relevant to military families: (a) a warrior
identity, (b) an authoritarian structure, (c) the primacy of the mission, (d)
geographic mobility and periodic separations, and (e) the risk of disaster, injury,
and death. With that foundation in place, we described the insights about
military families generated by attachment theory, family stress theory, ambig-
uous loss frameworks, and the relational turbulence model. Our final task is to
synthesize the two domains by describing how the literature may advance with
more sensitivity to understanding military culture.
The four theories are impressive in the strengths they bring to the task of
explaining the relationship functioning of military families. Attachment theory
calls attention to the role that early childhood experiences play in how people
respond to the stressors of military life (e.g., Bowlby, 1982; Forbes et al., 2010).
Even more noteworthy, scholars of attachment theory have moved beyond an
individual-level focus to examine the interplay between partners within mili-
tary families (e.g., Ein-Dor et al., 2010). Family stress theory takes a different
approach by emphasizing the intersection between the resources people have
available to them and the meanings they attach to potentially stressful circum-
stances (Hill, 1949; McCubbin and Patterson, 1983a; 1983b); its strength lies
in its exhaustive organization of the factors that give rise to the resilience of
military families. Ambiguous loss frameworks are helpful for understanding
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 73

how service members, their romantic partners, and their children cope with
grief (Boss, 1999; 2006). They add to the landscape of knowledge about military
families by elucidating people’s perceptions of circumstances marked by
uncertainty, anxiety, and sadness (e.g., Faber et al., 2008; Wiens and Boss,
2006). The relational turbulence model highlights factors internal to relation-
ships to explain how military families experience the cycle of deployment and
reunion (Knobloch and Theiss, 2011; 2012). Like family stress theory, the rela-
tional turbulence model concentrates on the processes at work during times of
transition, but the model departs from the other frameworks by accentuating
the relationship dynamics within military families (Knobloch and Theiss,
2014). The four theories, taken together, illustrate the diversity of conceptual
approaches to understanding the interpersonal well-being of military families.
A striking difference among the four theories is their scope. Whereas
attachment theory is broadly applicable to a variety of situations facing service
members, their romantic partners, and their children, the other three theories
consider how military families cope with a discrete stressor. Wide variation
in latitude exists among the latter three theories, too. Family stress theory
privileges comprehensiveness over precision (Huebner, 2009), but ambiguous
loss frameworks (Wiens and Boss, 2006) and the relational turbulence model
(Knobloch and Theiss, 2014) focus more narrowly on specific circumstances
facing military families (e.g., grief situations for ambiguous loss frameworks;
transitions embedded in the deployment cycle for the relational turbulence
model). In sum, scholars seeking to investigate the relationship functioning
of military families have their choice of theories pitched at multiple levels of
abstraction.
Perhaps most germane to our analysis is the fact that the four theories
incorporate signature features of military culture with varying degrees of sophis-
tication. Family stress theory (Hill, 1949) and ambiguous loss frameworks
(Wiens and Boss, 2006) trace their roots to military family life, so their premises
are explicitly tailored to the lifestyle of service members, their romantic partners,
and their children. Scholars applying the relational turbulence model to military
couples have made some strides in tailoring the theory’s key constructs to the
issues salient to service members and their romantic partners (e.g., Knobloch
and Theiss, 2012), but work is left to be done to fully integrate its tenets with
features of military culture. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982) is the least overtly
tied to military culture among the four theories presented in this chapter.
Despite its lack of integration with military culture, however, attachment theory
has demonstrated remarkable utility for predicting who will be resilient to the
demands of military life (e.g., Medway et al., 1995; Troxel and Germain, 2011).
Clearly, all four theories show substantial promise for shedding light on the
link between military culture and relationship functioning.
Exciting avenues for future research stem from ways that the four theories
could better assimilate military culture into their logic. Attachment theory, for
74 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

example, could be used to examine whether people with certain attachment

orientations are more attracted to (and perform better under) an authoritarian
structure. It also could be employed to gauge people’s propensity to worry
about the risk of disaster, injury, and death in conjunction with military
service. Family stress theory could consider the role played by the warrior
identity in how military personnel, their romantic partners, and their children
appraise potentially stressful situations. Ambiguous loss frameworks, for their
part, could examine the primacy of the mission as an attitude that may
contribute to family members’ sense of ambiguous presence (e.g., the service
member is “there but not there”). Finally, the relational turbulence model is
well positioned to expand beyond the deployment cycle to understand how
military families interact during the transitions generated by geographic mobi-
lity. We encourage scholars to build on these suggestions to better integrate
military culture into theory-driven programs of research on the relationship
functioning of military families.
Another agenda item is to capitalize on the implications of these theories
for education, prevention, and intervention efforts. Attachment theory sug-
gests that the resilience of military family members could be enhanced by
cultivating attachment security to the extent that it is malleable (e.g., Elin-Dor
et al., 2010). Family stress theory implies that community outreach programs
should be devoted to providing tangible resources and optimizing the hope-
fulness of service members, their romantic partners, and their children (e.g.,
Huebner, 2009; Wiens and Boss, 2006). Ambiguous loss frameworks hint that
military families could be more successful if they were trained to establish
presence more effectively during times of both separation and togetherness
(e.g., Faber et al., 2008; Huebner et al., 2007; see also Maguire et al., 2013). The
relational turbulence model indicates that people could negotiate times of
transition more effectively if they worked to resolve their relational uncertainty
and troubleshoot potential areas of interference in their daily routines (e.g.,
Knobloch and Theiss, 2011; Theiss and Knobloch, 2014). We look forward
to future scholarship that employs these theories to derive evidence-based
guidelines to help military families thrive in the midst of their unique culture.

conclusion
Our objective was to encourage scholars examining the relationship function-
ing of military families to be more attuned to the central values of military
culture. We started by explicating five characteristics that embody the military
lifestyle: (a) a warrior identity, (b) an authoritarian structure, (c) the primacy
of the mission, (d) geographic mobility and periodic separations, and (e) the
risk of disaster, injury, and death. We noted that these aspects of military
culture can be both functional and dysfunctional for people’s ability to main-
tain rewarding interpersonal relationships (e.g., Hall, 2008; 2011a; Sherman and
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 75

Bowling, 2011). Next, we explicated four theories of relationship functioning

that have been applied to military families and examined by empirical research:
(a) attachment theory, (b) family stress theory, (c) ambiguous loss frameworks,
and (d) the relational turbulence model. In a final section, we tied the two
halves of the chapter together by providing our recommendations for how the
theories can progress with more attention to the features of military culture.
We hope our analysis proves fruitful both for advancing the literature on the
relationship functioning of military families and for spurring insights to help
military personnel, their romantic partners, and their children sustain satisfy-
ing interpersonal ties while so generously serving their country.

references
Adams, G. A., Durand, D. B., Burrell, L., Teitelbaum, J. M., Pehrson, K. L., and
Hawkins, J. P. (2005). Direct and indirect effects of operations tempo on outcomes
for soldiers and spouses. Military Psychology, 17, 229–246.
Adams, G. A., Durand, D. B., and Castro, C. A. (2006). The impact of military lifestyle
demands on well-being, Army, and family outcomes. Armed Forces and Society,
33, 43–58.
Allen, E. S., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., and Markman, H. J. (2010). Hitting home:
relationships between recent deployment, posttraumatic stress symptoms,
and marital functioning for Army couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 24,
280–288.
Badr, H., Barker, T. M., and Milbury, K. (2011). Couples’ psychosocial adaptation to
combat wounds and injuries. In S. MacDermid Wadsworth and D. Riggs (eds.),
Risk and resilience in U.S. military families (pp. 213–234). New York: Springer.
Basham, K. (2008). Homecoming as safe haven or the new front: attachment and
detachment in military couples. Clinical Social Work Journal, 36, 83–96.
Bonanno, G. A., Mancini, A. D., Horton, J. L., Powell, T. M., LeardMann, C. A.,
Boyko, E. J., . . . Smith, T. C. (2012). Trajectories of trauma symptoms and resili-
ence in deployed U.S. military service members: prospective cohort study. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 200, 317–323.
Boss, P. (1999). Ambiguous loss: learning to live with ambiguous grief. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
(2002). Family stress management: a contextual approach, 2nd edn. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
(2006). Loss, trauma, and resilience: therapeutic work with ambiguous loss. New
York: W. W. Norton.
Boss, P., Beaulieu, L., Wieling, E., Turner, W., and LaCruz, S. (2003). Healing loss,
ambiguity, and trauma: a community-based intervention with families of union
workers missing after the 9/11 attack in New York City. Journal of Marriage and
Family Therapy, 29, 455–467.
Bowen, G. L., Orthner, D. K., and Zimmerman, L. I. (1993). Family adaptation of single
parents in the United States Army: an empirical analysis of work stressors and
adaptive resources. Family Relations, 42, 293–304.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books.
(1980). Attachment and loss, Vol. 3: Loss. New York: Basic Books.
(1982). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment, 2nd edn. New York: Basic Books.
76 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

Bowling, U. B., and Sherman, M. D. (2008). Welcoming them home: supporting service
members and their families in navigating the tasks of reintegration. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 451–458.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., and Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: an integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson and S. Rholes (eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.
Burrell, L. M., Adams, G. A., Durand, D. B., and Castro, C. A. (2006). The impact of
military lifestyle demands on well-being, army, and family outcomes. Armed
Forces and Society, 33, 45–58.
Cafferty, T. P., Davis, K. E., Medway, F. J., O’Hearn, R. E., and Chappell, K. D. (1994).
Reunion dynamics among couples separated during Operation Desert Storm:
an attachment theory analysis. In K. Bartholomew and D. Perlman (eds.),
Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 309–330). Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley.
Campbell, C. L., and Demi, A. S. (2000). Adult children of fathers missing in action
(MIA): an examination of emotional distress, grief, and family hardiness. Family
Relations, 49, 267–276.
Chandra, A., Burns, R. M., Tanielian, T., and Jaycox, L. H. (2011). Understanding the
deployment experience for children and youth from military families. In
S. MacDermid Wadsworth and D. Riggs (eds.), Risk and resilience in U.S. military
families (pp. 175–192). New York: Springer.
Chandra, A., Lara-Cinisomo, S., Jaycox, L. H., Tanielian, T., Burns, R. M., Ruder, T.,
and Han, B. (2010). Children on the homefront: the experience of children from
military families. Pediatrics, 125, 16–25.
Chandra, A., Lara-Cinisomo, S., Jaycox, L. H., Tanielian, T., Han, B., Burns, R. M., and
Ruder, T. (2011). Views from the homefront: the experiences of youth and spouses from
military families (Report No. TR-913-NMFA). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Chapin, M. G. (2004). Violence exposure in home and community: influence on post-
traumatic stress symptoms in Army recruits. Journal of Community Psychology, 32,
527–541.
Coll, J. E., Weiss, E. L., and Yarvis, J. S. (2011). No one leaves unchanged: insights for
civilian mental health care professionals into the military experience and culture.
Social Work in Health Care, 50, 487–500.
Collins, J. J. (1998). The complex context of American military culture: a practitioner’s
view. Washington Quarterly, 21, 213–228.
Cozza, S. J., Chun, R. S., and Polo, J. A. (2005). Military families and children during
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Psychiatric Quarterly, 76, 371–378.
Dieperink, M., Leskela, J., Thuras, P., and Engdahl, B. (2001). Attachment style
classification and posttraumatic stress disorder in former prisoners of war.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 374–378.
Dunivin, K. O. (1994). Military culture: change and continuity. Armed Forces and
Society, 20, 531–547.
Ein-Dor, T., Doron, G., Solomon, Z., Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P. R. (2010). Together
in pain: attachment-related dyadic processes and posttraumatic stress disorder.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 317–327.
Everson, R. B., and Camp, T. G. (2011). Seeing systems: an introduction to systemic
approaches with military families. In R. B. Everson and C. R. Figley (eds.), Families
under fire: systemic therapy with military families (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge.
Everson, R. B., Darling, C. A., and Herzog, J. R. (2013). Parenting stress among U.S.
Army spouses during combat-related deployments: the role of sense of coherence.
Child and Family Social Work, 18, 168–178.
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 77

Everson, R. B., and Herzog, J. R. (2011). Structural strategic approaches with Army
couples. In R. B. Everson and C. R. Figley (eds.), Families under fire: systemic
therapy with military families (pp. 55–78). New York: Routledge.
Everson, R. B., Herzog, J. R., and Haigler, L. A. (2011). Systemic therapy with adoles-
cents in Army families. In R. B. Everson and C. R. Figley (eds.), Families under fire:
systemic therapy with military families (pp. 79–97). New York: Routledge.
Faber, A. J., Willerton, E., Clymer, S. R., MacDermid, S. M., and Weiss, H. M. (2008).
Ambiguous absence, ambiguous presence: a qualitative study of military reserve
families in wartime. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 222–230.
Figley, C. R. (1993). Coping with stressors on the home front. Journal of Social Issues, 49,
51–71.
Flake, E. M., Davis, B. E., Johnson, P. L., and Middleton, L. S. (2009). The psychosocial
effects of deployment on military children. Journal of Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics, 30, 217–278.
Forbes, D., Parslow, R., Fletcher, S., McHugh, T., and Creamer, M. (2010). Attachment
style in the prediction of recovery following group treatment of combat veterans
with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198,
881–884.
Frey, L. M., Blackburn, K. M., Werner-Wilson, R. J., Parker, T., and Wood, N. D. (2011).
Posttraumatic stress disorder, attachment, and intimate partner violence in a
military sample: a preliminary analysis. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy: An
International Forum, 23, 218–230.
Ghafoori, B., Hierholzer, R. W., Howsepian, B., and Boardman, A. (2008). The role of
adult attachment, parental bonding, and spiritual love in the adjustment to
military trauma. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 9, 85–106.
Gibbons, S. W., Barnett, S. D., and Hickling, E. J. (2012). Family stress and posttrau-
matic stress: the impact of military operations on military health care providers.
Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 26, e31–e39.
Goodman, P., Turner, A., Agazio, J., Throop, M., Padden, D., Greiner, S., and
Hillier, S. L. (2013). Deployment of military mothers: supportive and nonsuppor-
tive military programs, processes, and policies. Military Medicine, 178, 729–734.
Gorman, G. H., Eide, M., and Hisle-Gorman, E. (2010). Wartime military deployment
and increased pediatric mental and behavioral health complaints. Pediatrics, 126,
1058–1066.
Gorman, L. A., Blow, A. J., Ames, B. D., and Reed, P. L. (2011). National Guard families
after combat: mental health, use of mental health services, and perceived treat-
ment barriers. Psychiatric Services, 62, 28–34.
Gottman, J. M., Gottman, J. S., and Atkins, C. L. (2011). The Comprehensive Soldier
Fitness Program: family skills component. American Psychologist, 66, 52–57.
Greene, T., Buckman, J., Dandeker, C., and Greenberg, N. (2010a). How communica-
tion with families can both help and hinder service members’ mental health and
occupational effectiveness on deployment. Military Medicine, 175, 745–749.
(2010b). The impact of culture clash on deployed troops. Military Medicine, 175,
958–963.
Hall, L. K. (2008). Counseling military families. New York: Routledge.
(2011a). The importance of understanding military culture. Social Work in Health
Care, 50, 4–18.
(2011b). The military culture, language, and lifestyle. In R. B. Everson and C. R. Figley
(eds.), Families under fire: systemic therapy with military families (pp. 31–52). New
York: Routledge.
78 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress: adjustment to the crises of war, separation and
return. Oxford: Harper.
(1958). Generic features of families under stress. Social Casework, 49, 139–150.
Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., and Koffman, R. L.
(2004). Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and
barriers to care. New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 13–22.
Howard, J. L. (2006). The role of culture in shaping perceptions of discrimination among
active duty and reserve forces in the U.S. military. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 18, 171–187.
Huebner, A. J. (2009). Exploring processes of family stress and adaptation: an expanded
model. In J. A. Mancini and K. A. Roberto (eds.), Pathways of human develop-
ment: explorations of change (pp. 227–242). New York: Lexington Books.
Huebner, A. J., Mancini, J. A., Wilcox, R. M., Grass, S. R., and Grass, G. A. (2007).
Parental deployment and youth in military families: exploring uncertainty and
ambiguous loss. Family Relations, 56, 112–122.
Joseph, A. L., and Afifi, T. D. (2010). Military wives’ stressful disclosures to their deployed
husbands: the role of protective buffering. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 38, 412–434.
Kelty, R., Kleykamp, M., and Segal, D. R. (2010). The military and the transition to
adulthood. The Future of Children, 20, 181–207.
Kim, P. Y., Thomas, J. L., Wilk, J. E., Castro, C. A., and Hoge, C. W. (2010). Stigma,
barriers to care, and use of mental health services among active duty and National
Guard soldiers after combat. Psychiatric Services, 61, 582–588.
Knobloch, L. K. (2007). Perceptions of turmoil within courtship: associations with
intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 363–384.
(2010). Relational uncertainty and interpersonal communication. In S. W. Smith and
S. R. Wilson (eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research
(pp. 69–93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Knobloch, L. K., and Delaney, A. L. (2012). Themes of relational uncertainty and
interference from partners in depression. Health Communication, 27, 750–765.
Knobloch, L. K., Ebata, A. T., McGlaughlin, P. C., and Ogolosky, B. (2013).
Depressive symptoms, relational turbulence, and the reintegration difficulty of
military couples following wartime deployment. Health Communication, 28,
754–766.
Knobloch, L. K., Ebata, A. T., McGlaughlin, P. C., and Theiss, J. A. (2013). Generalized
anxiety and relational uncertainty as predictors of topic avoidance during reinte-
gration following military deployment. Communication Monographs, 80, 452–477.
Knobloch, L. K., Pusateri, K. B., Ebata, A. T., and McGlaughlin, P. C. (in press a).
Communicative experiences of military youth during a parent’s return home
from deployment. Journal of Family Communication.
Knobloch, L. K., Pusateri, K. B., Ebata, A. T., and McGlaughlin, P. C. (in press b).
Experiences of military youth during a family member’s deployment: changes,
challenges, and opportunities. Youth and Society.
Knobloch, L. K., and Solomon, D. H. (2004). Interference and facilitation from partners
in the development of interdependence within romantic relationships. Personal
Relationships, 11, 115–130.
Knobloch, L. K., and Theiss, J. A. (2010). An actor–partner interdependence model of
relational turbulence: cognitions and emotions. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 27, 595–619.
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 79

(2011). Depressive symptoms and mechanisms of relational turbulence as predictors

of relationship satisfaction among returning service members. Journal of Family
Psychology, 25, 470–478.
(2012). Experiences of U.S. military couples during the post-deployment transition:
applying the relational turbulence model. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 29, 423–450.
(2014). Relational turbulence within military couples during reintegration following
deployment. In S. MacDermid Wadsworth and D. Riggs (eds.), Military
deployment and its consequences for families. New York: Springer.
Langston, V., Gould, M., and Greenberg, N. (2007). Culture: what is its effect on stress
in the military? Military Medicine, 172, 931–935.
Laser, J. A., and Stephens, P. M. (2011). Working with military families through deploy-
ment and beyond. Clinical Social Work Journal, 39, 28–38.
Lester, P., Peterson, K., Reeves, J., Knauss, L., Glover, D., Mogil, C., . . . Beardslee, W.
(2010). The long war and parental combat deployments: effects on military
children and at-home spouses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 310–320.
Lowe, K. N., Adams, K. S., Browne, B. L., and Hinkle, K. T. (2012). Impact of military
deployment on family relationships. Journal of Family Studies, 18, 17–27.
MacDermid Wadsworth, S. M. (2010). Family risk and resilience in the context of war
and terrorism. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 537–556.
Maguire, K. C., Heinemann-LaFave, D., and Sahlstein, E. (2013). “To be so connected,
yet not at all”: relational presence, absence, and maintenance in the context of a
wartime deployment. Western Journal of Communication, 77, 249–271.
Mansfield, A. J., Kaufman, J. S, Marshall, S. W., Gaynes, B. N., Morrissey, J. P., and
Engel, C. C. (2010). Deployment and the use of mental health services among U.S.
Army wives. New England Journal of Medicine, 362, 101–109.
McCubbin, H. I., and Figley, C. R. (1983). Bridging normative and catastrophic family
stress. In C. R. Figley and H. McCubbin (eds.), Stress and the family, Vol. 1: Coping
with normative transitions (pp. 218–228). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
McCubbin, H. I., and Patterson, J. M. (1983a). The family stress process: the double
ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. In H. I. McCubbin, M. B. Sussman,
and J. M. Patterson (eds.), Social stress and the family: advances and developments
in family stress theory and research (pp. 7–37). New York: Haworth.
(1983b). The family stress process: the double ABCX model of adjustment and
adaptation. Marriage and Family Review, 6, 7–37.
McNulty, P. A. F. (2005). Reported stressors and health care needs of active duty Navy
personnel during three phases of deployment in support of the war in Iraq.
Military Medicine, 170, 530–535.
Medway, F. J., Davis, K. E., Cafferty, T. P., Chappell, K. D., and O’Hearn, R. E. (1995).
Family disruption and adult attachment correlates of spouse and child reactions to
separation and reunion due to Operation Desert Storm. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 14, 97–118.
Merolla, A. J. (2010). Relational maintenance during military deployment: perspectives
of wives of deployed US soldiers. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38,
4–26.
Mikulincer, M., and Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal of and coping with a real-life stressful
situation: the contribution of attachment styles. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 406–414.
80 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: structure, dynamics,

and change. New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, H. B., Miller, L., and Bjorklund, D. (2010). Helping military children cope with
parental deployment: role of attachment theory and recommendations for mental
health clinicians and counselors. International Journal of Emergency Mental
Health, 12, 231–236.
Milliken, C. S., Auchterlonie, J. L., and Hoge, C. W. (2007). Longitudinal assessment
of mental health problems among active and reserve component soldiers
returning from the Iraq war. Journal of the American Medical Association,
298, 2141–2148.
Nelson Goff, B. S., Crow, J. R., Reisbig, A. M. J., and Hamilton, S. (2007). The impact of
individual trauma symptoms of deployed soldiers on relationship satisfaction.
Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 344–353.
Newby, J. H., McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Fan, Z., Shigemura, J., and Tucker-Harris,
Y. (2005). Positive and negative consequences of a military deployment. Military
Medicine, 170, 815–819.
Palmer, C. (2008). A theory of risk and resilience factors in military families. Military
Psychology, 20, 205–217.
Park, N. (2011). Military children and families: strengths and challenges during peace
and war. American Psychologist, 66, 65–72.
Patterson, J. M., and McCubbin, H. I. (1984). Gender roles and coping. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 46, 95–104.
Peebles-Kleiger, M. J., and Kleiger, J. H. (1994). Re-integration stress for Desert Storm
families: wartime deployments and family trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7,
173–194.
Pfefferbaum, B., Houston, J. B., Sherman, M. D., and Melson, A. G. (2011). Children of
National Guard troops deployed in the Global War on Terrorism. Journal of Loss
and Trauma, 16, 291–305.
Pincus, S. H., House, R., Christenson, J., and Adler, L. E. (2001). The emotional cycle of
deployment: a military family perspective. US Army Medical Department Journal,
15–23.
Pittman, J. F., and Bowen, G. L. (1994). Adolescents on the move: adjustment to family
relocation. Youth and Society, 26, 69–91.
Posada, G., Longoria, N., Cocker, C., and Lu, T. (2011). Attachment ties in military
families: mothers’ perceptions of interactions with their children, stress, and social
competence. In S. MacDermid Wadsworth and D. Riggs (eds.), Risk and resilience
in U.S. military families (pp. 131–147). New York: Springer.
Reger, M. A., Etherage, J. R., Reger, G. M., and Gahm, G. A. (2008). Civilian psychol-
ogists in an Army culture: the ethical challenge of cultural competence. Military
Psychology, 20, 21–35.
Renaud, E. F. (2008). The attachment characteristics of combat veterans with PTSD.
Traumatology, 14, 1–12.
Riggs, S. A., and Riggs, D. S. (2011). Risk and resilience in military families experiencing
deployment: the role of the family attachment network. Journal of Family
Psychology, 25, 675–687.
Sahlstein, E., Maguire, K. C., and Timmerman, L. (2009). Contradictions and praxis
contextualized by wartime deployment: wives’ perspectives revealed through rela-
tional dialectics. Communication Monographs, 76, 421–442.
Sayers, S. L. (2011). Family reintegration difficulties and couples therapy for military
veterans and their spouses. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 18, 108–119.
 Family relationships embedded in US military culture 81

Segal, M. W. (1986). The military and the family as greedy institutions. Armed Forces
and Society, 13, 9–38.
Sheppard, S. C., Malatras, J. W., and Israel, A. C. (2010). The impact of deployment on
U.S. military families. American Psychologist, 65, 599–609.
Sherman, M., and Bowling, U. (2011). Challenges and opportunities for intervening with
couples in the aftermath of the global war on terrorism. Journal of Contemporary
Psychotherapy, 41, 209–217.
Silva, J. M. (2008). A new generation of women? How female ROTC cadets negotiate
the tension between masculine military culture and traditional femininity. Social
Forces, 87, 937–960.
Skidmore, W. C., and Roy, M. (2011). Practical considerations for addressing substance
use disorders in veterans and service members. Social Work in Health Care, 50,
85–107.
Solomon, D. H., and Knobloch, L. K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: the role
of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of
irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 795–816.
Solomon, D. H., and Theiss, J. A. (2008). A longitudinal test of the relational turbulence
model of romantic relationship development. Personal Relationships, 15, 339–357.
(2011). Relational turbulence: what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. In W. R. Cupach
and B. H. Spitzberg (eds.), The dark side of close relationships II (pp. 197–216). New
York: Routledge.
Solomon, D. H., Weber, K. M., and Steuber, K. R. (2010). Turbulence in relational
transitions. In S. W. Smith and S. R. Wilson (eds.), New directions in interpersonal
communication research (pp. 115–134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Solomon, Z., Ginzburg, K., Mikulincer, M., Neria, Y., and Ohry, A. (1998). Coping with
war captivity: the role of attachment style. European Journal of Personality, 12,
271–285.
Steuber, K. R., and Solomon, D. H. (2008). Relational uncertainty, partner interference,
and infertility: a qualitative study of discourse within online forums. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 831–855.
(2012). Relational uncertainty, partner interference, and privacy boundary turbu-
lence: explaining spousal discrepancies in infertility disclosures. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 29, 3–27.
Theiss, J. A., Estlein, R., and Weber, K. M. (2013). A longitudinal assessment of relation-
ship characteristics that predict new parents’ relationship satisfaction. Personal
Relationships, 20, 216–235.
Theiss, J. A., and Knobloch, L. K. (2014). Relational turbulence and the post-
deployment transition: self, partner, and relationship focused turbulence.
Communication Research, 41, 27–51.
Troxel, W. M., and Germain, A. (2011). Insecure attachment is an independent correlate
of objective sleep disturbances in military veterans. Sleep Medicine, 12, 860–865.
Ulmer, W. F., Jr., Collins, J. J., and Jacobs, T. O. (2000). American military culture in the
twenty-first century. Washington, DC: CSIS Press.
Vormbrock, J. K. (1993). Attachment theory as applied to wartime and job-related
marital separation. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 122–144.
Weber, K. M., and Solomon, D. H. (2008). Locating relationship and communication
issues among stressors associated with breast cancer. Health Communication, 23,
548–559.
Wertsch, M. E. (1991). Military brats: legacies of childhood inside the fortress. New York:
Harmony Books.
82 Leanne K. Knobloch and Erin C. Wehrman

Wiens, T. W., and Boss, P. (2006). Maintaining family resiliency before, during,
and after military separation. In C. A. Castro, A. B. Adler, and T. W. Britt (eds.),
Military life: the psychology of serving in peace and combat, Vol. 3 (pp. 13–38).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Willerton, E., MacDermid Wadsworth, S., and Riggs, D. (2011). Military families under
stress: what we know and what we need to know. In S. MacDermid Wadsworth
and D. Riggs (eds.), Risk and resilience in U.S. military families (pp. 1–20). New
York: Springer.
Zakin, G., Solomon, Z., and Neria, Y. (2003). Hardiness, attachment style, and long
term psychological distress among Israeli POWs and combat veterans. Personality
and Individual Differences, 34, 819–829.
 4

Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships:

implications for relational and personal health outcomes
justin j. lehmiller and michael ioerger

People around the world have more freedom today than ever before to pursue
romantic and sexual relationships with the persons of their choosing. However,
despite greater social acceptance of diverse relationship types, not all relationship
variations are seen as equally valid. For instance, although interracial marriage is
legal in the United States, contemporary public opinion polls have found that as
many as two out of five Americans would not accept a family member marrying
someone outside of their own race (Wang, 2012). Some US churches have even
gone as far as to refuse the wishes of parishioners of different races to marry in
recent years (Estep, 2011). Same-sex couples are the targets of perhaps even more
widespread discrimination. In the United States alone, thirty-one of the fifty
states enacted constitutional amendments banning formal legal recognition of
same-sex relationships between 1998 and 2012. In discussions about the legal
standing of same-sex couples, many people have argued that same-sex marriage
should not be legalized because it is a “slippery slope” toward recognition of non-
monogamous unions (Dolan, 2011). Non-monogamous relationships are one of
the few romantic arrangements that evoke even greater social disdain than gay
and lesbian partnerships (Conley et al., 2013).
Of course, there are many other types of relationships beyond those
mentioned above that can be the targets of social stigma (e.g., age-gap, inter-
cultural, or interreligious relationships). All of these variations share a com-
mon bias that stems from some aspect of the relationship itself. Outside of their
relationship, these individuals may not be subject to other forms of bias in their
everyday life (e.g., someone involved in an interracial relationship may only
feel stigmatized when their partner is known to others). In this respect,
relationship status can be viewed as a distinct social identity that is independ-
ent of other personal identities an individual might possess (Brewer, 2008).
Socially marginalized relationships are common in the Western world. For
instance, US census data reveal that just over 8 percent of marriages are inter-
racial (Wang, 2012), while 8 percent could be classified as age-gap (i.e., charac-
terized by an age difference of more than ten years between the partners; US

83
84 Justin J. Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger

Census Bureau, 1999). Age-gap relationships make up an identical 8 percent of

heterosexual marriages in Canada (Boyd and Li, 2003). Same-sex relationships
are also common, with an estimated 650,000 same-sex couples living together in
the US (Gates, 2013) and about 199,000 gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons in the
UK reporting marriages or civil partnerships (Joloza et al., 2010). Given how
ubiquitous marginalized relationships are today, researchers have increasingly
begun to study the implications of this unique form of bias. A variety of studies
suggest that when one’s relationship is marginalized, both the quality of the
relationship and the health of the partners involved suffer. The goal of this
chapter is to review the literature addressing the implications of prejudice and
discrimination in the context of intimate relationships. We will also identify
limitations of this research with the goal of setting an ambitious agenda for future
study.

marginalized relationships and stigmatized

relationship status
Marginalized relationships are defined as “nontraditional, romantic involve-
ments in which couple members experience social disapproval as a result of
their union” (Lehmiller and Agnew, 2006, p. 41). Such relationships are
typically seen as possessing at least one characteristic that makes the partner-
ship stand apart from the prototypical or traditional couple in a given culture
or society. In other words, there is something about the pairing of the individ-
uals that violates a social norm or expectation. Another way to think about this
is that human beings have a strong tendency to select partners who are similar
to them in most ways. The relationships that are subject to the highest levels of
disapproval frequently counter this tendency, in that the partners are highly
dissimilar on a salient characteristic that has important social meaning (e.g.,
race, age, religion, social class). In such cases, it is the couple itself that is
devalued due to the combined characteristics of the partners (Conley and
Rabinowitz, 2009). The individuals themselves are not necessarily stigmatized
or viewed differently, although they could certainly be subject to bias in other
contexts depending upon the other personal identities they might possess (e.g.,
a devalued racial or sexual minority status).
This definition obviously encompasses a wide range of relationships, many of
which were highlighted at the outset of this chapter (e.g., interracial, same-sex,
age-gap, interreligious, mixed social class). Of course, these relationships differ in
numerous ways, including the relative intensity of the bias they elicit and the
underlying reason for it (e.g., religion versus expectancy violation), not to men-
tion the potential ability of the individuals involved to reverse their marginalized
status by starting a new relationship. For instance, such an option is available to
heterosexual age-gap and interracial partners, who could simply select a new
partner of their desired sex who is more similar to them; in contrast, gay and
 Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships 85

lesbian persons would be marginalized no matter which member of their desired

sex they become romantically involved with. The one thing these relationships
share in common is a lack of social acceptance. For instance, large segments of the
population report holding negative attitudes toward interracial (Wang, 2012),
same-sex (Newport, 2004), and age-gap couples (Banks and Arnold, 2001). These
attitudes are obvious to the people involved in marginalized relationships, who
typically report feeling a lack of social approval and acceptance compared to
couples whose characteristics are more reflective of contemporary social norms
(Lehmiller and Agnew, 2006).
The focus of virtually all research on marginalized relationships has been
on dyadic arrangements; however, it is important to note that non-
monogamous relationships are also subject to such bias. For instance, research
has found that people rate non-monogamous relationships as substantially less
positive than monogamous relationships (Conley et al., 2013). In fact, this bias
is so pervasive that people who practice non-monogamy are evaluated
poorly even on completely arbitrary traits that are irrelevant to their relation-
ship (e.g., likelihood of taking a multivitamin and flossing on a daily basis;
Conley et al., 2013). This suggests that when bias against a relationship is
particularly strong, it may even color perceptions of the individuals involved.
In addition to focusing primarily on dyadic involvements, past research on
marginalized relationships has restricted itself to considering only cases where
someone is part of an active relationship; however, it is quite clearly the case
that the absence of a current relationship can also be socially stigmatized. For
instance, both single (DePaulo and Morris, 2006; Greitemeyer, 2009) and
divorced persons (Savaya and Cohen, 2003) are the victims of negative stereo-
types and may find themselves subject to discrimination as a result of possess-
ing a “deficient” relationship identity. That is, because most people view
marriage and family as the ultimate goal in life, people who lack this achieve-
ment (or who are seen as having “failed” at it) are seen as incomplete (DePaulo
and Morris, 2005). In this chapter, we therefore extend the definition of
“marginalized relationships” to include any type of relationship-relevant state
that triggers bias. Thus, our perspective is much broader than what appears in
any previously published work in that it includes stigmatization based upon the
lack of a current relationship and the way a previous relationship ended, as
well as stigmatization that occurs in the context of non-dyadic and non-
monogamous relationships.
There are several important effects of having a relationship or relationship
state that is socially marginalized. For one thing, it can diminish the quality of
one’s current relationship. Beyond that, however, there may also be detrimen-
tal impact on one’s physical and psychological health. Below, we review the
implications of perceived relationship approval and disapproval for the rela-
tionship itself, and then turn to a discussion of the associations these variables
have with physical and psychological health at the individual level.
86 Justin J. Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger

implications for relationship quality

Several decades of research in social psychology and other fields has revealed
that when a relationship enjoys social approval and acceptance, it tends to
thrive (see Sinclair and Ellithorpe, this volume). In contrast, when a relation-
ship is socially devalued and rejected, it suffers. In this section, we review the
literature on how perceived relationship approval and disapproval are associ-
ated with relationship outcomes.

Social acceptance
A variety of studies have demonstrated that higher levels of social acceptance
for one’s relationship are linked to better outcomes. “Social acceptance” has
been operationalized in a number of ways in the literature, including social
support (Sprecher, 1988; Sprecher and Felmlee, 1992), social prescription (Cox
et al., 1997), and subjective norms (Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004; Etcheverry,
Le, and Charania, 2008). Social support and social prescription are alike in
being conceptualized as the degree to which one’s friends and family approve
of the relationship and desire for it to continue. Subjective norms is a more
complex construct that considers your perceptions of whether other people
think you “should” stay in your relationship, as well as the degree to which you
are motivated to do what these other people tell you.
Regardless of what it is called and how it is defined, these different forms of
social acceptance are typically linked to greater commitment and relationship
persistence. In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that social network support is
one of the strongest predictors of whether a relationship lasts over time (Le
et al., 2010). Of importance, while most research conducted on this topic has
focused largely on the impact of social acceptance within heterosexual dating
relationships, research on same-sex couples has yielded similar effects (e.g.,
Elizur and Mintzer, 2003; Kurdek, 1988; 2004), indicating that this is a general-
izable phenomenon.

Perceived marginalization and relationship secrecy

Whereas variables assessing social acceptance have been linked to positive
relationship outcomes, variables assessing social rejection have been linked to
poor outcomes, including breakup. For example, consider research on per-
ceived marginalization, which is defined as a perceived lack of relationship
approval and acceptance by one’s social network and society at large (Lehmiller
and Agnew, 2006). Perceived marginalization is a unique construct in that it
takes into account not only the views of one’s family and friends, but also the
broader perspective of the societal and cultural context. Research has found
that perceived marginalization is negatively associated with relationship
 Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships 87

commitment (i.e., greater perceived disapproval is linked to less desire to stay

in the relationship) across several different types of relationships, including
those that are same-sex, interracial, or age-gap (Lehmiller and Agnew, 2006).
Of importance, this effect holds even when controlling for several potent
predictors of commitment (i.e., satisfaction, alternatives, and investments).
Moreover, results of a seven-month longitudinal follow-up study of perceived
marginalization revealed that Time 1 levels of perceived social disapproval
predicted a greater likelihood of Time 2 relationship dissolution (Lehmiller
and Agnew, 2007). Level of Time 1 commitment accounted for this association,
suggesting that perceived marginalization may undermine a relationship by
reducing or limiting the degree to which the partners become committed to
one another. Furthermore, this study revealed that among those who stayed in
their relationships over time, initial levels of marginalization predicted future
decreases in commitment. This study is not alone in finding that marginalized
couples may be at a greater risk of breakup. For instance, Bratter and King
(2008) found that, compared to white same-race couples, couples consisting of
a white woman and a man of color were more likely to end in divorce.
Although the above research suggests a direct link between perceived
marginalization and relationship outcomes, it may be the case that the effects
of this variable occur through other factors, such as relationship secrecy. People
in marginalized relationships often make an effort to conceal their relationship
status from others, presumably to at least partially shield themselves from social
rejection. For instance, it is well known that interracial (Brown, 1989; Killian,
2002) and same-sex couples (e.g., LaSala, 2000; Patterson, 2000) often hide their
relationships from others. Likewise, relationship concealment is common among
partners who differ from one another substantially in terms of age, social class,
and religious background (Lehmiller, 2008).
Several studies have found that relationship secrecy is associated with
lower relationship quality. For example, Foster and Campbell (2005) found
that secret relationship partners reported less love for one another, lower levels
of sexual attraction, and less distress about the thought of breaking up com-
pared to partners who were open about their relationships. These lower levels
of relationship quality appeared to be at least partially explained by the fact that
secret relationship partners reported feeling as though their relationship was
difficult and relatively burdensome to coordinate. A subsequent study revealed
that this was the case in both short- and long-term secret relationships (Foster,
Foster, and Campbell, 2010), indicating that maintaining relationship secrecy is
challenging right from the start.
Other research on relationship secrecy has found that concealing a rela-
tionship is associated with lower levels of cognitive interdependence (i.e., the
psychological sense that your partner is a central and important figure in your
own life; Agnew et al., 1998; Agnew and Etcheverry, 2006) and commitment
(Lehmiller, 2009). Furthermore, some studies suggest that the mental strain of
88 Justin J. Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger

secrecy could potentially damage one’s relationship by lowering self-control

resources. Specifically, relationship secrecy depletes self-control abilities, and
this, in turn, may enhance the temptation to cheat on one’s partner (Lehmiller,
2011a).
Consistent with all of the above findings, a one-year longitudinal study
revealed that greater levels of relationship secrecy predicted an increased like-
lihood of future breakup (Lehmiller, 2011b). Along these same lines, a study by
Wang, Kao, and Joyner (2006) revealed that adolescent interracial couples
were less likely to disclose their relationship status to their families and were
more likely to break up compared to their counterparts involved in same-race
relationships. Together, all of these research findings suggest that secrecy
provides a plausible mediating mechanism through which perceived margin-
alization could potentially impact relationship outcomes.

Institutionalized marginalization
People involved in socially marginalized relationships sometimes face institu-
tional devaluation through cultural norms, laws, and government policies. This
process of institutional marginalization creates a system in which certain roman-
tic partners are denied rights and privileges because they are viewed less favorably
than others. In recent United States history, this form of marginalization was
expressed through state and federal laws prohibiting or restricting interracial
marriage (e.g. Villazor, 2011). Additionally, this type of institutionally ingrained
marginalization currently impacts interfaith relationships abroad (e.g., Connolly,
2009) and same-sex relationships in both the US and a number of other countries
(e.g., Ducharme and Kollar, 2012). Many cultures also restrict marriage to two
persons, thereby institutionalizing and elevating monogamy over all forms of
non-monogamy. Institutionalized discrimination of this sort has the potential to
impair relationship quality.
For instance, Fingerhut and Maisel (2010) found that relationship outcomes
of same-sex couples are related to their ability to receive formal social and legal
recognition of their relationships. Specifically, among same-sex couples who had
not yet formalized their relationships, gay-related stressors were negatively corre-
lated with relationship satisfaction; however, among those who had formalized
their relationship, no such association emerged. This suggests that having the
opportunity to make a formal commitment may buffer same-sex couples from
certain types of stress, thereby potentially enhancing their romantic outcomes.
However, as of this chapter’s publication this option is not available to most
same-sex couples in the United States (most states have constitutionally banned
same-sex marriages) or in many other parts of the world.
That said, marginalized couples who do not have the option to formalize
their relationship are not necessarily doomed. Many of these couples are very
open and vocal about their relationship status and, even in the face of blatant
 Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships 89

prejudice and discrimination, some of them have exceptionally high-quality

relationships that stand the test of time. It appears that some couples are able
to turn their experiences with stigma into an opportunity to reaffirm their
commitment to one another, which can bring the partners closer and strengthen
their relationship (Frost, 2011). However, why some marginalized couples are
more resilient than others is not entirely clear, and we will return to this issue
toward the end of this chapter.

Summary
Our perceptions of what family, friends, and society think about our romantic
and sexual relationships carry a lot of weight when it comes to relationship
outcomes. Specifically, we tend to be more content with and committed to our
partners when our relationships are socially validated, and we appear more
inclined to leave our partners when our relationship is actively devalued. In
addition, marginalized relationships appear to face a tough road regardless of
whether the partners reveal their relationship status, because secrecy poses a
whole other set of challenges. Nonetheless, it appears that some individuals
learn to manage the stress and strain of social disapproval and secrecy more
effectively than others.

implications for personal health

When romantic relationships are socially validated, couple members tend to
experience better physical and psychological health. In comparison, partners in
socially marginalized relationships tend to experience worse health outcomes.
This is consistent with the broader literature in psychology indicating that
perceptions of bias resulting from other stigmatized social identities (e.g., a
devalued gender, racial, or sexual identity) are linked to worse health (for a
meta-analysis, see Pascoe and Smart-Richman, 2009). In this section, we review
the relevant literature linking relationship approval and disapproval to the health
of the partners involved.

Perceived support
Perceived social support not only is linked to higher relationship quality and
stability, but is also important for couple members’ health and well-being. As
some demonstration of this, Blair and Holmberg (2008) found that relation-
ship support from family and friends was associated with better mental (i.e.,
lower rates of anxiety and depression) and physical health (i.e., fewer reports of
health symptoms) among both same-sex and mixed-sex couples. This study
found that the health benefits of support were mediated through enhanced
relationship quality, suggesting that the effect of support on health occurs
90 Justin J. Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger

indirectly. Importantly, these findings appear to be generalizable across various

types of couples. However, social support is just one factor that can potentially
influence the health and well-being of partners in close relationships. Other
social factors such as interpersonal and institutional marginalization are also
related to negative health outcomes.

Perceived marginalization and relationship secrecy

People who experience marginalization as a result of their relationship status
report more negative physical and psychological health outcomes than people
who are in relationships that are more widely accepted. For instance, regardless
of whether a couple is stigmatized on the basis of being of the same sex, of
different races, or of very different ages, greater perceived marginalization of
one’s relationship is associated with worse physical and psychological health
outcomes for the individuals involved (Lehmiller, 2012). Additionally, per-
ceived relationship marginalization is associated with engaging in a greater
number of risky health behaviors, including more cigarette smoking and less
frequent condom use (Lehmiller, 2012).
There are several mechanisms that could account for the link between
marginalization and health. First, experiencing marginalization may convey to
couples that their relationship lacks social support, which can be distressing.
Such persons may experience negative health effects as a direct result of the
stress itself (e.g. Meyer, 2003; Slavin et al., 1991), or as a function of taking part
in risky behaviors as a means of coping with that stress (e.g. Martin, Tuch, and
Roman, 2003). A second mechanism through which marginalization may be
linked to health is through the depletion of self-control resources (Inzlicht,
McKay, and Aronson, 2006), which could potentially make it more challenging
for people to resist the urge to engage in risky health behaviors.
Finally, the effects of marginalization may occur through relationship
secrecy for some persons. As noted above, marginalized partners often conceal
their relationships from other people (Lehmiller, 2008). Relationship secrecy is
stressful and is associated with experiencing more negative personal health
outcomes, including lower levels of self-esteem and a greater number of physical
health symptoms (Lehmiller, 2009). Thus, people in marginalized relationships
may suffer negative health effects regardless of whether they are open about their
relationship and encounter blatant social disapproval, or whether they seek to
avoid such disapproval by trying to conceal their relationship.

Institutional marginalization
Government laws and policies that restrict or deny rights to people involved in
certain types of relationships can have a profound effect on the health and well-
being of the partners involved. The struggle by same-sex couples to obtain legal
 Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships 91

recognition and social acceptance of their relationships has been the subject of
most of the research examining the role of institutional marginalization on
couple members’ health outcomes.
The health of same-sex couples is inversely correlated with institution-
alized marginalization (i.e., as such marginalization increases, health out-
comes tend to decrease). Not only are there interpersonally policed social
norms to contend with, but there are also institutionalized policies, laws, and
procedures that act as additional stressors (Rostosky et al., 2007). One major
health-related institutionalized barrier is the inability of many same-sex
couples to have both partners covered by one partner’s employer-sponsored
health insurance. This disparity contributes to health care access issues for
gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, and it increases the financial burden for
same-sex couples (Ponce et al., 2010). Additionally, women in same-sex
relationships disproportionately report disparities in insurance coverage
and access, which contributes to lesbian and bisexual women being less likely
to undergo regular checkups and cancer screenings and, therefore, having
more unmet medical needs (Buchmueller and Carpenter, 2010; 2012; Heck,
Sell, and Gorin, 2006).
Legal recognition for same-sex relationships does not just provide same-
sex couples with more legal rights and protections, but is also positively related
to the health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. For instance, getting married,
or even simply having the right to marry, is related to increased feelings of
social inclusion for same-sex couples and improved physical and mental health
outcomes (Badgett, 2011; Buffie, 2011; Kertzner, 2012; King and Bartlett, 2006).
At the same time, while being open about one’s sexual orientation and relation-
ship has some positive effects, this openness can also increase family- and
work-related stress because of the overt prejudice and discrimination that
same-sex couples often face (Knoble and Linville, 2012). Additionally, fears
of marginalization can create discrepancies in the level of openness for each
person in the relationship, which may result in stress and tension for the couple
(Knoble and Linville, 2012).
With more same-sex couples having children through fertility treatments
or adoption, social support and relationship recognition is increasingly impor-
tant for the health of same-sex partners who are planning to become parents.
Undergoing fertility treatments or going through the adoption process is a
stressful process for any couple, but the marginalization that same-sex couples
often face may compound the stress and negative health effects experienced
during the transition to parenthood (Goldberg and Smith, 2011). This is
especially true for lesbian couples who utilize assisted reproductive technology
clinics, given that these facilities are traditionally heteronormative and have a
history of treating same-sex female couples poorly, thereby increasing stress
and making it difficult to cope with problems that may arise during pregnancy
(Chapman et al., 2012; Yager et al., 2010).
92 Justin J. Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger

Generality of effects
A lack of relational support and acceptance is negatively associated with health
for persons in a variety of relationships. This association is by no means limited
to gay and lesbian couples. For instance, couples in which at least one partner in
the relationship is HIV positive face pressure from HIV-related stigma, which is
negatively related to relationship satisfaction and stability at the couple level and
mental health outcomes at the individual level (Talley and Bettencourt, 2010).
Marginalization is also negatively associated with the psychological health of
members of interracial couples, who are impacted by the strain of mistreatment
and disapproval (Lincoln and Chae, 2010). Additionally, social disapproval can
become a barrier to receiving support for individuals in interracial relationships
when these relationships run into hard times (Potter and Thomas, 2012).
However, some interracial couples may fare worse than others. Research has
found that interracial couples report experiencing additional pressure from
deeply ingrained prejudices held toward specific racial groups, resulting in the
racial composition of the couple potentially being an additional health-related
factor. For example, there is evidence that marginalization and prejudice differ-
entially impacts couples where one partner is black, with these couples reporting
more depressive symptoms than other mixed-race or same-race couples
(Kroeger and Williams, 2011).
As previously noted, relationship marginalization can extend more broadly
to one’s relationship status, potentially influencing the health of people who are
not even currently in a romantic relationship, including individuals who are
single or divorced. Evidence suggests that single and divorced adults feel the
effects of marginalization and a lack of social support, which has implications for
their long-term health and well-being. As previously noted, being single is seen
as a deficit identity, which makes it hard for singles to view their relationship
status in a positive light (Reynolds, Wetherell, and Taylor, 2007). People with
this relationship status are frequently the victims of prejudice, discrimination,
and negative stereotypes (DePaulo and Morris, 2005; 2006; Greitemeyer, 2009),
and they experience immense pressure to conform to traditional life pathways
(Sharp and Ganong, 2011). Compounding these issues is the fact that people tend
to view discrimination against singles as more “legitimate” than other forms of
prejudice, which justifies providing preferential treatment to partnered individ-
uals (Morris, Sinclair, and DePaulo, 2007). People who are single as a result of
having gone through a divorce may face an additional level of bias in the form of
divorce stigma. Such stigma varies by geographic region, as do attitudes toward
divorce; however, in places where this stigma exists, divorcees tend to find
themselves with fewer social contacts (family, friends, and otherwise) once
their marriage has ended (Kalmijn and Uunk, 2007).
This pressure and lack of social support that singles face is linked to
reporting worse psychological well-being (i.e., higher levels of negative affect
 Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships 93

and lower levels of self-esteem; Bookwala and Fekete, 2009; Lehnart, Neyer,
and Eccles, 2010), and differences in end of life care and support (Carr and
Khodyakov, 2007; Clark et al., 2010). Of course, not all singles experience these
outcomes. Those who seek out more social relationships and obtain intimacy
through friendships appear able to mitigate some of the negative effects
(Budgeon, 2008). Likewise, divorcees who relocate after ending their relation-
ship tend to experience less stigmatization (Kalmijn and Uunk, 2007) and,
presumably, are likely to have better psychosocial adjustment.

Summary
Whether it is based upon relationship status or composition of the couple,
relationship marginalization can have a negative impact on physical and
psychological health. This marginalization can be manifested at the interper-
sonal level in social disapproval and a lack of social support, but it also reaches
the institutional level in the form of legal and other structural forms of
discrimination based upon relationship type and status. Regardless of source,
this additional stress and pressure may have important consequences for
relationship partners’ health.

directions for future research

The existing body of research on marginalized relationships has grown con-
siderably in recent years and has painted a relatively consistent portrait in
terms of how social rejection is associated with relationship and personal
health outcomes. Confidence in these findings is bolstered by the fact that
the studies comprise a range of methodologies, measures, and samples. That
said, there are a few important areas in which this work could be further
improved upon and expanded.

Establishing causality
First and foremost, the majority of the research in this area is correlational,
which means that we are limited in our ability to draw cause-and-effect
inferences. Do perceptions of relationship approval and disapproval truly
affect relationship quality and the health of the partners? Perhaps, but other
explanations are possible. For instance, some degree of rejection sensitivity
could be driving these associations. Rejection sensitivity is an individual differ-
ence characteristic that refers to a tendency to anticipate rejection, to perceive
it even in ambiguous situations, and to have an exaggerated reaction to
experiences with rejection (e.g., Feldman and Downey, 1994). Research has
found that rejection sensitive people tend to be less satisfied in their romantic
relationships and typically report lower self-esteem (Downey and Feldman,
94 Justin J. Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger

1996). Thus, to the extent that perceptions of relationship disapproval are at

least partially confounded with rejection sensitivity, a plausible case could be
made for reverse causality.
It is vital for future research to attempt to rule out this and other potential
alternative explanations by assessing and controlling for relevant individual
differences in survey work, but also by striving to incorporate more experi-
mental, longitudinal, and daily experience methods into their research designs
that could help to establish causality. Of course, experiments are particularly
difficult to implement in this context because it is challenging to manipulate
things like relationship marginalization in a lab-based setting in a way that has
a high degree of external validity (e.g., Cook and Campbell, 1979). However,
future researchers would be well-advised to consider ways of strengthening the
methods typically used to study this topic in order to address this common and
important criticism.

Measurement precision and clarification of mechanisms

The wide variability in measurement of relationship approval/disapproval is
sometimes cited as a strength of this research area because a relatively con-
sistent pattern of results has emerged despite the fact that researchers have
administered quite disparate measures (e.g., social support, subjective norms,
perceived marginalization). At the same time, however, this can also be viewed
as a weakness because it is unclear just how much overlap there is in these
measures and whether certain constructs might be more informative and
predictive of outcomes than others. There are several measurement issues
worth attending to here.
First, virtually all of the research on this topic has focused on the percep-
tion of approval or disapproval. This begs the question of whether other
people’s actual feelings about the relationship matter. It could be that perceived
and actual disapproval are redundant with one another, but it could also be
that each plays a unique role. For instance, perhaps perceived disapproval is
more consequential for psychological well-being than actual disapproval
because the emotional outcomes are likely to depend upon whether you
“feel” the bias, not whether such bias objectively exists. In contrast, actual
disapproval might be more consequential for physical well-being because it is
actual disapproval that produces stressful experiences with discrimination and
creates institutionalized barriers to health care. That said, it would be reason-
able to expect at least some degree of overlap between the effects of actual and
perceived disapproval.
Second, almost all of the research has concerned other people’s attitudes
toward the relationship, not their behaviors. Even the construct of “social
support” has been operationalized as perceptions of social network approval,
not as a measure of actual behavioral support (Sprecher, 1988; Sprecher and
 Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships 95

Felmlee, 1992). Thus, there remain questions of what role behaviors play in all
of this, such as when partners are actively discriminated against, insulted, or
attacked because of their relationship status. One might reasonably predict that
unsupportive behaviors might be more stressful than negative attitudes, but
this is an empirical question.
Third, to what extent does the source of relationship approval/disapproval
matter? Although most research has focused on the role of family and friends,
some work has gone further to consider the role of societal attitudes and
institutionalized discrimination. Some research has suggested that social net-
work attitudes tend to be more consequential with respect to relationship
outcomes (Lehmiller and Agnew, 2007), but it is unclear whether the same
holds true when considering personal health. When it comes to health, it could
be that institutionalized discrimination (a societal factor) may be most impor-
tant of all because it determines whether people have access to health care
when they need it and the quality of the care they receive. More attention to the
unique contributions of social network and societal influences, and whether
they predict different outcomes, is sorely needed.
In addition to enhancing measurement precision in this area, it would also
be useful to better explicate the mechanism(s) through which perceived mar-
ginalization might impact relationship and personal health outcomes. As
previously mentioned, one plausible explanation resides in the fact that margi-
nalized partners often conceal their relationships (Lehmiller, 2008). Research
indicates that keeping one’s relationship secret is linked to both lower relation-
ship quality (Foster and Campbell, 2005; Foster et al., 2010) and worse physical
and psychological health (Lehmiller, 2009).
Nonetheless, not everyone who is in a marginalized relationship ends up
hiding their relationship status. Many marginalized partners make no attempt
whatsoever to conceal their partnership, which means that secrecy is not the
only possible factor at play here. It could be the case that a more general stress
effect is responsible, such that perceptions of relationship disapproval generate
chronic negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, depression, guilt, fear) that color how
individuals feel about their partner and simultaneously undermine their
health. Consistent with this idea, a study of perceived marginalization found
that negative affect mediated the negative association between marginalization
and health outcomes even when controlling for levels of relationship secrecy
(Lehmiller, 2012).
Self-regulatory failure is another potential mechanism by which margin-
alization may exert its effects. Research has found that dealing with stigma in
general depletes self-control abilities (Inzlicht et al., 2006), and when our self-
control resources are weak we find it more difficult to resist unhealthy temp-
tations and impulses. To the extent that relationship-based stigma affects
self-control in a similarly negative way, marginalized partners may engage in
more behaviors that harm both their personal health and their relationship.
96 Justin J. Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger

Consistent with this idea, perceived marginalization is associated with engag-

ing in risky health behaviors such as cigarette smoking (Lehmiller, 2012).
Likewise, concealing one’s romantic relationship is associated with greater
temptation to cheat on one’s partner, and research has found that this effect
is mediated by reduced self-control (Lehmiller, 2011a). Thus, marginalization
may predispose partners to engage in behaviors that ultimately harm them-
selves or their relationships by virtue of depleting self-regulatory abilities.
Future research should consider these and other potential mediating
mechanisms (e.g., perhaps relationship marginalization is harmful because it
poses a threat to belongingness needs; Baumeister and Leary, 1995) in order to
clarify whether the effects of marginalization on outcomes are direct, indirect,
or a mixture of both. Of course, it is possible that multiple explanations may be
supported, and the mechanism may vary across relationship type as well as the
specific outcome variables under consideration.

Unpacking personal bias from relationship bias

Conley and Rabinowitz (2009) reported evidence from three separate studies
that people can devalue a dyadic relationship without necessarily devaluing the
partners involved in that specific relationship. These findings make it clear that
relationship bias is a unique form of prejudice that stems from the combined
characteristics of the partners, and not necessarily their individual traits.
However, Conley and Rabinowitz did not examine all possible types of margi-
nalized relationships; rather, they only considered perceptions of couples who
use condoms versus oral contraceptives, and age-gap couples versus same-age
couples. In other types of relationships (e.g., same-sex, interracial, interfaith), it
may be the case that bias against a personal identity of one or both partners is
what drives bias against the overall relationship. In the case of same-sex
couples in particular, it may be difficult to disentangle people’s overall attitudes
toward homosexuality from their attitude toward a specific couple. This begs
the question of whether the association between relationship marginalization
and health is at least partially an artifact of bias against couple members’
personal identities, at least for certain types of relationships. Indeed, we
know that being the victim of prejudice based upon a personal identity (e.g.,
racism, sexism, anti-gay prejudice) is stressful and linked to poor health out-
comes (Pascoe and Smart Richman, 2009), so this could serve as a viable
alternative explanation for why relationship-based prejudice is also linked to
health in certain types of relationships.
Some research on marginalized relationships has tried to address this by
controlling for the racial and sexual identity of the respondent, and doing so
does not appear to change the pattern of associations with health outcome
variables (Lehmiller, 2012). Likewise, Blair and Holmberg (2008) examined
perceived social network support for one’s relationship while controlling for
 Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships 97

perceived support for one’s sexual orientation, and found that it did not alter
their results. However, it could be the case that perceived attitudes toward
other personal identities (e.g., gender, race, religion) matter greatly. As a result,
future research in this area should take account of different forms of prejudice
and discrimination that individuals might experience as a result of their
personal identities in order to help us better understand whether relationship
bias is redundant, interactive, or synergistic with other forms of prejudice
encountered by the partners.

Focus on harm versus benefit

Most research on marginalized relationships has been deficits-oriented, mean-
ing that it has focused on the potentially negative effects of involvement in a
relationship that is socially devalued. However, we know that not all couples
respond negatively to marginalization and that, for some romantic partners,
coping with prejudice and stigma can actually make their relationship stronger
(Frost, 2011). Thus, future research might consider approaching the study of
these relationships from the perspective of positive psychology and examine
what it is that makes some partners better able to adapt to the stress and strain
of marginalization than others.
While individual differences in stress resiliency and other such factors
constitute one starting point, it might also be useful to consider the attributions
that couple members make for the negative attitudes and treatment they
encounter. For instance, if we look at the broader literature on perceived
discrimination as it pertains to race, gender, and sexual orientation, we see
that while it is usually harmful (Pascoe and Smart Richman, 2009), this is not
universally the case (Crocker and Major, 1989). In fact, some research suggests
that when an individual experiences poor outcomes, making attributions to
discrimination can potentially enhance self-esteem by deflecting blame away
from the self (Major, Kaiser, and McCoy, 2003). Thus, in the case of margi-
nalized relationships, attributions to discrimination could potentially be adap-
tive to the extent that they help the partners to see that the problem does not
reside within them or their relationship, but rather is external to them.

summary and conclusions

Across a wide range of relationships and relationship states, many people today
find themselves to be the targets of prejudice and stigma precisely because of
their romantic involvement or lack thereof. Research compiled by social
psychologists and other researchers over the past two decades has revealed
that when a given culture or society devalues a particular type of intimate
relationship or the lack of an intimate relationship, the people involved appear
to suffer. Specifically, partners in marginalized relationships tend to be less
98 Justin J. Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger

committed to one another and are more likely to end their relationships over
time. In addition, the targets of such bias report lower levels of physical and
psychological well-being compared to persons whose relationship status is
more widely accepted. The existing research to date has established that
relationship bias is a unique form of prejudice that is associated with a number
of important and consequential outcomes; however, a significant amount of
work remains to be done in terms of clarifying what this bias means, whether it
truly causes negative effects on individuals and their relationships, and the
mechanism by which those effects might occur.

references
Agnew, C. R., and Etcheverry, P. E. (2006). Cognitive interdependence: considering self-
in-relationship. In K. D. Vohs and E. J. Finkel (eds.), Self and relationships: connect-
ing intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 274–293). New York: Guilford.
Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., and Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive
interdependence: commitment and the mental representation of close relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954.
Badgett, M. V. L. (2011). Social inclusion and the value of marriage equality in
Massachusetts and the Netherlands. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 316–334.
Banks, C. A., and Arnold, P. (2001). Opinions towards sexual partners with a large age
difference. Marriage and Family Review, 33, 5–18.
Baumeister, R. F., and Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interper-
sonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
117, 497–529.
Blair, K. L., and Holmberg, D. (2008). Perceived social network support and well-being
in same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 25, 769–791.
Bookwala, J., and Fekete, E. (2009). The role of psychological resources in the affective
well-being of never-married adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
26, 411–428.
Boyd, M., and Li, A. (2003). May–December: Canadians in age-discrepant relation-
ships. Canadian Social Trends, 70, 29–33. Retrieved from www.statcan.gc.ca.
Bratter, J. L., and King, R. B. (2008). “But will it last?”: marital instability among
interracial and same-race couples. Family Relations, 57, 160–171.
Brewer, M. B. (2008). Social identity and close relationships. In J. P. Forgas and
J. Fitness (eds.), Social relationships: cognitive, affective, and motivational processes
(pp. 167–184). New York: Psychology Press.
Brown, P. (1989). Black–white interracial marriages: a historical analysis. Journal of
Intergroup Relations, 16, 26–36.
Buchmueller, T., and Carpenter, C. S. (2010). Disparities in health insurance coverage,
access, and outcomes for individuals in same-sex versus different-sex relation-
ships, 2000–2007. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 489–495.
(2012). The effect of requiring private employers to extend health benefits eligibility
to same-sex partners of employees: evidence from California. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 31, 388–403.
Budgeon, S. (2008). Couple culture and the production of singleness. Sexualities, 11,
301–325.
 Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships 99

Buffie, W. C. (2011). Public health implications of same-sex marriage. American Journal

of Public Health, 101, 986–990.
Carr, D., and Khodyakov, D. (2007). Health care proxies: whom do young old adults
choose and why? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48, 180–194.
Chapman, R., Wardrop, J., Zappia, T., Watkins, R., and Shields, L. (2012). The expe-
riences of Australian lesbian couples becoming parents: deciding, searching and
birthing. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21, 1878–1885.
Clark, M. A., Boehmer, U., Rogers, M. L., and Sullivan, M. (2010). Planning for future
care needs: experiences of unmarried heterosexual and sexual minority women.
Women and Health, 50, 599–617.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., and Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the
merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding non-normative romantic relationships.
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 1–30.
Conley, T. D., and Rabinowitz, J. L. (2009). The devaluation of relationships (not
individuals): the case of dyadic relationship stigmatization. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 39, 918–944.
Connolly, J. (2009). Forbidden intimacies: Christian–Muslin intermarriage in East
Kalimantan, Indonesia. American Ethnologist, 36, 492–506.
Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis
issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Cox, C. L., Wexler, M. O., Rusbult, C. E., and Gaines, S. O., Jr. (1997). Prescriptive
support and commitment processes in close relationships. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 60, 79–90.
Crocker, J., and Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: the self-protective
properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.
DePaulo, B. M., and Morris, W. L. (2005). Singles in society and in science.
Psychological Inquiry, 16, 57–83.
(2006). The unrecognized stereotyping and discrimination against singles. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 251–254.
Dolan, T. (2011). Some afterthoughts. Retrieved from http://blog.archny.org/?p=1349.
Downey, G., and Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343.
Ducharme, J. K., and Kollar, M. M. (2012). Does the “marriage benefit” extend to same-
sex union? Evidence from a sample of married lesbian couples in Massachusetts.
Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 580–591.
Elizur, Y., and Mintzer, A. (2003). Gay males’ intimate relationship quality: the roles of
attachment security, gay identity, social support, and income. Personal
Relationships, 10, 411–435.
Estep, B. (2011). Pike church takes stand against interracial couples. Retrieved from
www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-votes.html.
Etcheverry, P. E., and Agnew, C. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of
romantic relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11, 409–428.
Etchevery, P. E., Le, B., and Charania, M. R. (2008). Perceived versus reported social
referent approval and romantic relationship commitment and persistence.
Personal Relationships, 15, 281–295.
Feldman, S., and Downey, G. (1994). Rejection sensitivity as a mediator of the impact of
childhood exposure to family violence on adult attachment behavior. Development
and Psychopathology, 6, 231–247.
Fingerhut, A. W., and Maisel, N. C. (2010). Relationship formalization and individual
relationship well-being among same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 27, 956–969.
100 Justin J. Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger

Foster, C. A., and Campbell, W. K. (2005). The adversity of secret relationships.

Personal Relationships, 12, 125–143.
Foster, C. A., Foster, J. D., and Campbell, W. K. (2010). Are secret relationships hot,
then not? Romantic secrecy as a function of relationship duration. Journal of
Social Psychology, 150, 668–688.
Frost, D. M. (2011). Stigma and intimacy in same-sex relationships: a narrative
approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 1–10.
Gates, G. J. (2013). Same sex and different sex couples in the American Community
Survey: 2005–2011. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute.
Goldberg, A. E., and Smith, J. Z. (2011). Stigma, social context, and mental health:
lesbian and gay couples across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 58, 139–150.
Greitemeyer, T. (2009). Stereotypes of singles: are singles what we think? European
Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 368–383.
Heck, J. E., Sell, R. L., and Gorin, S. S. (2006). Health care access among individuals
involved in same-sex relationships. American Journal of Public Health, 96,
1111–1118.
Inzlicht, M., McKay, L., and Aronson, J. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion: how being the
target of prejudice affects self-control. Psychological Science, 17, 262–269.
Joloza, T., Evans, J., O’Brien, R., and Potter-Collins, A. (2010). Measuring sexual
identity: an evaluation report. Newport: Office for National Statistics.
Kalmijn, M., and Uunk, W. (2007). Regional value differences in Europe and the social
consequences of divorce: a test of the stigmatization hypothesis. Social Science
Research, 36, 447–468.
Kertzner, R. M. (2012). A mental health research perspective on marital rights and civil
marriage for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 16,
136–145.
Killian, K. D. (2002). Dominant and marginalized discourses in interracial couples’
narratives: implications for family therapists. Family Process, 41, 603–618.
King, M., and Bartlett, A. (2006). What same sex civil partnerships may mean for
health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 188–191.
Knoble, N. B., and Linville, D. (2012). Outness and relationship satisfaction in same-
gender couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 330–339.
Kroeger, R. A., and Williams, K. (2011). Consequences of black exceptionalism?
Interracial unions with blacks, depressive symptoms, and relationship satisfac-
tion. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 400–420.
Kurdek, L. A. (1988). Perceived social support in gays and lesbians in cohabiting
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 504–509.
(2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual
married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900.
LaSala, M. C. (2000). Gay male couples: the importance of coming out and being out to
parents. Journal of Homosexuality, 39, 47–71.
Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., and Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting
nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: a meta-analytic synthesis. Personal
Relationships, 17, 377–390.
Lehmiller, J. J. (2008). Secret romantic relationships: an exploration of their nature and
consequences for personal and relational well-being. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
(2009). Secret romantic relationships: consequences for personal and relational well-
being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1452–1466.
 Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships 101

(2011a). Romantic relationship concealment: a longitudinal assessment. Paper pre-

sented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference, San
Antonio, TX.
(2011b). Romantic relationship concealment and self-control: do secret romances
increase temptation to cheat? Paper presented at the American Psychological
Association Annual Convention, Washington, DC.
(2012). Perceived marginalization and its association with physical and psychological
health. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 451–469.
Lehmiller, J. J., and Agnew, C. R. (2006). Marginalized relationships: the impact of
social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 40–51.
(2007). Perceived marginalization and the prediction of romantic relationship
stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1036–1049.
Lehnart, J., Neyer, F. J., and Eccles, J. (2010). Long-term effects of social investment: the
case of partnering in young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 78, 639–670.
Lincoln, K. D., and Chae, D. H. (2010). Stress, marital satisfaction, and psychological
distress among African Americans. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 1081–1105.
Major, B., Kaiser, C., and McCoy, S. K. (2003). It’s not my fault: when and why
attributions to prejudice protect self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29, 772–781.
Martin, J. K., Tuch, S. A., and Roman, P. M. (2003). Problem drinking patterns among
African Americans: the impacts of reports of discrimination, perception of prej-
udice, and “risky” coping strategies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44,
408–425.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and
bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 674–697.
Morris, W. L., Sinclair, S., and DePaulo, B. M. (2007). No shelter for singles: the
perceived legitimacy of martial status discrimination. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 10, 457–470.
Newport, F. (2004). Opposition to legalized same-sex marriage steady: support for civil
unions increases. Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, 462, 20–22.
Pascoe, E. A., and Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: a
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531–554.
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052–1069.
Ponce, N. A., Cochran, S. D., Pizer, J. C., and Mays, V. M. (2010). The effect of unequal
access to health insurance for same-sex couples in California. Health Affairs, 29,
1539–1548.
Potter, H., and Thomas, D. T. (2012). “We told you that’s how they are”: responses to
white women in abusive intimate relationships with men of color. Deviant
Behavior, 33, 469–491.
Reynolds, J., Wetherell, M., and Taylor, S. (2007). Choice and chance: negotiating
agency in narratives of singleness. Sociological Review, 55, 331–351.
Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Gray, B. E., and Hatton, R. L. (2007). Minority stress
experiences in committed same-sex couple relationships. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 38, 392–400.
Savaya, R., and Cohen, O. (2003). Perceptions of the societal image of Muslim Arab
divorced men and women in Israel. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
20, 193–202.
102 Justin J. Lehmiller and Michael Ioerger

Sharp, E. A., and Ganong, L. (2011). “I’m a loser, I’m not married, let’s just all look at
me”: ever-single women’s perceptions of their social environment. Journal of
Family Issues, 32, 956–980.
Slavin, L. A., Rainer, K. L., McCreary, M. L., and Gowda, K. K. (1991). Toward a multi-
cultural model of the stress process. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70,
156–163.
Sprecher, S. (1988). Investment model, equity, and social support determinants of
relationship commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 318–328.
Sprecher, S., and Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality
and stability of romantic relationships: a three-wave longitudinal investigation
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 888–900.
Talley, A. E., and Bettencourt, B. A. (2010). A relationship-oriented model of HIV-
related stigma derived from a review of the HIV-affected couples literature. AIDS
Behavior, 14, 72–86.
US Census Bureau. (1999). America’s families and living arrangements. Retrieved
January 7, 2011 from www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/p20-537/
2000/tabFG4.pdf.
Villazor, R. C. (2011). The other loving: uncovering the federal government’s racial
regulation of marriage. New York University Law Review, 86, 1361–1443.
Wang, H., Kao, G., and Joyner, K. (2006). Stability of interracial and intraracial
romantic relationships among adolescents. Social Science Research, 35, 435–453.
Wang, W. (2012). The rise of intermarriage: rates, characteristics vary by race and
gender. Retrieved from www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-
intermarriage/?src=prc-headline.
Yager, C., Brennan, D., Steele, L. S., Epstein, R., and Ross, L. E. (2010). Challenges and
mental health experiences of lesbian and bisexual women who are trying to
conceive. Health and Social Work, 35, 191–200.
 PART II

SOCIAL NETWORK AND COMMUNICATIVE

INFLUENCES ON ROMANTIC
RELATIONSHIPS
 5

The influence of subjective norms on close relationships

paul e. etcheverry and benjamin le

Accompanying the growth of research on interpersonal relationships over the

last three decades, scholars have explored the nature of relationships from a
range of diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives (Clark and
Lemay, 2010). Despite the fact that relationships are inherently interpersonal,
often these perspectives have been surprisingly intrapersonal in their scope,
focusing on individual characteristics of the members of the relationships
rather than interactive processes. For example, much research has aimed at
understanding how individual differences, such as adult attachment orienta-
tions (Hazan and Shaver, 1994), impact individuals’ experiences in relation-
ships. Similarly, many of the constructs of interest are operationalized at an
individual level, such as emotions (e.g., jealousy) or cognitions (e.g., Fletcher
and Fincham, 1991) stemming from a relationship. Moving beyond individuals,
researchers and theorists have made strides in including dyadic processes in
their work, with research focusing on couple interactions including commu-
nication, support, and problem solving, among others topics (Clark and
Lemay, 2010). Working from these individual and dyadic perspectives, our
understanding of the mechanisms at the heart of relationship functioning has
increased greatly.
Although the focus on individuals and dyads has been very productive,
researchers have recognized that relationships exist within the context of larger
social environments. One of the most prominent scholars advocating under-
standing the role of the social environment in relationships has been Robert
Milardo (see Milardo, Helms, Widmer, and Marks, this volume). Milardo and
colleagues have focused on the importance of the social networks in which
relationships are embedded. Surra and Milardo (1991) discuss two types of
social networks: psychological and interactive. Psychological networks consist
of friends, family, and others who are psychologically important to a person.
Individuals may not necessarily interact frequently with members of their
psychological network; however, these people are important to them and
may nonetheless influence their romantic relationships. Interactive networks

105
106 Paul E. Etcheverry and Benjamin Le

are the people with whom one interacts regularly, although they may or may
not be considered psychologically important. Although these groups can be
distinct, they often overlap. For example, a current roommate could be both
interacted with regularly and psychologically important. It is also possible for a
person to be psychologically important without frequent interaction, like a
parent, or to be interacted with frequently but not psychologically important,
like a co-worker (Surra and Milardo, 1991). Of course, recent changes in tech-
nology (e.g., Facebook, text messages, prevalence of cell phones, etc.) may lead to
greater overlap of these networks depending on how one defines “frequent
interaction” (i.e., face-to-face versus electronically mediated interaction).
Milardo and others have called for researchers to increasingly focus on the
role that social networks play in relationships, and the field has responded with a
growth in research exploring how social networks impact, and are impacted by,
romantic relationships (e.g., Sprecher et al., 2002). This work has considered the
wide range of ways social network processes are related to romantic relationship
quality, functioning, and stability. Research on social networks has often focused
on the links between structural aspects of the network and outcomes in relation-
ships. For example, research has examined the size and composition of networks,
the amount of interaction with the network, and the degree of overlap of the
relationship partners’ respective networks (Burger and Milardo, 1995; Fischer
et al., 1989; Milardo, Johnson, and Huston, 1983; Kim and Stiff, 1991).
Research on various characteristics of networks has proven useful for
understanding social network influence on close relationships. However, the
process that has received perhaps the most research attention is the role of
perceived and/or actual social network approval or disapproval on romantic
relationships. There is a large literature on the links between social network
approval and relationship quality, stability, cognition, and behavior. The
primary finding from this line of research has been that social network
approval is positively associated with relationship quality and stability. This
chapter considers one form of social network approval, subjective norms, and
how subjective norms can influence close relationship outcomes.

conceptualizing social network approval

Although many studies have examined the associations between social net-
work approval and romantic relationship quality and stability, social network
approval has not been uniformly defined or operationalized. Two of the most
common methods for measuring network approval are to focus on perceptions
of relationship approval from network members or to examine perceptions of
how social networks facilitate or hinder relationship development and func-
tioning (Surra, 1990).
Approval from social network members is most commonly measured by
asking members of romantic relationships how much they perceive their social
 The influence of subjective norms on relationships 107

networks approve or disapprove of their relationship. These questions may

refer to individual social network members (e.g., particular friends or family
members; Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004; Parks, Stan and Eggert, 1983) or more
globally to social networks as a whole (e.g., Cox et al., 1997). Another common
method is to balance these two approaches by assessing the perceived aggre-
gated approval from multiple subsets of larger social networks, like family and
friends or partners’ family and friends (e.g., Felmlee, 2001; Sprecher and
Felmlee, 1992). This focus on social network approval has many commonalities
with the concept of injunctive norms in the social influence literature, which
refers to approval or disapproval from others regarding one’s performing a
particular behavior (Cialdini and Trost, 1998). In the context of romantic
relationships, a commonly studied injunctive norm is approval or disapproval
for maintaining a romantic relationship.
A second means of operationalizing social network approval is to assess the
behaviors performed by social network members that facilitate or hinder roman-
tic relationship development or functioning. Research using this approach has
typically asked members of romantic relationships to report on the frequency
and types of social network behavior that could harm or help the romantic
relationship. Supportive behaviors are things like “invite my partner and me to
go out with him/her,” while hindering behaviors include items like “come up
with derogatory nicknames for partner” (Blair and Holmberg, 2008; Leslie,
Huston and Johnson, 1986). These two approaches to social network influence,
network approval, and network facilitation or hindrance are not mutually
exclusive and some researchers have included both within the same study
(Knobloch and Donovan-Kicken, 2006; Sprecher and Felmlee, 1992).

relationship quality, commitment, stability, and

social network approval
Much past research on social network approval has found it to be associated
with various aspects of relationship quality. In a study of dating relationships,
social network approval was positively associated with satisfaction with and
love for current romantic partners, for both men and women (Sprecher and
Felmlee, 1992). Similarly, when combining satisfaction, love, and trust into an
aggregate index of relationship quality, social network approval significantly
predicted relationship quality for both heterosexual and homosexual romantic
couples (Blair and Holmberg, 2008). Although one study has found that
parental disapproval is associated with increased feelings of love for a romantic
partner (Driscoll, Davis, and Lipetz, 1972; see Sinclair and Ellithorpe, this
volume), most research finds a positive association between approval and
relationship quality (Sprecher et al., 2002).
The association between social network approval and relationship com-
mitment has also been studied extensively. Commitment has been described as
108 Paul E. Etcheverry and Benjamin Le

consisting of a “long-term orientation toward a relationship, including feelings

of psychological attachment and intentions to persist” (Cox et al., 1997, p. 80;
see also Agnew et al., 1998). Commitment is commonly considered to be an
important motivation to maintain a relationship and is an important predictor
of relationship stability (Le and Agnew, 2003). In a sample of mostly university
students, Sprecher and Felmlee (1992) found that social network approval was
positively associated with relationship commitment; a similar association was
found in a community sample of largely married participants (Cox et al., 1997).
Furthermore, Etcheverry and Agnew (2004) report that social network appro-
val independently predicts commitment when controlling for relationship
satisfaction, alternatives, and investments.
Given the associations with relationship quality and commitment, it is not
surprising that there is a strong association between network approval and
romantic relationship stability. Across multiple longitudinal studies, social
network approval is significantly associated with romantic relationship persis-
tence (Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004; Cox et al., 1997; Parks and Adelman, 1983).
Moreover, meta-analytic results indicate that social network approval is neg-
atively associated with relationship dissolution among dating couples (Le et al.,
2010).
The majority of the empirical work on social networks assumes that
approval has a causal, and positive, impact on romantic relationship quality,
commitment, and stability. However, the majority of this research is cross-
sectional and non-experimental, making it difficult to make confident state-
ments about the direction of the hypothesized causal pathway. Some studies
have used longitudinal designs examining these associations over time to
provide support for the temporal sequence and the causal claim that approval
influences relationship quality and stability (Sprecher and Felmlee, 1992).
However, experimental studies are necessary to provide strong causal evidence
for the impact of social network approval.
A plausible alternative possibility is that characteristics of the romantic
relationship, including quality, influence social network member approval
(Etcheverry, Le, and Hoffman, 2012). A few studies have examined this possi-
bility. For example, Sprecher and Felmlee (2000) found that becoming engaged
over the course of the study was related to a correspondent increase in network
approval. Similarly, in a study that collected data directly from social network
members, approval was higher when the network member perceived an equi-
table exchange of rewards in the relationship and believed the romantic partner
possessed positive characteristics (Felmlee, 2001). These studies, albeit limited,
support the possibility that relationship quality may have an influence on social
network support, a direction of effect that is not normally considered.
A recent study employing both non-experimental and experimental meth-
ods examined how characteristics of a romantic relationship predict social
network approval (Etcheverry et al., 2012). In the non-experimental study,
 The influence of subjective norms on relationships 109

participants reported on their approval of a friend’s romantic relationship as

well as their perceptions of the level of their friend’s relationship satisfaction,
investments, and alternatives. As predicted, participants’ perceptions of friend
satisfaction were positively associated, and perceived friend alternatives were
negatively associated, with participant approval of the friend’s romantic rela-
tionship. Similarly, perceived investments significantly predicted approval for
the friend’s relationship for female participants, but not male participants. Two
follow-up experiments were conducted to test the impact of perceived satis-
faction on relationship approval. In both experiments, participants were asked
to think of a friend involved in a romantic relationship. Participants were then
randomly assigned to either a high or a low perceived satisfaction condition. In
one study, participants completed a manipulation based on the feature match-
ing model (Broemer and Diehl, 2003; Tversky, 1977). For this manipulation,
participants were asked to describe the perfect romantic relationship and then
induced to either assimilate the friend’s relationship toward the perfect romance
(high satisfaction condition) or contrast the friend’s relationship away from the
perfect romance (low satisfaction condition). The second study used the avail-
ability heuristic (Broemer, 2001; Tversky and Kahneman, 1973), or people’s
tendency to use the ease of remembering examples of an event or object as a
marker of the prevalence of that event or object, to manipulate satisfaction.
Participants asked to list many reasons (eight) why their friend was satisfied
found the task harder and therefore perceived lower friend satisfaction than
participants asked to list fewer (three) reasons why their friend is satisfied. With
both manipulations, and as predicted, participants in the high perceived friend
satisfaction condition reported more approval for their friend’s romantic rela-
tionship than participants in the low perceived friend satisfaction condition.
Overall, research evidence supports the bi-directional nature of the asso-
ciations between network approval and relationship quality and stability.
Given that most research on the topic has focused on social network approval
as a predictor of relationship stability and quality (with Sprecher and Felmlee,
2000, and Felmlee, 2001, as notable exceptions), the remainder of this chapter
focuses on this approach to understanding the link between networks and
relationship functioning. However, it is worth noting that a more complete
understanding of the association of social networks with romantic relation-
ships will likely require a full consideration of how social networks and dyadic
couples reciprocally influence each other.

theoretical bases of social network support

for relationships
Overall, research suggests that social network approval is associated with
relationship quality and stability. Stemming from this well-documented find-
ing, it is important to consider the general psychological processes and theory
110 Paul E. Etcheverry and Benjamin Le

underlying the association between social network approval and positive out-
comes in romantic relationships. Several theoretical perspectives have been
employed to understand this association. One prominent perspective that has
been applied to understanding social network approval is symbolic interac-
tionism (Lewis, 1973). Symbolic interactionism argues that meaning and
understanding are formed by developing symbols to represent personal expe-
riences. These symbols are often negotiated through interaction with others.
Applying this to interpersonal relationships, it has been argued that couples
understand their own relationships via the opinions of important others
(Sprecher et al., 2002). The influence of social networks has been described
as a “looking glass reflection” (Walter and Hill, 1951) that frames the ways in
which members of romantic relationships view the relationship. From this
perspective, network approval helps to signal to couples that their relationships
are valid, which reinforces couples’ relationship perceptions and efforts to
maintain their relationship.
Another framework that provides insight into the impact of social network
approval is balance theory (Heider, 1958). From this perspective, people are
motivated to strive for and maintain cognitive consistency between their
attitudes and behaviors. Applying balance theory to network support suggests
that people are motivated to maintain balanced views regarding their social
network and romantic partner. If a member of a romantic relationship has a
positive attitude toward their romantic partner (which one assumes, given an
intact relationship), a positive attitude toward their social network, and the
network is perceived as approving of the partner, then balance is achieved.
However, if the social network is perceived as disapproving of the partner, the
triadic relationship is imbalanced. Theoretically, imbalance would contribute
to decreased satisfaction in the romantic relationship in order to move the
elements back toward balance. That is, members of romantic relationships will
be motivated to remedy this imbalance and one means to do so is devaluing (or
even ending) the romantic relationship.
A third theoretical approach, uncertainty theory (Knobloch and Solomon,
1999), also speaks to the importance of social network approval on romantic
relationships. From this perspective, the uncertainty individuals may feel about
their level of involvement in a romantic relationship is associated with lowered
intimacy and increased relational turmoil (Knobloch and Donovan-Kicken,
2006; Theiss and Solomon, 2008). Perceived approval from social network
members is argued to help decrease feelings of uncertainty regarding a roman-
tic relationship, while perceived disapproval from network members increases
uncertainty (Knobloch and Donovan-Kicken, 2006). Approaches such as
symbolic interactionism, balance theory, and uncertainty theory provide
insight into how and why social network approval predicts positive outcomes
in romantic relationships and have been influential in guiding research on
network influence in relational contexts (Sprecher et al., 2002). However, these
 The influence of subjective norms on relationships 111

perspectives do not draw on the larger social psychological literature on

attitudes, social influence, and behavioral consistency to help explain how
social network approval influences romantic relationships (Fishbein and
Ajzen, 2010). By borrowing from the wealth of research on how the opinions
of important others guide and shape behavior, we believe our understanding of
social network influence can be vastly improved.

the theory of reasoned action, subjective norms,

and perceived relationship approval
One well-supported framework stemming from the social psychological liter-
ature on attitude/behavior consistency is the theory of reasoned action (TRA;
Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). TRA is a multivariate mediated model that proposes
that behaviors are best predicted by intentions to perform the behavior. In
turn, behavioral intentions are a function of both attitudes toward performing
the behavior and subjective norms indicating perceived approval or disap-
proval from important others for performing the behavior. Behavioral inten-
tions are strengthened as individuals’ attitudes are more favorable and they
perceive subjective norms supporting the behavior. TRA has been supported in
a large number of studies across a wide range of domains (see Fishbein and
Ajzen, 2010, for a review).
Although the reasons that TRA can help researchers to understand social
network influence on romantic relationships may not be immediately obvious,
there are several similarities to a TRA approach and traditional approaches to
understanding relationship research. For example, TRA focuses on behavioral
intentions as the most proximal predictor of behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975); similarly, within relationships, several theories focus on commitment
(Rusbult, Drigotas and Verette, 1994; Johnson, 1999), which has been argued to
include an intention to maintain the romantic relationship (Arriaga and
Agnew, 2001). In addition, TRA focuses on attitudes as an important predictor
of behavioral intentions; within relationships, there are multiple constructs
that contain, like attitudes, an evaluative component regarding a partner and a
relationship including satisfaction, intimacy, trust, and love, among others
(Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004). TRA also considers the importance of social
influence by important others through the subjective norms construct; the
subjective norms construct is similar to the construct of social network appro-
val in romantic relationships (Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004). These similarities
suggest the appropriateness of applying aspects of TRA to understanding
social network approval (Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004; Etcheverry, Le, and
Charania, 2008).
The subjective norms component of TRA is the primary junction
between TRA and more general approaches to understanding social network
influence in romantic relationships. Subjective norms are the product of two
112 Paul E. Etcheverry and Benjamin Le

components: normative beliefs and motivation to comply. Normative beliefs

refer to the perceived degree to which a particular social referent (e.g., a
parent or specific friend) wants the individual to perform (or not perform) a
behavior. In the context of romantic relationships, normative beliefs can be
thought of as the extent to which a social network member is viewed as
approving or disapproving of a person continuing in his or her current
romantic relationship. Framed this way, normative beliefs are similar to
how network approval is typically operationalized in research on social
networks and romantic relationship quality and stability. However, the
subjective norm component moves beyond the typical means of measuring
network approval by including a consideration of motivation to comply with
the source of the normative beliefs.
Motivation to comply is the degree to which an individual feels com-
pelled to act in accordance with the desires of a particular person (e.g., the
source of the normative beliefs), and is theorized to moderate the impact of
normative beliefs on behavioral intentions. If motivation to comply is high
then the associated normative beliefs should be strong predictors of behav-
ioral intentions. However, if motivation to comply is low, those normative
beliefs will not affect behavioral intentions. Consistent with these predic-
tions, numerous studies have empirically supported the interaction between
normative beliefs and motivation to comply in creating an aggregate sub-
jective norms construct that directly predicts behavior intentions (Fishbein
and Ajzen, 2010).
Extending this logic to social network influence on romantic relation-
ships, Etcheverry and colleagues (Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004; Etcheverry
et al., 2008) have successfully applied subjective norms to predict commit-
ment. In order to assess social network influence, consistent with TRA, these
studies measured both normative beliefs from social network members (e.g.,
family and friends) and motivation to comply with those respective network
members.
Etcheverry and colleagues (Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004; Etcheverry et al.,
2008) combined the normative beliefs and motivation to comply measures in
several ways. When data are collected from multiple social referents, subjective
norms scores from each social referent are added together to create an overall
measure of subjective norms. For example, Etcheverry and Agnew (2004)
aggregated normative beliefs and motivation to comply from up to seven social
network members including friends, parents, siblings, and others, to form their
measure of subjective norms, which predicted participants’ commitment to
their romantic relationships. Importantly, subjective norms significantly pre-
dicted relationship commitment even when controlling for satisfaction with,
alternatives to, and investments in the romantic relationship. A follow-up
study further examined the role of subjective norms in romantic relationships.
Etcheverry and colleagues (2008) collected normative beliefs and motivation to
 The influence of subjective norms on relationships 113

comply data from both a male friend and a female friend, as well as indices of
relationship quality from individuals in those relationships. The combined
friend subjective norm measure was a significant predictor of participants’ own
reported commitment to their romantic relationships.
It is important to note that, based on TRA, motivation to comply moder-
ates the association of normative beliefs with behavioral intentions. However,
the common way of operationalizing these variables is to multiply normative
beliefs and motivation to comply together and then sum these scores across
social network members. This approach does not provide a clear test of the
moderation hypothesis because the subjective norm variable confounds the
interaction of normative beliefs and motivation to comply with the main effects
of these variables. Therefore, Etcheverry and Agnew (2004) conducted multi-
ple regressions predicting relationship commitment with normative beliefs,
motivation to comply, and the interaction of these two variables. As this study
collected data regarding up to seven social network members, seven separate
multiple regressions were conducted corresponding to each of the respective
social network members. A benefit of this approach is that it allows for the
hypothesis regarding the interaction between normative beliefs and motivation
to comply to be tested and replicated within the same data set. In this case, six
out of the seven multiple regressions featured a statistically significant inter-
action, such that, as motivation to comply increased, the strength of the
association between normative beliefs and commitment increased. The inter-
action was not significant for the multiple regression with the seventh listed
social network member (likely because of the diminished sample size due to
some participants not listing seven network members), but the pattern was the
same as for the first six regressions. Similar analyses were conducted with the
Etcheverry, Le, and Charania (2008) data, with multiple regressions, including
normative beliefs, motivation to comply, and their interaction, predicting
commitment. These analyses were run separately for male and female friends,
and the interactions were significant, indicating that, as motivation to comply
increases, the strength of the association of normative beliefs with commit-
ment increases for both male and female friends.
The results of two studies (Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004; Etcheverry et al.,
2008) support the independent association between subjective norms and
commitment, even after controlling for satisfaction, alternatives, and invest-
ments. These studies also support the prediction that motivation to comply
moderates the link between normative beliefs and relationship commitment
(see Figure 5.1). In short, these results suggest that social network opinions are
influential because individuals in relationships are motivated to comply with
their social networks. In addition, understanding the role of motivation to
comply explains why some social network members’ normative beliefs will be
stronger predictors of commitment than others, because motivation to comply
varies across different social network members.
114 Paul E. Etcheverry and Benjamin Le

Satisfaction
level

+
Quality of
alternatives
−

+
Commitment Persistence
Investment + level
size

Subjective norms
Normative Motivation
Σ X
beliefs to comply

figure 5.1 Subjective norms, commitment level, and relationship persistence

remaining questions about subjective norms

and perceived relationship approval
There is strong support for the value of subjective norms, and the interaction
between normative beliefs and motivation to comply, in understanding rela-
tionship commitment within the context of social networks. However, several
important questions remain regarding the nature of these constructs. For
example, the process by which members of romantic relationships form their
perceptions of approval or disapproval from social network members has not
been fully articulated or investigated. Similarly, it is unclear what factors
contribute to motivation to comply with a social network member. Recent
research has begun to explore some of the answers to these questions.

Predictors of normative beliefs

Many studies of network influence have used measures of approval or
disapproval from social network members to predict romantic relationship
quality and stability (Etcheverry et al., 2008). However, most of these studies
utilized data from individuals in romantic relationships regarding their
perceptions of social network members’ approval or disapproval. Few studies
have collected data from participants in relationships regarding their
 The influence of subjective norms on relationships 115

perceptions of social network approval along with corresponding measures

of the actual amount of social approval from the members of the social
networks (see Etcheverry et al., 2008; Felmlee, 2001, for exceptions).
This focus on perceptions of people regarding their social networks’
opinions fits well with a TRA approach, in which normative beliefs are
described as perceptions of approval or disapproval from social referents
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010). This definition is similar to what is commonly
used in research on social networks and romantic relationships. However,
the source of these perceptions of social network members’ opinions has been
largely unstudied to date.
An underlying assumption of much work on social network influence is
that normative beliefs are an accurate approximation of social network mem-
bers’ actual opinions. The strong focus on perceptions as opposed to actual
social network opinions may spring out of another common assumption of the
social influence literature: that it is a person’s perceptions of influence, as
opposed to the actual influence attempts of others, that have the strongest
impact on behavior. These two assumptions, that perceptions are accurate
representations of actual social network opinions and that perceptions of
influence have a more direct impact on behavior than actual influence
attempts, are commonly assumed but not typically empirically tested.
In an attempt to examine the association between perceived normative
beliefs and the actual opinions held by social network members, Etcheverry and
colleagues (2008) collected data from individuals in romantic relationships and
from both a male and a female friend of the participant. Presumably, normative
beliefs are based, in part, on the actual degree of approval or disapproval held by
social referents regarding performing a behavior. However, a tenet of TRA
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) is that perceptions of the opinions of social referents
most proximally contribute to subjective norms, and therefore most directly
predict behavioral intentions. Etcheverry and colleagues (2008) conducted
several analyses to explore the associations between perceived normative beliefs
from friends and the actual opinions of those friends. As expected, intraclass
correlations found that perceived friend normative beliefs and the actual
approval for the relationship from those friends were significantly associated
(ICC = .72 and .69 for female and male friends, respectively), supporting the
assumption that couple members’ normative beliefs do correspond with social
network members’ opinions.
The study by Etcheverry and colleagues (2008) also tested the assumption
that normative beliefs (i.e., the perceptions of network approval collected from
participants in relationships) regarding a romantic relationship are the most
proximal predictor of commitment to that relationship, compared to the actual
opinions of network members. Consistent with this assumption, Etcheverry
and colleagues hypothesized that participants’ perceptions of normative beliefs
would mediate the association between network members’ opinions and
116 Paul E. Etcheverry and Benjamin Le

commitment. The mediational analysis indicated that there was a significant

indirect effect through normative beliefs of reported friend approval for the
romantic relationship and the participants’ commitment to the romance. Once
the indirect effect was accounted for, no significant direct effect remained of
reported friend approval on participant romantic relationship commitment.
This research supports a previous assumption, that normative beliefs mediate
the association of actual social network member opinions on commitment.
Much prior research and theory notes that members of romantic relation-
ships have cognitive biases, sometimes referred to as relationship illusions,
such that they view their partner and romantic relationships as overly positive
(Murray and Holmes, 1997). For example, in past work, researchers measured
participants’ own perceptions of their romantic relationship quality compared
to friends’ perception of the quality of those relationships (Agnew, Loving, and
Drigotas, 2001). Consistent with research on positive illusions more generally,
participants perceived their own romantic relationships as being higher in
quality than friends viewed participants’ relationships. Similarly, when exam-
ining normative beliefs, Etcheverry and colleagues (2008) found that members
of romantic relationships reported more positive normative beliefs (i.e., more
approval) from friends than both male and female friends reported providing.
Etcheverry and colleagues (2008) also examined predictors of normative
beliefs, working from the assumption that normative beliefs would be based in
part on actual social network member opinions but that other factors, includ-
ing relationship illusions, contribute to normative beliefs. Previous research
has found that the strength of relationship illusions depends on relationship
satisfaction. For example, in a study of married couples, happily married
spouses viewed their partners more positively than friends viewed the partners
(Murray et al., 2000). However, unhappily married spouses’ perceptions of
their partners were no more positive than friends’ perceptions of partners (i.e.,
unhappy couples do not show this positive bias). Applying this approach to
normative beliefs, Etcheverry and colleagues (2008) predicted perceived nor-
mative beliefs using participants’ relationship satisfaction, controlling for the
actual reported opinions of those friends. As expected, the actual reported
opinions of friends were significantly associated with normative beliefs (i.e., a
degree of accuracy). Importantly, participants’ levels of satisfaction also signifi-
cantly predicted normative beliefs. Etcheverry and colleague’s (2008) analyses
suggest that while normative beliefs are associated with actual social network
member opinions, normative beliefs are also susceptible to relationship illusions
and are influenced by aspects of relationship quality such as satisfaction.
In sum, research on normative beliefs supports the hypothesis that norma-
tive beliefs are associated with actual social network members’ opinions. At the
same time, normative beliefs tend to be more positive than warranted in
comparison to social network members’ actual opinions. In addition, there is
evidence suggesting that perceptions of normative beliefs are associated with
 The influence of subjective norms on relationships 117

participants’ relationship satisfaction, even when controlling for actual social

network members’ opinions. These findings are consistent with the literature on
positive illusions in relationships (Murray, Holmes and Griffin, 2003) and extend
this area of research to social network approval for a romantic relationship.

Predictors of motivation to comply

Applying the motivation to comply construct to understanding social network
influence on romantic relationships has proven fruitful (Etcheverry and
Agnew, 2004; Etcheverry et al., 2008). However, applying the motivation to
comply construct raises several important questions regarding this variable
and its role in social network influence. First and foremost, past work has not
addressed why a person in a romantic relationship is more motivated to
comply with one particular social network member over another. In order to
address this issue it is necessary to examine the factors that contribute
to motivation to comply with a social referent.
Although relatively little research has attempted to clarify the causes of
motivation to comply, Burnkrant and Page (1988) found that people are
motivated to comply with social referents to the extent that the referent is
viewed as a source of rewards for compliance or punishment for non-
compliance. This focus on rewards and punishments as underlying motivation
to comply fits well with past theorizing on social influence. In Kelman’s (1958)
theory on social influence, compliance is a process by which a person would
comply with the desires of others to gain rewards or avoid punishments.
Similarly, in their work on power, French and Raven (1960) identify reward
power (influence due to providing rewards) and coercive power (influence due
to punishment for non-compliance) as key processes that motivate compliance
with external referents.
However, the ability to exert power through rewards and punishment is
only one form of power that allows people to influence others. From Kelman’s
(1958) perspective, people can also influence others through an internalization
process by which a person comes to internalize the influence of others and
begins to hold attitudes and beliefs that match with the source of influence. In
Kelman’s model, internalization occurs when the source of influence is con-
sidered to be credible. French and Raven (1960) have suggested a similar
process in which influence can occur through expert power, or the ability of
people who are perceived to have expertise in a domain to influence others
regarding that domain. Applying the Kelman and the French and Raven
perspectives suggests that expertise (in addition to rewards/punishments) is a
second factor that must be considered as central to the process of social
influence. For example, a mechanic possesses expert knowledge and therefore
is likely to be able to influence the beliefs and behavior of others regarding
maintenance of a car. Despite the potential of expert power to contribute to
118 Paul E. Etcheverry and Benjamin Le

motivation to comply with a social referent, prior research has not examined
how expertise is relevant to motivation to comply in the context of social
network influence on romantic relationships.
Based on research on social influence by Kelman (1958) and power by
French and Raven (1960), Etcheverry and Agnew (under review) proposed two
predictors of motivation to comply with a social network member. The first
predictor reflects the social consequences of compliance (or non-compliance),
which represents the sum of the perceived rewards and costs that come from
compliance and non-compliance with a particular social network member.
The second predictor of motivation to comply is perceived relationship exper-
tise, which refers to the degree to which a specific social network member is
perceived to have valuable knowledge regarding romantic relationships, and
thus may serve as a useful source of relationship advice.
Etcheverry and Agnew (under review) have explored how these two
processes may underlie motivation to comply with social network members,
employing both non-experimental and experimental designs. In their first
study, participants in dating relationships reported on their motivation to
comply with up to seven social network members. In addition, participants
reported on the social consequences of compliance and perceived romantic
relationship expertise of each social network member. Social consequences of
compliance were measured in terms of how the friendship with the social
network member would improve with compliance or be damaged with non-
compliance. Relationship expertise was assessed as the extent to which partic-
ipants perceived that each social network member understands romantic
relationships, knows what makes relationships successful, and provides good
relationship advice.
Hierarchical linear modeling showed that social consequences of compli-
ance and relationship expertise significantly predict motivation to comply,
such that participants anticipating greater rewards (or more punishments)
from social network members for compliance (and non-compliance) were
more motivated to comply with that particular social network member. At
the same time, participants reported greater motivation to comply when the
social network member was perceived to have relationship expertise and to be
capable of providing valuable advice regarding romantic relationships.
Although these analyses provide support for the hypothesized predictors
of motivation to comply, the non-experimental nature of the study provides
weak evidence for a causal association between the predictors and motivation
to comply. Therefore, Etcheverry and Agnew (under review) also conducted
two experiments to examine the causal mechanisms leading to motivation to
comply by manipulating social consequences of compliance and relationship
expertise, respectively. To manipulate social consequences of compliance, they
manipulated participants to perceive either high or low consequences of
compliance with a friend’s advice. Participants were also instructed to consider
 The influence of subjective norms on relationships 119

either the positive consequences of compliance or the negative consequences of

non-compliance, resulting in a total of four experimental conditions. As
expected, participants who were induced to perceive higher social consequences
(i.e., more positive consequences to compliance and more negative consequen-
ces to non-compliance) were more motivated to comply with the friend
than participants in the low social consequences conditions. Importantly,
this effect was not moderated by whether participants were asked to consider
positive consequences of compliance or negative consequences of non-
compliance. These results support the causal impact of social consequences of
(non-)compliance on motivation to comply.
Perceptions of relationship expertise were manipulated in a second study,
to examine the causal association between expertise and motivation to comply.
Experimentally manipulating perceptions of actual social network members
would be extremely difficult, so this experiment created a faux relationship-
training program that would allow for the manipulation of relationship exper-
tise. After answering several questions about their romantic relationships,
participants received information about a relationship-training program. The
experimenter explained that the training program was designed to teach train-
ees how to better understand and provide advice regarding romantic relation-
ships. Participants were informed that the answers they had previously
provided to the questions about their relationships would be given to trainees
who would provide comments and relationship advice. The manipulation of
relationship expertise was introduced by varying the description of the trainee.
In the high-expertise condition, trainees were described as having been selected
for excellent insight into relationships, the ability to build successful relation-
ships of their own, and their high GPA. In the low-expertise condition, trainees
were described as lacking insight into relationships, being unable to form
successful relationships, and having a low GPA. The dependent variables
were participants’ interest in the trainees’ advice, expected helpfulness of the
advice, and their motivation to comply with the advice. As expected, partic-
ipants in the high-expertise condition were significantly more interested in the
trainees’ comments, expected the comments to be significantly more helpful,
and were more motivated to comply with the trainees than participants in the
low-expertise condition. Taken together, these experimental and correlational
studies support the importance of both social consequences of compliance and
relationship expertise in predicting motivation to comply. The results suggest
that motivation to comply is associated with multiple mechanisms of social
network influence.
It is worth noting that while both consequences of compliance and rela-
tionship expertise are theorized to contribute to motivation to comply, they
may not do so equally for all social network members. For example, a member
of a romantic relationship might have a social network member with high
relationship expertise but there may be no positive or negative consequences of
120 Paul E. Etcheverry and Benjamin Le

compliance with that person. In this case, motivation to comply will be

moderately high due to perceived relationship expertise despite the lack of
consequences for compliance. At the same time, motivation to comply with
another social network member could also be relatively high even if perceived
relationship expertise is low as long as the positive consequences of compliance
and/or the negative consequences of non-compliance are perceived to exist.
Examining consequences and expertise as predictors of motivation to
comply improves researchers’ understanding of social network influence
while also contributing to the wider research examining the TRA approach.
It is worth noting that these are only two processes by which social influence
and power can be exerted. Kelman (1958) has theorized that, along with
compliance and persuasion, social influence can also occur through an iden-
tification process. In this form of social influence, a person identifies with the
source of social influence, leading her to follow the wishes of this person.
French and Raven (1960) discuss the similar mechanism of referent power,
which is effective because of a sense of identification with the source of
influence. Applying this to the context of social network influence on romantic
relationships, it is possible that certain social network members, perhaps due to
a close relationship (best friend) or the nature of their connection (parent), are
more able to exert referent power. Overall, the research on social network
influence and motivation to comply suggests that the methods of influence
described by Kelman (1958) and French and Raven (1960) are relevant to under-
standing motivation to comply. It is also possible that other forms of influence
and power like referent or legitimate power can contribute to the prediction of
motivation to comply with social network members. It is important that future
research continue to explore the forms of social influence and power that predict
motivation to comply with social network members to fully understand the role
that networks can play in impacting romantic relationships.

subjective norms and other theories of social

network influence
The research described above supports the importance of normative beliefs
and motivation to comply in understanding social network influence on
relationships. However, connections between TRA and perspectives like sym-
bolic interaction theory (Lewis, 1973) and uncertainty theory (Knobloch and
Solomon, 1999) remain unexplored. It is possible to view the use of subjective
norms as an alternative explanation to these other theories of social network
influence. However, it might be more helpful to consider instead how motiva-
tion to comply can be integrated with these other theories. For example,
symbolic interactionism has been applied to relationships to argue that social
network approval helps validate a relationship. Applying a subjective norms
approach to symbolic interactionism, it is possible that the approval (or
 The influence of subjective norms on relationships 121

disapproval) from social network members with whom one is motivated to

comply will have a stronger impact on validating the relationship. At the same
time, approval from social network members with whom a person is not
motivated to comply may have a minimal role in validating the relationship.
Similarly, motivation to comply can relate to uncertainty theory, which
assumes that social network influence occurs because support from network
members helps reduce uncertainty in a relationship. Applying the concept of
motivation to comply suggests that uncertainty regarding a relationship may
best be reduced by the opinions of social network members with whom a
person is motivated to comply. Social network members with whom a member
of a romantic relationship is not motivated to comply are less likely to reduce
uncertainty, even with strong support for the relationship. These ideas suggest
a potential connection between motivation to comply and uncertainty theory
that can be examined in future research.
It is also possible that the predictors of motivation to comply – relation-
ship expertise and compliance – may reduce uncertainty in different ways. For
example, if a person is uncertain regarding whether their romantic relationship
should be maintained, then social network members who have strong relation-
ship expertise should do the most to decrease uncertainty regarding a relation-
ship. At the same time, a person might experience uncertainty regarding
how their romantic relationship impacts upon their other relationships.
Uncertainty regarding how social network members will react to a person’s
romantic relationship may be more impacted by motivation to comply with
those social network members. The motivation to comply construct can
inform and expand on other theoretical perspectives, such as uncertainty
theory, that have been used to guide social network research.

future research
Applying the subjective norm approach provides many opportunities for
future work to continue exploring social network influence on relationships.
For example, some researchers have considered both perceptions of social
network approval and examining the actual behaviors engaged in by social
network members that facilitate or hinder the romantic relationship (Felmlee,
2001). The focus of the current chapter has been on social network approval, as
that is most relevant to the normative belief construct underlying subjective
norms. At the same time, social network supportive or non-supportive behav-
iors are likely to have an important impact on romantic relationships and it is
unclear how these behaviors are related to subjective norms. It is possible, for
example, that actual facilitating or hindering behaviors may better communi-
cate approval or disapproval for the romantic relationships and actually make
normative beliefs more accurate. At the same time, if a social network member
facilitates or hinders a romantic relationship then motivation to comply with
122 Paul E. Etcheverry and Benjamin Le

that social network member could increase due to their demonstrated ability to
impact the romance. Therefore, the distinction between perceived approval
and actual social network facilitation and its relevance to motivation to comply
would appear to be an important area for future research.
Research on social networks has examined other variables beyond network
approval and support, including structural characteristics of social networks
such as network size, density, and interconnectedness (Sprecher et al., 2002).
A potentially interesting, but understudied, area for research would be to
examine how the structural characteristics of the social network are related
to network approval for the relationship and with motivation to comply with
social network members. For example, it is possible that more dense and
interconnected social networks have more uniform approval or disapproval,
and motivation to comply is higher than with a less connected network.

conclusion
Research on social network approval for romantic relationships has grown
considerably in the past several decades. A consistent finding has emerged that
ties approval to romantic relationship quality and stability. The subjective
norm approach described in this chapter brings something new to this area
of research by describing how the motivation to comply construct moderates
the association between normative beliefs and relationship commitment. In
addition, research applying the subjective norms construct to relationships has
added to our understanding of the predictors of both normative beliefs and
motivation to comply. The application of the subjective norm construct to
relationships can provide a better understanding of the connections between
social networks and the functioning of romantic relationships that exist within
those networks, which highlights the influence of broader social contexts in
interpersonal dynamics.

references
Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., and Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the
trees: social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042–1057.
Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., and Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive
interdependence: commitment and the mental representation of close relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954.
Arriaga, X. B., and Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: affective, cognitive and
conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1190–1203.
Blair, K. L., and Holmberg, D. (2008). Perceived social network support and well-being
in same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationship, 25, 769–791.
 The influence of subjective norms on relationships 123

Broemer, P. (2001). Ease of recall moderates the impact of relationship-related goals on

judgments of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
37, 261–266.
Broemer, P., and Diehl, M. (2003). What you think is what you get: comparative
evaluations of close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
1560–1569.
Burnkrant, R. E., and Page, T. J., Jr. (1988). The structure and antecedents of the
normative and attitudinal components of Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 66–87.
Cialdini, R. B., and Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: social norms, conformity and
compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, et al. (eds.), The handbook of social
psychology, Vol. 2, 4th edn. (pp. 151–192). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clark, M. S., and Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2010). Close relationships. In S. T. Fiske,
D. T. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2, 5th
edn. (pp. 898–940). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Cox, C. L., Wexler, M. O., Rusbult, C. E., and Gaines, S. O., Jr. (1997). Prescriptive
support and commitment processes in close relationships. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 60, 79–90.
Driscoll, R., Davis, K. E., and Lipetz, M. E. (1972). Parental interference and romantic
love: the Romeo and Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24,
1–10.
Etcheverry, P. E., and Agnew, C. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of
romantic relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11, 409–428.
(under review). Why should I listen to you about my relationship? Predictors of
motivation to comply with social network opinions regarding one’s romantic
relationship.
Etcheverry, P. E., Le, B., and Charania, M. R. (2008). Perceived versus reported social
referent approval and romantic relationship commitment and persistence.
Personal Relationships, 15, 281–295.
Etcheverry, P. E., Le, B., and Hoffman, N. G. (2012). Predictors of friend approval for
romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 20, 69–83.
Felmlee, D. H. (2001). No couple is an island: a social network perspective on dyadic
stability. Social Forces, 79, 1259–1287.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an intro-
duction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
(2010). Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. New York:
Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis.
Fletcher, G. J. O., and Fincham, F. D. (eds.). (1991). Cognition in close relationships.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
French, J. P. R., Jr., and Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright
and A. Zander (eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 607–623). New York: Harper and Row.
Hazan, C., and Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for
research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1–22.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Johnson, M. P. (1999). Personal, moral and structural commitment to relationships:
experiences of choice and constraint. In J. M. Adams and W. H. Jones (eds.),
Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 73–87).
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification and internalization: three processes of
attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.
124 Paul E. Etcheverry and Benjamin Le

Knobloch, L. K., and Donovan-Kicken, E. (2006). Perceived involvement of network

members in courtships: a test of the relational turbulence model. Personal
Relationships, 13, 281–302.
Knobloch, L. K., and Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring sources and content of rela-
tional uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, 261–278.
Le, B., and Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: a meta-
analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57.
Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., and Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting
nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: a meta-analytic synthesis. Personal
Relationships, 17, 377–390.
Leslie, L. A., Huston, T. L., and Johnson, M. P. (1986). Parental reactions to dating
relationships: do they make a difference? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,
57–66.
Lewis, R. A. (1973). Social reaction and the formation of dyads: an interactionist
approach to mate selection. Sociometry, 36, 409–418.
Milardo, R. M. (1983). Social networks and pair relationships: a review of substantive
and measurement issues. Sociology and Social Research, 68, 1–18.
Murray, S. L., and Holmes, I. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586–604.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Dolderman, D., and Griffin, D. W. (2000). What the
motivated mind sees: comparing friends’ perspectives to married partners’ views
of each other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 600–620.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., and Griffin, D. W. (2003). Reflections on the self-fulfilling
effects of positive illusions. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 289–295.
Parks, M. R., and Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and the develop-
ment of romantic relationships: an expansion of uncertainty reduction theory.
Human Communication Research, 10, 55–79.
Parks, M. R., Stan, C. M., and Eggert, L. L. (1983). Romantic involvement and social
network involvement. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 116–131.
Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., and Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: an
interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance
phenomena. In D. J. Canary and L. Stafford (eds.), Communication and Relational
Maintenance (pp. 115–139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sprecher, S., and Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality
and stability of romantic relationships: a three-wave longitudinal investigation.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 888–900.
(2000). Romantic partners’ perceptions of social network attributes with the passage
of time and relationship transitions. Personal Relationships, 7, 325–340.
Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Orbuch, T. L., and Willetts, M. C. (2002). Social networks and
change in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, and M. A. Fitzpatrick
(eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 257–284). Cambridge University
Press.
Surra, C. A. (1990). Research and theory on mate selection and premarital relationships
in the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 844–865.
Surra, C. A., and Milardo, R. M. (1991). The social psychological context of developing
relationships: interactive and psychological networks. In W. H. Jones and
D. Perlman (eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 3 (pp. 1–36). London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Theiss, J. A., and Solomon, D. H. (2008). Parsing the mechanisms that increase rela-
tional intimacy: the effects of uncertainty amount, open communication about
 The influence of subjective norms on relationships 125

uncertainty, and the reduction of uncertainty. Human Communication Research,

34, 625–654.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency
and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.
 6

Network perceptions of daters’ romances

elizabeth keneski and timothy j. loving

In her seminal commentary “The greening of relationship science,” Berscheid

(1999) characterized the then budding field of close relationships research as
ripe with opportunities for expanding beyond the oxymoronic social psycho-
logical tradition of focusing on the individual. Relationship scholars have since
broadened theory, measurement, and statistical techniques to incorporate
dyadic processes and relationship environments. As recently as 2011, however,
researchers recapitulated Berscheid’s sentiment with the now commonplace
assertion that “romantic relationships do not exist in a [social] vacuum” (Sinclair
and Wright, 2009, p. 1543; Slatcher, 2010, p. 279; Sprecher, 2011, p. 630; Vangelisti,
Reis, and Fitzpatrick, 2002, p. 255). The purpose of this assertion is to highlight
the importance of work that examines the impact of couples’ social environ-
ments on their romantic relationships; close relationships clearly unfold within
a broader social context consisting of an intricate web of important relation-
ships with others (hence this volume). When two people become intimately
involved, their social worlds collide to varying degrees. The embedded nature
of couples within their social milieus fosters a relationship context in which
intimates’ social network members interact with, form perceptions about,
and impact individuals’ romantic relationships.
Yet, the irony of continuing to emphasize the necessity of studying
romantic relationships within their social contexts (and not devoid of them)
is that research thus far has largely focused on individuals’ perceptions of social
network influence. Specifically, couple members’ impressions of network rela-
tionship approval and support (or perceived absences of these) are linked with
a variety of relationship outcomes, including desire to initiate a relationship
(Wright and Sinclair, 2012), relationship quality, relationship commitment,

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant
DGE-1110007 awarded to the first author and by the National Institutes of Health grant
1R21HD057432-01A2 awarded to the second author. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health.

126
 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 127

and relationship fate (e.g., Bryant and Conger, 1999; Felmlee, 2001; Felmlee,
Sprecher, and Bassin, 1990; Parks and Adelman, 1983, Parks, Stan, and Eggert,
1983; Sprecher and Felmlee, 1992). Less is known, however, about outsiders’
actual relationship opinions and how they may influence couples’ romances
(with a few notable exceptions that we review shortly). The minimal amount of
knowledge regarding social network members’ perceptions of targets’ relation-
ships represents a considerable gap in the literature (Sprecher, 2011), or essen-
tially another social vacuum. The primary objective of this chapter is to review
extant work on network perceptions of daters’ romances and to present a
model that captures the complexity by which these perceptions develop (and
what they mean for couples’ relationships).
Importantly, we are not arguing that couple members’ perceptions do not
matter; indeed, they do. The essence of social relationships, however, involves
far more than what is perceived to go on in just one person’s mind. Couple
members begin relationships with their own social networks, partners’ net-
works then become intertwined, and partners also form new networks together
as a couple. Couple members’ perceptions of how network members feel about
loved ones’ romantic relationships provide just one perspective on how social
network opinions influence couples and relationships. Gaining social network
members’ reports of actual (rather than perceived) relationship appraisals
broadens our understanding of what is a multifaceted social dynamic.
We suggest that assessing relationship appraisals beyond the dyad has
unique utility for better understanding romantic relationships themselves.
Romantically involved individuals use their understanding of outsiders’ rela-
tionship assessments to gauge their own relationship beliefs (elaborated below;
Berger, 1979; Surra and Milardo, 1991). Thus, intimates are highly motivated to
think that friends and family have positive impressions of the quality of their
partners and relationships. In addition, couple members generally have biased,
primarily overly positive, views of their relationships (Gagne and Lydon,
2004; Loving and Agnew, 2001; Murray and Holmes, 1997). For example, daters
perceive their own relationships as being higher in quality than most other
relationships (Buunk and van den Eijnden, 1997). As a result, intimates likely
believe that friends and family members feel as positively as the intimates
themselves do (cf. Ross, Greene, and House, 1977). We contend that couple
members’ biased estimations of the degree to which important others approve
of couples’ romantic relationships necessitate the assessment of network
members’ actual approval to better understand how social networks influence
couples’ relationships.1

1
We recognize the value of obtaining couple members’ perceptions of network members’
relationship approval to effectively predict relationship outcomes. After all, it is the couple
members who ultimately decide to continue or end a given relationship, and there is ample
evidence that couple members’ perceptions are strong predictors of their own relationships’
128 Elizabeth Keneski and Timothy J. Loving

Interactions between couple members and members of their social networks

are multifaceted and complex. The role of these interactions in the development
of network opinions and couple members’ perceptions of those opinions high-
lights two largely unanswered research questions: (1) how friends and family
come to approve of or disapprove of a given romance, and (2) how couple
members come to perceive network members’ approval or disapproval. Given
the influential capacity of social network members’ relationship appraisals,
understanding how these opinions are formed and relayed to couple members
will shed light on how networks impact relationships. We now turn our atten-
tion briefly to why dating relationships provide an ideal context for studying the
etiology and consequences of network perceptions of romantic relationships.
We then review extant work in which network members’ perceptions and levels
of approval for romances were assessed, and highlight the nuanced findings in
this research area. Finally, we present a model that reflects consideration of this
extant work as well as an agenda for future work.

The life course of dating relationships: transitions

and uncertainty
Our focus throughout this chapter will be primarily on dating relationships
(although we occasionally draw on marital literature for theoretical support).
During the transitional periods in dating relationships (e.g., deciding whether
or not to become exclusive, deciding whether or not to move in together),
daters are in a deliberative state of mind (Gollwitzer, 1990; Gollwitzer and
Bayer, 1999). They carefully evaluate the quality of their relationships in order
to decide how to proceed and, as a result, naturally experience at least some
feelings of ambivalence, anxiety, or fear as well as thoughts of uncertainty
regarding the relationship (e.g., “Do I really want to be with this one person
for the rest of my life?”).2 It is significantly less common for spouses to

outcomes. We argue, however, that the consideration of network members’ actual levels of
approval (and whence they derive) will contribute to a more holistic and descriptive under-
standing of the complex inter-and intrapersonal processes that characterize the day-to-day
functioning of romantic relationships within their social contexts. Additionally, whereas couple
members’ perceptions of approval are most predictive of relationship outcomes, network
members’ actual relationship perceptions and predictions still offer unique, and sometimes
additive, predictive validity (e.g., Agnew, Loving, and Drigotas, 2001; Loving, 2006; MacDonald
and Ross, 1999).
2
The terms “ambivalence” and “uncertainty” are regularly used synonymously in the literature
on relationship transitions. We believe that whereas the two terms actually represent highly
related but distinct constructs (Keneski, Schoenfeld, and Loving, in press), they have not yet
been well delineated in previous theoretical or empirical literature. Therefore, for the purposes
of this chapter, we will use the term “uncertainty” to characterize the emotional experience of
feeling ambivalent about one’s partner or relationship as well as the cognitive experience of
being unsure about the current state or future of one’s relationship (Berger, 1979).
 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 129

experience the same levels of relationship uncertainty after making a lifelong

commitment; they have already made the decision to wed and thus have an
implemental mindset (Gollwitzer, 1990; Gollwitzer and Bayer, 1999).
The uncertainty that accompanies the deliberation surrounding decisions
in developing dating relationships serves as a catalyst for the relationship
approval-seeking process that likely occurs between daters and social network
members. Network relationship approval and support should be most con-
sequential, then, during the relationship transitions that regularly characterize
dating relationships. The impact of network members, in fact, is strongest
when romances are in their early developmental phases (Johnson and Leslie,
1982; Milardo, Johnson, and Huston, 1983). We believe daters’ attempts to
resolve uncertainty about their romances at least partly underlies many of
the findings in the close relationships/social networks literature, especially
findings regarding the link between network approval and romantic relation-
ship outcomes.
Effects of uncertainty on relationship outcomes. According to Braiker and
Kelley (1979), individuals experience ambivalence, or uncertainty, about their
close relationships when they experience one or more of the following: (a)
confusion about feelings toward a partner, (b) insecurity about the future of the
relationship, (c) anxiety about committing to a partner out of fear of losing
independence, or (d) feeling trapped or pressured to remain in a relationship.
Importantly, individuals demonstrate greater processing of relationship infor-
mation (Priester and Petty, 2001) when their romances are in the early stages or
are generally perceived as unstable (Fletcher et al., 1987; Surra and Bohman,
1991). The presence of romantic relationship uncertainty can threaten the
stability of relationships; there is a direct link between levels of uncertainty
about a relationship and the eventual fate of that relationship (Huston et al.,
2001; Planalp and Honeycutt, 1985). For example, in a sample of 156 married
couples, the marriages of couples that quickly divorced were characterized by
greater ambivalence (i.e., confusion and anxiety about the relationship) relative
to any other marital group (e.g., eventually divorced or remained together)
at initial assessment (Huston et al., 2001). Thus, daters who experience more
uncertainty should also experience poorer relationship outcomes, especially if
their uncertainty remains unresolved.
Daters, with their more deliberative mindset, are motivated to reduce
relational uncertainty. The primary means by which individuals can reduce
uncertainty is to gather information (Berger, 1979; Berger and Calabrese, 1975).
For instance, a dater might initiate the “define the relationship” talk with
a partner in order to get information about the status and direction of the
relationship. However, an individual who is buying a home will rarely consult
only with the seller’s realtor – garnering multiple opinions from a variety of
trusted sources better contributes to one’s confidence that the final purchase is
the right one. Similarly, dating relationship transitions are also characterized
130 Elizabeth Keneski and Timothy J. Loving

by daters seeking social network opinions about their romances in order to

resolve relational uncertainty.
Uncertainty reduction. As noted, uncertainty induces evaluative tension
and increased relationship processing. Uncertainty reduction theory (URT)
offers one explanation for these outcomes. URT was originally formulated
to provide an explanation for individuals’ behaviors in the context of newly
formed relationships between strangers, or, more generally, in situations that
are difficult to understand (Kramer, 1999). For example, the experience of
becoming acquainted with another individual is characterized by a high degree
of uncertainty that derives from the inability to predict the other (Berger and
Calabrese, 1975).
Berger later expanded the original formulation of URT to include relation-
ships “beyond initial interaction” (1979, p. 122). Importantly, Knobloch and
colleagues suggest that this relational uncertainty, or the degree of confidence
people have in their perceptions of involvement with another, peaks when
“partners encounter an intense period of reactivity, drama, and turmoil during
the transition from casual dating to serious involvement within courtship”
(Knobloch and Donovan-Kicken, 2006, p. 282). Why would transitions in
relationships be associated with greater degrees of uncertainty? Deciding
whether a particular romantic partner is the “right” partner and worthy of
advancing the relationship to exclusivity is one of the more important deci-
sions individuals will make. Relationships are generally believed to be closely
tied to one’s future happiness; thus, daters often experience significant appre-
hension regarding whether a current partner is worthy of abandoning “single-
dom,” or whether a current partner will continue to make them happy for years
to come. Further, relationships researchers have long disseminated that rela-
tionship quality contributes to individuals’ overall life satisfaction (e.g.,
Hawkins and Booth, 2005; Parker-Pope, 2010) and mental and physical health
(e.g., Burman and Margolin, 1992; Holt-Lunstad, Birmingham, and Jones, 2008).
Thus, relationships characterized by greater degrees of uncertainty regarding
the overall subjective evaluation of the relationship and partner should induce a
motivation to reduce that uncertainty in order to move closer to a decision about
whether a current relationship is worth continuing.
Uncertainty and disclosure. Gathering information is the primary strategy
by which individuals reduce uncertainty (Berger, 1979; Berger and Calabrese,
1975). Further, communication behavior, or talking to others, is proposed to be
the key method for reducing uncertainty about a relationship (Afifi and Weiner,
2004; Kramer, 1999). In other words, when individuals are unsure about their
dating relationships, they often turn to network members to help work through
their uncertainty about a partner or the future of a relationship (Berger, 1979;
Surra and Milardo, 1991).
Seeking the support of others during dating relationship transitions serves
two key functions. First, at the relationship level, support seeking allows
 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 131

individuals to gather information and work through their uncertainty, with the
(hopefully) eventual result of reducing the uncertainty and clarifying a course of
action (e.g., stay or go). Second, at the individual level, the information-seeking
process, via disclosure to and feedback from others, likely serves a comforting
function as well. For example, Planalp and colleagues (1988) asked individuals
to indicate how they managed uncertainty-causing events in their romantic or
friendship relationships. Individuals were more likely to talk to someone other
than the partner (romantic or friendship), and their primary motivation for
doing so was simply to complain or develop a better understanding of the event.
In other words, individuals coping with uncertainty simply wanted to vent their
frustrations. This finding is consistent with Burleson and Goldsmith’s (1998)
argument that the process of disclosing to others, independent of advice provi-
sion, serves to comfort individuals and help them cope with stressors.
If individuals are more likely to seek the support of others when dealing
with uncertainty, then contact with outsiders should increase when individuals
are faced with relationship transitions or problems (i.e., when scrutiny of the
relationship peaks). A number of empirical studies suggest this is exactly what
happens and that individuals are most likely to disclose to a close friend because
of the latter’s perceived role as a “supportive listener” (Baxter and Widenmann,
1993; Lin and Westcott, 1991). For example, adolescents maintain close ties
with friends who serve as support providers as these “new” daters begin to
learn about the romance process (Nieder and Sieffge-Krenke, 2001). Essentially,
friends play an important support role in romantic relationships throughout
the romantic relationship life cycle (Burger and Milardo, 1995; Milardo, 1982).
To summarize, talking to others about romantic relationships is a natural
part of managing romances, and enlisting the support of others is particularly
likely when individuals’ romances are in flux (which happens regularly within
dating relationships). The reciprocal disclosures that occur during this rela-
tionship support process likely influence daters’ and their network members’
opinions about the romances themselves. Thus, the life course of dating rela-
tionships provides ample opportunities for network members to form opinions,
or appraisals, about targets’ romantic relationships, which subsequently influ-
ence relationship outcomes. With this in mind, we next review extant work in
which relationship appraisals were collected from network members (i.e., cou-
ple members’ friends, family members, and roommates).

Social network relationship appraisals and predicting relationship fate

Who and what is asked matters. In one of the first studies to assess third-party
reports of relationship appraisals, MacDonald and Ross (1999) asked young
daters’ roommates and parents to report their perceptions of the daters’ relation-
ships and to predict the fate of those relationships. Specifically, daters, parents,
and roommates reported on the perceived quality of the romantic relationships
132 Elizabeth Keneski and Timothy J. Loving

and were also asked to predict the likelihood that the daters’ relationships
would last from two months to a lifetime. Finally, daters were contacted for
follow-up assessments six months and one year after the first phase of the study
to determine the fate of the romances.
Both parents’ and roommates’ overall perceptions of daters’ relationship
quality were more negative than daters’ own relationship perceptions
(MacDonald and Ross, 1999). For example, parents listed significantly more
relationship challenges than did daters, and daters were more optimistic about
the future of their relationships than were their parents or roommates. Daters
rated the likelihood that their relationships would last significantly higher
than did parents and roommates at every potential time period assessed (two
months to a lifetime). Parents and roommates also rated the extent to which
they believed daters had a positive future ahead as significantly lower than did
daters. Interestingly, daters’ reports of relationship quality were most predic-
tive of actual relationship fate relative to outsiders’ assessments of quality. But,
controlling for daters’ predictions regarding the fate of their romances, room-
mates’ relationship fate predictions explained the most unique variance in
daters’ relationship fates; daters’ predictions only marginally predicted their
longitudinal relationship outcomes. Overall, this work suggests that daters
may have exclusive information about the current quality of their developing
relationships, but social network members, especially peers, are able to accu-
rately predict the fate of those relationships.
To expand on this work, Agnew, Loving, and Drigotas (2001) asked daters
and different categories of their friends to indicate the current quality of daters’
relationships. Specifically, couple members, “her friends,” “his friends,” and
their “joint friends” were asked to report perceptions of the couple’s current
commitment, satisfaction, investment, and quality of alternative partners (the
Investment Model Scale; Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew, 1998). Couples were
contacted six months later to determine the fate of their romances. Female
partners’ friends’ (i.e., “her friends’”) perceptions of the romantic relationships
were generally more strongly associated with daters’ own reports on all rela-
tionship dimensions than were his friends’ perceptions or their joint friends’
perceptions. Whereas both couple members’ and social network members’
overall relationship perceptions predicted relationship fate, her friends’ per-
ceptions were especially accurate predictors of relationship fate, even after
controlling for couple members’ own perceptions. That is, reports of perceived
commitment by friends of female partners more accurately predicted whether
or not couples were still together six months after initial relationship appraisals
were made than did perceptions of any other individuals in the study.
To provide a preliminary assessment of possible mechanisms underlying
the pattern of results reported above, Agnew and colleagues hypothesized that
daters’ tendency to disclose information about their relationships moderates
the extent to which social network perceptions are associated with long-term
 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 133

relationship outcomes. Although a direct measure of disclosure to friends was

not collected, the researchers did ask daters to write up to twelve “thoughts”
about their relationships and used the number of thoughts written as an
ingenious proxy for relationship disclosure tendencies. The number of disclo-
sures about the relationship significantly moderated the association between
her friends’ perceptions of relationship commitment and those friends’ abili-
ties to predict long-term relationship fate; female daters who provided more
relationship-related disclosures had friends whose perceptions about the rela-
tionships more accurately predicted relationship fate. This finding offers pre-
liminary support for the idea that couple members’ disclosures of relationship
information are one way that social network members gain insight into close
others’ relationships.
Building on this work, Loving (2006) employed a similar methodology to
the previously reviewed studies. Both daters and their friends reported per-
ceptions of daters’ current relationship commitment and made predictions
about future relationship fate. Six-month follow-up assessments provided a
measure of long-term relationship outcomes. A distinctive aspect of this study,
however, was that daters were asked to nominate one female and one male
friend with whom they were most likely to discuss their romantic relationships.
Recruiting social network members in this manner allowed for tests of gender
differences in friends’ relationship perceptions and predictions. In addition,
the friendships that participants identified based on this prompt were likely
to be closer friendships and were characterized by higher amounts of
relationship-related disclosures than what might be seen in daters’ other social
relationships.
Similar to the findings of MacDonald and Ross (1999), daters’ reports of
relationship commitment were stronger predictors of relationship fate than
were friends’ overall perceptions of commitment (Loving, 2006). A slightly
different pattern of results was revealed, however, when the gender of daters’
friends was considered. Whereas daters’ commitment perceptions remained
solely predictive of relationship fate, female friends’ (of male and female daters)
direct predictions of relationship fate were as accurate as daters’ direct predic-
tions. This pattern of findings suggests that the way in which social network
members are asked to appraise others’ relationships makes a significant differ-
ence in the extent to which those appraisals predict relationship outcomes
(Loving, 2006).
The consistent pattern of findings regarding gender of dater and friends
across these studies is noteworthy. Given that female friendships are generally
characterized by more disclosures (Caldwell and Peplau, 1982) and by more
intimate disclosures (Dolgin and Minowa, 1997), friends of female couple
members and female friends of either couple member likely receive more
information about the relationship than do other social network members.
Further, female friends are more likely to attend to this type of information
134 Elizabeth Keneski and Timothy J. Loving

(Acitelli and Young, 1996; Cross and Madson, 1997). Thus, both who is
appraising the relationship and the way they are asked to appraise the relation-
ship (i.e., assessments of relationship quality versus fate predictions) influence
network appraisals and the ability of those appraisals to predict relationship
outcomes. Perhaps most importantly, these gender differences highlight the
critical role that disclosures and observations may play in how individuals
develop perceptions about daters’ romances.
Perceived versus actual relationship appraisals. Felmlee (2001) directly
tested whether social network members’ actual opinions or daters’ perceptions
of those opinions are more predictive of relationship outcomes. Students in
organizations on a college campus were asked to report on their own or a friend’s
romantic relationship. Whereas friends’ relationship approval alone was not
associated with daters’ likelihood of breaking up four months later, friends’
approval for the romance and their reports of how well they knew the dating
partner interacted to predict breakup; knowledge of the partner moderated the
ability of approval (or disapproval) to predict relationship outcomes. Not
surprisingly, when comparing the relative predictive ability of daters’ percep-
tions of their friends’ relationship approval and friends actual approval, only
daters’ perceptions and not actual friend approval were associated with subse-
quent breakup (Felmlee, 2001). Importantly, it is hard to know what conclusion
to draw from the Felmlee findings. Given the nature of the study design, it is
possible that the lack of association between network members’ actual levels
of approval and relationship outcomes results from forcing subjects to provide
appraisals of a relationship about which they may or may not have much
knowledge. Indeed, the moderation results reported above suggests that this is
the case.
Etcheverry, Le, and Charania (2008) addressed this limitation by also
collecting assessments from daters and their friends. Specifically, daters reported
their relationship satisfaction, commitment, and perceptions of their friends’
approval (or what they refer to as “normative beliefs”) about their relationships
(e.g., “My friend thinks that this is/is not a good current romantic relationship
for me”). Daters also reported the degree to which friends’ opinions mattered to
them in making relationship decisions (Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004) and were
asked to nominate friends who were subsequently contacted by the researchers.
Friends who responded to researchers’ requests reported their actual approval
about the target participants’ romantic relationships. Daters were then con-
tacted seven months after the initial assessment to indicate whether or not they
were still dating.
Similar to the effects reported by MacDonald and Ross (1999) and Agnew
and colleagues (2001), Etcheverry and colleagues (2008) found that daters
perceived their friends’ approval as being significantly more positive than
friends actually reported. Friends’ approval for daters’ relationships was asso-
ciated with daters’ relationship commitment, and this association was mediated
 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 135

by daters’ perceptions of friends’ approval for the relationships. In addition,

both friends’ actual approval and daters’ relationship satisfaction were associ-
ated with daters’ perceptions of friends’ approval. Thus, daters clearly must
ascertain their friends’ actual relationship approval somehow through interac-
tional exchanges with those friends (we will propose mechanisms for these
exchanges later). Importantly, however, there also seems to be a potentially
reciprocal relationship between daters’ relationship satisfaction and daters’
meta-perceptions of their friends’ relationship approval. Specifically, daters
may appraise the information gained during relationship-related interactions
with friends through the biased lens of daters’ own perceptions of relationship
quality; in the other direction, daters’ perceptions of their friends’ relationship
approval likely also influence daters’ own relationship perceptions and relation-
ship satisfaction. These results provide evidence for connections between social
network members’ actual relationship assessments, daters’ perceptions of those
assessments, and subsequent relationship outcomes.
Collectively, the results of the few studies that have assessed third-party
opinions about couples’ romantic relationships highlight the myriad factors
that influence the development of network perceptions and opinions about
romances. The nature of the social network members’ relationships with couple
members (i.e., type of relationship, gender of network member and couple
member) as well as the type of relationship appraisal provided (e.g., relationship
quality versus direct relationship fate predictions) all are associated with varying
degrees of accuracy in predicting relationship outcomes. Any attempt to
describe the complex associations between network perceptions and relation-
ship outcomes must account for these factors. In our view, we have only begun
to scratch the surface of what are clearly complicated theoretical and methodo-
logical issues in research on network perceptions and daters’ romances. To us,
two of the big unanswered (and generally unasked) questions about this line
of work are: How do network members develop the perceptions they have of
daters’ romances, and how do couple members glean those perceptions? For
the remainder of this chapter, we propose a model that describes how social
network members form their opinions about close others’ relationships as well
as how this opinion formation process is tied to the more commonly studied
constructs of perceived network approval and romantic relationship outcomes.

Social Network Evaluation and Transmission (S-NET) Model

Although it is now well established that perceived network approval influences
relationship outcomes (see Etcheverry and Le, this volume; Sinclair and
Ellithorpe, this volume), we know far less about the origins of actual network
approval and how that approval is transmitted to the romantically involved.
Building on extant work, as well as preliminary work from our lab, we propose
that social network members’ relationship perceptions are derived via two
136 Elizabeth Keneski and Timothy J. Loving

Macro-Level Context

Social network Social network

a c Social network d Social network
members’ members’
members’ members’
relationship relationship
approval support
observations perceptions j

b e Relationship
g outcomes

Couple
h Couple members’ f Couple members’
members’
perceived perceived
relationship
network approval network support
disclosures
k

figure 6.1 Social Network Evaluation and Transmission (S-NET) Model

primary pathways: network members’ relationship-relevant observations

(path a) and couple members’ relationship-relevant disclosures (path b; see
Figure 6.1). These observations and disclosures inform social network mem-
bers’ perceptions of romantic relationships, and, subsequently, their (dis)-
approval of those relationships (path c). Levels of approval in turn affect
network members’ (lack of) support for the romances (path d; we distinguish
between the commonly confounded constructs of relationship approval and
relationship support below). Network members’ (lack of) support for roman-
ces affects couple members’ perceptions of network members’ (lack of) support
(path e), which subsequently contribute to couple members’ perceptions of
network approval or disapproval (path f). The distinction between approval
and support is an important one, as it makes clear that it is via network
members’ supportive (or non-supportive) actions that relationship participants
deduce the level of approval others have for their romances; that is, social
network (dis)approval itself is only indirectly associated with couple members’
perceived levels of network support.
The S-NET Model allows for reciprocal paths between networks’ actual
levels of approval and support (i.e., with attitudes informing behaviors and
behaviors informing attitudes; path d). We also presume that daters’ disclo-
sures carry important nonverbal and contextual cues that further shape social
network members’ relationship-relevant observations (path g). Additionally,
drawing on past work, couple members’ disclosures are hypothesized to affect
couple members’ perceptions of network (dis)approval and vice versa (e.g.,
selective disclosure; path h). We leave open the possibility that daters’ disclo-
sures, which generally reflect daters’ attitudes about their relationships, directly
predict relationship outcomes (path i). Finally, we suggest that actual social
network relationship support, as well as daters’ perceptions of network appro-
val, influence relationship outcomes (paths j and k, respectively). Importantly,
 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 137

these complex social dynamics occur within a broader macro-level cultural

context, and this context moderates the proposed paths between constructs.3
We elaborate on these hypothesized paths below.
Couple members’ relationship-relevant disclosures. As reviewed above, one
manner in which daters process relationship uncertainty and events is via
disclosures to social network members (e.g., Leslie, Huston, and Johnson, 1986;
Youniss and Smollar, 1985). The information couple members choose to share
with close others informs social network members’ perceptions of couples’
relationships (path b). Preliminary support for path b stems from the finding
that the perceptions of network members whose friends had a tendency to
disclose more about their romances were more predictive of relationship fate
than those perceptions of network members whose friends tended to disclose
less (Agnew et al., 2001). Additional evidence for this path, particularly the
intuitive idea that people talk to others about their romances, comes from a
series of studies of emerging adults in relationships (Boelter et al., 2012; Loving
and Pope, 2007). For example, Boelter and colleagues (2012) asked daters to
directly report the degree to which they talked to close friends and family
members about positive and negative aspects of daters’ relationships. Daters
reported disclosing more overall and more negative information to friends
than to family. Interestingly, the amounts of overall and positive disclosures to
family were more closely tied to relationship quality than were positive and
negative disclosures to friends. Thus, friends may serve as a “sounding board”
for daters as they assess the quality of their developing relationships, providing
daters’ friends with a wide range of relationship-relevant information. In
contrast, couple members may wait to disclose relationship information to
family members until they and their friends have vetted the relationship and
daters are more certain they will receive approval. Family members’ percep-
tions, therefore, may be particularly insightful when relationships are going
very well. This work highlights the fact that network members’ perceptions
about daters’ romances will be differentially informed by the amount and type
of information daters choose to disclose.
In a second study, Boelter and colleagues (2012) asked daters to report
perceived levels of approval from mothers, fathers, and close friends. Daters’
perceptions of mothers’ and fathers’ relationship approval were positively

3
Although the focus of our model is to delineate the relationship opinion formation process for
close social network members (i.e., friends and family members), we believe the model could
also explain how less close acquaintances, or even unacquainted observers, form relationship
appraisals. For example, an onlooker of a couple’s argument observes the couple members’
interaction and gains a certain amount of disclosed relationship information from the over-
heard conversation. The observer then derives a cognitive appraisal of the couple’s relationship
and may even display some sort of behavioral response to convey his or her (dis)approval of the
relationship (e.g., giving the couple a dirty look if the public argument has become especially
heated). In this example, couple members may notice the looks they are receiving, and a
conglomeration of these types of instances could result in less positive relationship outcomes.
138 Elizabeth Keneski and Timothy J. Loving

linked to both the total number of reported disclosures and the number of
positive disclosures to parents. Positive and negative disclosures to close friends
were associated with daters’ perceived approval as well (in the expected opposite
directions). Consistent with extant work, perceived approval from both parents
and friends was associated with relationship quality. Although this additional
study is correlational and only includes daters’ perceptions of network approval,
the findings support the general idea that daters’ perceptions of approval from
network members influence what they tell those network members (and/or vice
versa; i.e., path h).
Further evidence from our lab indicates that network members and daters
agree on the extent to which daters disclose to network members, and that
these disclosures affect actual and perceived approval as well as relationship
outcomes. In a secondary analysis of the data reported in Loving (2006),
Loving and Pope (2007) examined the covariation between daters’ and friends’
reports of daters’ disclosure to friends. Daters’ and friends’ reports of disclo-
sure frequency and valence were significantly correlated, indicating that both
parties tend to agree on how much relationship information is being shared
between couple members and their friends as well as on what type of informa-
tion is being shared. Not surprisingly, relationship-related disclosures were
associated with friends’ actual approval (path bàc) such that more positive
disclosures were related to higher approval and more negative disclosures were
related to lower approval. Actual approval also predicted daters’ perceptions of
that approval (presumably through the hypothesized pathways delineated in
the S-NET Model; see below). Positive and negative disclosures also directly
predicted long-term relationship fate (rather than indirectly through actual
or perceived approval; i.e., path i). Thus, daters’ disclosures are indicative of
current relationship quality and also clearly provide network members with
important diagnostic information. Overall, these lines of work provide com-
pelling evidence that social network members learn about couple members’
relationships via couple members’ disclosures, and that these disclosures affect
social network approval and relationship fate.
Social network members’ relationship observations. Social network mem-
bers learn about couples’ romantic relationships via observations as well
(path a). As couple members’ friends and family are the most proximal
observers of the relationship (outside of the couple), watching couples inter-
act and taking note of major relationship events or “red flags” should provide
social network members with a foundation of information on which to base
relationship perceptions. For instance, hearing a friend’s partner call her an
insulting name can likely only be interpreted as negative and an indicator
of poor relationship quality. Additionally, it is likely that network members
pick up on subtle (or not-so-subtle) nonverbal cues when couple members
are disclosing relationship-relevant information (path g). Collectively, these
observations provide additional information about the functioning of
 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 139

romantic relationships and should contribute to the degree to which network

members approve of romances (path c).
Despite their intuitive appeal, we are unaware of any direct empirical
evidence to support these hypothesized paths. However, additional analyses of
the dataset from which Loving’s (2006) results were derived provides prelimi-
nary support for this part of the model (Loving, 2001). Specifically, daters’ close
friends were asked “How often did you view your friend and his/her romantic
relationship partner interact together?” and to rate “to what extent would you
say you were able to learn about _______’s romantic relationship by viewing
his/her facial expressions, body language, etc.?” Responses to both items refer-
enced “the past month” and were rated on a 9-point scale (0 = not at all; 8 = a
great deal). Average responses indicated a reasonable number of opportunities
for relationship-relevant observations (M = 3.08, SD = 2.48; M = 4.68, SD = 2.36,
respectively). Importantly, frequency distributions of these variables were
widespread, indicating that daters’ friends varied significantly in the extent to
which they were able to observe and learn about daters’ relationships. Therefore,
network members’ relationship perceptions will vary based upon their expe-
riences with relationship-related disclosures and observations and that
variation may be meaningful in its own right. In other words, the interaction
of information gleaned via disclosures versus observations likely leads to a
unique set of relationship perceptions depending on the nature of the relation-
ship between specific network members and couple members (e.g., Agnew et al.,
2001; Loving, 2006).
Approval and support. One of the more unfortunate semantic oversights in
the literature on social networks and relationships is the manner in which the
terms relationship “approval” and relationship “support” are used interchange-
ably (Lehmiller, 2012) and sometimes even denoted as “approval/support” (e.g.,
Felmlee, 2001). The combination of these distinct constructs confuses social
network members’ relationship (dis)approval (i.e., internal cognitive appraisals
and feelings about couples’ relationships) and relationship support or interfer-
ence (i.e., observable behaviors network members enact that convey their level
of relationship approval or disapproval). Once social network perceptions of
relationship approval are formed, we argue that they are transmitted through
network members’ relationship-specific behavioral support, lack of support, or
interference (path d). It is friends’ and family members’ behaviors toward a
dater’s partner and relationship that should inform couple members of net-
work members’ level of support (e.g., telling your friend you (dis)like his/her
partner, inviting the couple to your home, hugging the partner, not including
the partner in party invitations; path e). For instance, as Becca sees that her
brother Chris is trying to get to know her new boyfriend Darren, she is likely
to perceive higher levels of approval from Chris (path f). We are hopeful that
researchers will distinguish social network approval and support in future
work so that these unique (albeit linked) constructs are not further
140 Elizabeth Keneski and Timothy J. Loving

confounded. Making this distinction will allow for more precise determina-
tion of how social network members’ implicit and explicit relationship
appraisals influence couple members’ perceptions of social network approval
and support.
Theoretically and operationally differentiating these two constructs also
allows for the formation of hypotheses that address the nuances of social net-
work approval versus support. For example, it could be possible that a young
woman’s mother does not approve of her daughter’s new boyfriend, but still
shows her daughter behavioral relationship support to preserve their positive
mother–daughter relationship. The combination of varying degrees of approval
and support creates several possible scenarios for social network approval and
behaviors to influence relationship outcomes directly or indirectly. For instance,
daters’ friends or family members may actively approve by demonstrating their
approval of a relationship (e.g., “I think these two are a great match”) through
behavioral support (e.g., asking about how the partner is doing). On the other
hand, if a friend or family member disapproves (e.g., “This is not the right guy
for her”), he or she may do so passively by withholding relationship support (e.g.,
not asking how the partner is doing), but not actively opposing the relationship.
However, strongly disapproving social network members may actively disap-
prove by behaviorally interfering with the relationship, thus directly affecting
relationship outcomes (e.g., telling the couple member to end the relationship,
threatening to end the friendship if the relationship continues; see Etcheverry
and Agnew, 2013; Etcheverry and Le, this volume). Note that distinguishing
approval from support allows for the possibility of network members’ support to
directly affect relationship outcomes (path j) above and beyond couple mem-
bers’ perceptions of network approval. Indeed, network members appear to
be aware of their abilities to influence relationship outcomes via their actions
(Sprecher, 2011).
The separation of the (dis)approval/(lack of ) support and active/passive
dimensions of network members’ relationship opinions helps to explain dis-
crepancies between couple members’ perceptions of network approval and
actual network approval. That is, it is much easier for couple members to
obtain accurate perceptions of an actively approving or actively disapproving
network member – a girl hears her mother say she does not like her partner,
or sees a friend hug her partner. A discrepancy may arise, however, when a
network member passively approves or passively disapproves of a relationship.
It is more difficult for a couple member to interpret a friend simply not asking
about her partner as approving or disapproving, and these are also situations
in which couple members’ own relationship evaluations may more greatly
influence their perceptions of network approval. Therefore, determining both
network members’ actual levels of approval and support as well as couple
members’ perceptions of network approval and support will shed light on how
each differentially and/or additively influences relationship outcomes.
 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 141

Finally, up to now, we have suggested that levels of social network approval

lead to concomitant levels of social network support; however, we do not
propose that this path is unidirectional (see path d). Network members’
support for a given relationship certainly depends on their level of approval
for that relationship, but levels of approval will also be influenced by enacting
supportive relationship behaviors. In other words, much like individuals infer
self-perceptions from observing their own actions (Bem, 1967; 1972), network
members may draw inferences about their approval based on their behaviors
toward couple members or the relationship.
Normative beliefs as a macro-level context. Relationships do not exist in a
contextual vacuum. One of the key features of the S-NET Model is that the
inter-and intrapersonal dynamics that influence individuals’ thoughts about
relationships are acknowledged to occur within a broader macro-level con-
text. All relationships occur within social environments that are comprised of
norms for behavior. We propose that both relationship observers (i.e., social
network members) and couple members take note of how relationships are
developing and compare those observations to socially dictated relationship
scripts and norms. The outcome of this comparison contributes to their
relationship perceptions, and thus relationship appraisals (i.e., network mem-
bers’ levels of approval; couple members’ levels of relationship satisfaction).
In other words, socially dictated norms serve as a guiding framework by
which relationship observations are made and how those observations are
evaluated.
Individuals are socialized early on that relationships develop in a prescribed
way. For example, nursery rhymes teach children to recognize that “first comes
love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage.” We
suggest this nursery rhyme does more than offer fodder for schoolyard teasing.
In fact, such socialization practices inform individuals’ perceptions about the
way relationships are “supposed to” unfold. In support of this assertion, indi-
viduals reliably identify and order the events that occur during dating relation-
ships (Honeycutt, Cantrill, and Greene, 1989). Further, the extent to which
daters’ scripts for normative relationship development match the way their
relationships are actually unfolding is associated with relationship well-being
(Holmberg and MacKenzie, 2002).
The fact that the extent to which relationships develop in a normative
fashion predicts positive relationship well-being is telling. One likely reason
for this pattern of results is because daters’ network members are certainly
also aware of those norms, and there is a large literature documenting that
groups react strongly when social norms are not adhered to (cf. Feldman,
1984). We suspect that social networks facilitate daters’ adherence to relation-
ship development norms through their demonstrated approval (or lack
thereof) for daters’ relationships. Friends and family members have a vested
interest in their loved ones’ happiness and success in their intimate
142 Elizabeth Keneski and Timothy J. Loving

relationships. Therefore, network members should be highly motivated to

encourage daters to follow social norms for relationships that they believe
will result in thriving relationships. Indeed, couples in marginalized relation-
ships (e.g., gay and lesbian relationships, interracial relationships, relation-
ships in which couple members have a large age-gap) perceive less societal
and less network support for their relationships (see Lehmiller and Agnew,
2006; Lehmiller and Ioerhger, this volume). Additionally, departures from
social scripts of the normative order in which dating milestones occur (e.g.,
first date, then first sex, then saying “I love you,” then meeting the parents)
result in less network approval and less network support for a given romance
(Keneski, Loving, and Neff, 2012). In both of these cases, lower levels of
perceived network approval and support associated with departures from
relationship norms also influenced relationship quality (Keneski et al., 2012;
Lehmiller and Agnew, 2006).
To further illustrate the role of network expectations regarding normative
relationship development, imagine that Becca’s brother, Chris, watches Becca
and Darren begin to date and hears them say “I love you” to one another within
two weeks of meeting each other. Chris’s judgment about the quality of the
relationship and whether it will last is likely to be guided (in part) by what
he considers “normal” in new dating relationships. He may think, “They are
moving much too fast.” His appraisal of Becca and Darren’s relationship is
derived from his observations of their interactions within the context of what
he perceives to be normal romantic relationship development (with “normal”
contributing to “success”). Based on this perception, Chris should approve less
of his sister’s new relationship and, as a result, show less behavioral support for
the relationship (i.e., he might be less likely to tell Becca what a great match she
and Darren are, or may decide not to invite the two of them to social gatherings
together). As a result, Becca will detect the lack of support from Chris for her
relationship and determine that he does not approve. Becca’s perceived lack
of relationship support from Chris may also impact how satisfied she is in her
relationship with Darren and whether or not she ultimately decides to continue
the relationship.
Altogether, the S-NET Model represents, to our knowledge, the first
attempt to integrate what romantically involved individuals think others
think about their romantic relationships with proposed processes by
which those impressions are formed and influence relationship outcomes.
Moreover, the model further “socializes” our understanding of how romantic
relationships and social networks interact by giving due attention to network
members themselves (and their perceptions) as well as the broader social
contexts in which romantic relationships exist. Support for the model at this
point is tentative and at times based on indirect or proxy-level variables, but
we believe its intuitive appeal holds great potential for spurring future work
on this topic.
 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 143

conclusion
Relationship science has come a long way since Berscheid’s (1999) call to expand
the field’s focus beyond the individual. Research has sufficiently demonstrated
that couples’ romances do not (and cannot) unfold in a “social vacuum.” Perhaps,
then, when we say that “relationships do not exist in a vacuum,” what we should
be referring to is that there are interactions between couple members and social
networks that occur at all levels of the romantic relationship appraisal process,
and these interactions provide important information. Close relationships
researchers must continue to broaden their definition of the word “social”
regarding social networks’ impact on intimates’ relationships. The assess-
ment of social network members’ appraisals of couples’ relationships (and
not just couple members’ own perceptions) is one vital step toward under-
standing the complex relational dynamics that exist between couples and
their networks: work that includes the collection of information from net-
work members has greatly expanded our knowledge of how relationships
function in the real world. Yet, such studies offer only a glimmer of insight
into what we can learn when we move beyond the dyad. Focusing on how
network members form their perceptions, distinguishing between what goes
on in network members’ heads versus what they do to relay their opinions,
and considering how specific normative contexts moderate the manner in
which network members interact with and influence romantic relationships
is critical if we are to continue the greening of relationship science.

references
Acitelli, L. K., and Young, A. M. (1996). Gender and thought in relationships. In
G. J. O. Fletcher and J. Fitness (eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: a
social psychological approach (pp. 147–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Afifi, W. A., and Weiner, J. L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information
management. Communication Theory, 14, 167–190.
Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., and Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the
trees: social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042–1057.
Baxter, L. A., and Widenmann, S. (1993). Revealing and not revealing the status of
romantic relationships to social networks. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 10, 321–337.
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: an alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance
phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200.
(1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, Vol. 6 (pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.
Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: uncertainty, understanding, and the
development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles and R. N. St. Clair (eds.),
Language and social psychology (pp. 122–144). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
144 Elizabeth Keneski and Timothy J. Loving

Berger, C. R., and Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and
beyond: toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human
Communication Research, 1, 99–112.
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54,
260–266.
Boelter, J., Loving, T. J., Le, B., Harmon, R., and Layfield, C. (2012). Information
manipulation: emerging adults’ romantic relationship quality and disclosures to
family and friends. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research on Adolescence, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Braiker, H. B., and Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relation-
ships. In R. Burgess and T. L. Huston (eds.), Social exchange in developing relation-
ships (pp. 135–168). New York: Academic Press.
Burger, E., and Milardo, R. M. (1995). Marital interdependence and social networks.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 403–415.
Burleson, B. R., and Goldsmith, D. J. (1998). How the comforting process works:
alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In
P. A. Andersen and L. K. Guerrero (eds.), Handbook of communication and
emotion: research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 245–280). New York:
Academic Press.
Burman, B., and Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital
relationships and health problems: an interactional perspective. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 39–63.
Buunk, B. P., and van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M. (1997). Perceived prevalence, perceived
superiority, and relationship satisfaction: most relationships are good, but ours is
the best. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 219–228.
Bryant, C. M., and Conger, R. D. (1999). Marital success and domains of social support
in long-term relationships: does the influence of network members ever end?
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 437–450.
Caldwell, M. A., and Peplau, L. A. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendship. Sex
Roles, 8, 721–732.
Cross, S. E., and Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: self-construals and gender.
Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.
Dolgin, K. G., and Minowa, N. (1997). Gender difference in self-presentation: a com-
parison of the roles of flatteringness and intimacy in self-disclosure to friends. Sex
Roles, 36, 371–380.
Etcheverry, P. E., and Agnew, C. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of
romantic relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11, 409–428.
Etcheverry, P. E., Le, B., and Charania, M. R. (2008). Perceived versus reported social
referent approval and romantic relationship commitment and persistence.
Personal Relationships, 15, 281–295.
Feldman, D. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 47–53.
Felmlee, D. (2001). No couple is an island: a social stability network perspective on
dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79, 1259–1287.
Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., and Bassin, E. (1990). The dissolution of intimate relation-
ships: a hazard model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 13–30.
Fletcher, G. J., Fincham, F. D., Cramer, L., and Heron, N. (1987). The role of attributions
in the development of dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 481–489.
 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 145

Gagne, F. M., and Lydon, J. E. (2004). Bias and accuracy in close relationships: an
integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 322–338.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins and
R. M. Sorrentino (eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: foundations of
social behavior, Vol. 2 (pp. 53–92). New York: Guilford.
Gollwitzer, P. M., and Bayer, U. (1999). Deliberative versus implemental mindsets in
the control of action. In S. Chaiken and Y. Trope (eds.), Dual-process theories in
social psychology (pp. 403–422). New York: Guilford.
Hawkins, D. N., and Booth, A. (2005). Unhappily ever after: effects of long-term,
low-quality marriages on well-being. Social Forces, 84, 451–471.
Holmberg, D., and MacKenzie, S. (2002). So far, so good: scripts for romantic relation-
ship development as predictors of relational well-being. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 19, 777–796.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Birmingham, W., and Jones, B. Q. (2008). Is there something unique
about marriage? The relative impact of marital status, relationship quality, and
network social support on ambulatory blood pressure and mental health. Annals
of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 239–244.
Honeycutt, J. M., Cantrill, J. G., and Greene, R. W. (1989). Memory structures for
relational escalation: a cognitive test of the sequencing of relational actions and
stages. Human Communication Research, 16, 62–90.
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., and George, L. J. (2001). The
connubial crucible: newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and
divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 237–252.
Johnson, M. P., and Leslie, L. (1982). Couple involvement and network structure: a test
of the dyadic withdrawal hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 34–43.
Keneski, E., Loving, T. J., and Neff, L. A. (2012). And this relationship is just right:
applying the Goldilocks Principle to courtship patterns. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Association for Relationship Research
(IARR), Chicago, IL.
Keneski, E., Schoenfeld, E., and Loving, T. J. (in press). Individual differences in the
relationship transition context: links to physiological outcomes. Journal of
Personality.
Knobloch, L. K., and Donovan-Kicken, E. (2006). Perceived involvement of network
members in courtships: a test of the relational turbulence model. Personal
Relationships, 13, 281–302.
Kramer, M. W. (1999). Motivation to reduce uncertainty: a reconceptualization
of uncertainty reduction theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 13,
305–316.
Lehmiller, J. J. (2012). Perceived marginalization and its association with physical
and psychological health. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29,
451–469.
Lehmiller, J. J., and Agnew, C. R. (2006). Marginalized relationships: the impact of
social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 40–51.
Leslie, L. A., Huston, T. L., and Johnson, M. P. (1986). Parental reactions to dating
relationships: do they make a difference? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,
57–66.
Lin, N., and Westcott, J. (1991). Marital engagement/disengagement, social networks,
and mental health. In J. Eckenrode (ed.), The social context of coping (pp. 213–237).
New York: Plenum Press.
146 Elizabeth Keneski and Timothy J. Loving

Loving, T. J. (2001). Intra-and extra-dyadic perceptions of romantic relationships.

Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
(2006). Predicting dating relationship fate with insiders’ and outsiders’ perspectives:
who and what is asked matters. Personal Relationships, 13, 349–362.
Loving, T. J., and Agnew, C. R. (2001). Socially desirable responding in close relation-
ships: a dual-component approach and measure. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 18, 551–573.
Loving, T. J., and Pope, M. (2007). Uncertainty reduction or uncertainty expansion?
When contact with friends promotes termination of dating relationships. In
T. J. Loving (chair), Internal and external forms of relationship support: The role
of self, partner, and networks on romantic relationship outcomes. Symposium
conducted at the 8th annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology (SPSP), Memphis, TN.
MacDonald, T. K., and Ross, M. (1999). Assessing the accuracy of predictions about
dating relationships: how and why do lovers’ predictions differ from those made
by observers? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1417–1429.
Milardo, R. M. (1982). Friendship networks in developing relationships: converging and
diverging social environments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 162–172.
Milardo, R. M., Johnson, M. P., and Huston, T. L. (1983). Developing close relation-
ships: changing patterns of interaction between pair members and social net-
works. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 964–976.
Murray, S. L., and Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586–604.
Nieder, T., and Sieffge-Krenke, I. (2001). Coping with stress in different phases of
romantic development. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 297–311.
Parker-Pope, T. (2010). For better: the science of a good marriage. New York: Dutton.
Parks, M. R., and Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and the develop-
ment of romantic relationships: an expansion of uncertainty reduction theory.
Human Communication Research, 10, 55–79.
Parks, M. R., Stan, C. M., and Eggert, L. L. (1983). Romantic involvement and social
network involvement. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 116–131.
Planalp, S., and Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal
relationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593–604.
Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., and Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase uncertainty
in personal relationships: II. Replication and extension. Human Communication
Research, 14, 516–547.
Priester, J. R., and Petty, R. E. (2001). Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal
ambivalence: interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 19–34.
Ross, L., Greene, D., and House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: an egocentric
bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 13, 279–301.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., and Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale:
measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and invest-
ment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.
Sinclair, C. H., and Wright, B. L. (2009). Social networks: effects on developed relation-
ships. In H. Reis and S. Sprecher (eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships
(pp. 1543–1548). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Slatcher, R. B. (2010). When Harry and Sally met Dick and Jane: creating closeness
between couples. Personal Relationships, 17, 279–297.
 Network perceptions of daters’ romances 147

Sprecher, S. (2011). The influence of social networks on romantic relationships: through

the lens of the social network. Personal Relationships, 18, 630–644.
Sprecher, S., and Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality
and stability of romantic relationships: a three-wave longitudinal investigation.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 888–900.
Surra, C. A., and Bohman, T. (1991). The development of close relationships: a cognitive
perspective. In G. J. O. Fletcher and F. D. Fincham (eds.), Cognition in close
relationships (pp. 281–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Surra, C. A., and Milardo, R. M. (1991). The social psychological context of developing
relationships. In W. H. Jones and D. Perlman (eds.), Advances in personal rela-
tionships, Vol. 3 (pp. 1–36). London: Kingsley.
Vangelisti, A. L., Reis, H. R., and Fitzpatrick, M. A. (eds.) (2002). Stability and change in
relationships. Cambridge University Press.
Wright, B. L., and Sinclair, C. H. (2012). Pulling the strings: effects of friend and parent
opinions on dating choices. Personal Relationships, 19, 743–758.
Youniss, J., and Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and
friends. University of Chicago Press.
 7

The new story of Romeo and Juliet

h. colleen sinclair and chelsea n. ellithorpe

It has been more than forty years since Driscoll, Davis, and Lipetz (1972)
published their finding that parental disapproval fueled, rather than quelled,
romance: an outcome they termed “the Romeo and Juliet effect.” Since that
time, replications of the effect have been somewhat elusive, leading some to
question whether the effect is as fictional as the title may suggest. Nonetheless,
much like the story, the lore of the Romeo and Juliet effect persists, and the
finding continues to be cited in popular press, blogs, textbooks, and papers
today (e.g., DeWall et al., 2011; Fisher, 2004).1
Accordingly, the studies discussed in the present chapter set out to explore
under what circumstances the Romeo and Juliet effect may be found. Romeo
and Juliet is often considered a story of two ill-destined lovers who defy their
families’ disapproval to be together. Building on the legendary premise, we
examined three essential presumptions about the Romeo and Juliet effect, or
what we call “the three Ds.” Namely, we explored whether destiny, defiance,
and disapproval are really the key elements underlying the Romeo and Juliet
effect.
First, a brief overview will be given of what we know about the Romeo and
Juliet effect to date. Then, new findings regarding the role of destiny, defiance,
and disapproval in the lives of “real-life” Romeos and Juliets will be reviewed.
We think these findings tell the new story of Romeo and Juliet, and thus of the
consequences of family and friend disapproval for the state and fate of roman-
tic relationships.

the old story of romeo and juliet

We begin our story with a review of the original study conducted by Driscoll
and colleagues (1972). Their study was a longitudinal survey that followed both
members of forty-nine dating and ninety-one married couples over a period of

1
As of June, 2013 a Google search of “Romeo and Juliet effect” will yield over 91,000 results.

148
 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 149

six to ten months. They assessed amounts of love, trust, and commitment at
Time 1 and again, six to ten months later, at Time 2. At Time 1, they also asked
each respondent six questions about whether their partner had communicated
to them that they felt the respondent’s parents were interfering in the relation-
ship. They asked these questions again approximately eight months later.
Generally, higher levels of initial perceived interference were positively corre-
lated with commitment. However, in addition to computing correlations
between interference and commitment, the authors then computed a differ-
ence between Time 1 and Time 2 perceptions of parental interference and love.
Subsequently, the finding that gained the most attention was that increases in
perceptions of parental interference were found to be positively correlated with
increases in love over the same time period, particularly for dating couples.
This increase in love in spite of, or possibly because of, perceived parental
disapproval and interferences became known as “the Romeo and Juliet effect.”
Since the publication of the original study, a handful of studies have found
similar effects. For instance, Parks, Stan, and Eggert (1983) found a curvilinear
relationship between lack of approval and what they called “greater romantic
involvement.” Slight to moderate opposition from the social network (i.e.,
one’s family and friends) was linked to higher reports of love and solidarity
compared to when opinions were neutral or strongly disapproving. Felmlee
(2001) found some evidence that parental disapproval lowered the likelihood of
breakup in her longitudinal study of dating couples. However, this occurred
only when friends still approved. Lehmiller and Agnew (2006) conducted a
study comparing historically marginalized (such as interracial, age-gap, and
same-sex) couples with non-marginalized couple members on aspects of the
investment model (e.g., satisfaction, investment, perceived alternatives, com-
mitment; Rusbult, Agnew, and Arriaga, 2012). They found that marginalized
couples reported higher commitment and lower perceived alternatives com-
pared to couples not facing social disapproval. Lastly, in Sprecher’s (2011)
survey of social network members who reported their experiences disapprov-
ing of another’s romantic relationship, 14.1 percent believed that their disap-
proval had backfired and resulted in the disapproved relationship becoming
stronger. However, aside from these few exceptions, the majority of studies
have found that social network approval is what benefits relationships, not
social disapproval.

the social network effect

In contrast to the Romeo and Juliet effect, the “social network effect” (Felmlee,
2001) argues that social network approval is linked to better outcomes in a
variety of relationships, rather than social network disapproval. Specifically,
perceived lack of social network approval has been linked to an array of
negative outcomes, including decreased love, commitment, and satisfaction,
150 H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe

and increased risks of infidelity, conflict, and breakup (e.g., Etcheverry and
Agnew, 2004; Johnson and Milardo, 1984; Knoblach and Donovan-Kicken,
2006; Lewis, 1973; Sprecher and Felmlee, 1992; Zak et al., 2002). These studies
have included relationships at multiple stages, whether newly dating or mar-
ried over twenty years (e.g., Bryant and Conger, 1999; Bryant, Conger, and
Meehan, 2001; Cox et al., 1997). These studies have also examined multiple
types of relationships, such as same-sex, internet, interracial, long-distance,
and age-gap relationships (e.g., Blair and Holmberg, 2008; Lehmiller and
Agnew, 2006; Wildermuth, 2004) and involved diverse samples, including
international, African-American, and adolescent samples (e.g., Goodwin,
2003; MacDonald and Jessica, 2006; Parks, 2007; Zhang and Kline, 2009). In
fact, the meta-analysis by Le and colleagues (2010) of 137 studies examining
predictors of dating relationship dissolution found social network support to
be a robust negative indicator of relationship termination.
It is important to note that none of these studies has been an exact
replication of the original study by Driscoll and colleagues (1972). The studies
vary in terms of operationalization of disapproval, and none of them has
looked at changes in partner perceptions of parental interference over time.
Yet, even in studies showing some evidence of the Romeo and Juliet effect,
there is evidence of the negative impact of social disapproval. For instance,
even the original Driscoll study found that increases in interference were linked
to declines in trust of one’s partner. Parks and colleagues (1983) found the
linear effects of parental opinion to be stronger than curvilinear ones.
Lehmiller and Agnew (2006) also found that marginalized couples invested
less in their relationship than non-marginalized couples. Moreover, although
14.1 percent of Sprecher’s (2011) participants felt their disapproval had
strengthened their network member’s intimate relationship, 22 percent
believed that the relationship became weaker because of their disapproval.
Accordingly, there seems to be considerable support for the “social network
effect,” that social network approval can make a relationship while network
disapproval can break it.

the allure of the romeo and juliet effect

Still, the legend of Romeo and Juliet endures. In Reis’s (2011) recent history of
relationships research, the Romeo and Juliet effect was touted as “ever-
popular” (p. 219). This effect continues to be cited in current texts and research
papers as fact (e.g., DeWall et al., 2011; Fisher, 2004), while criticized in others
as lacking empirical support (e.g., Berscheid and Reis, 1998). Therefore, we
aimed to determine whether the effect was more than fiction. We believed that
one reason the Romeo and Juliet effect persists is because it seems consistent
with a number of other theories and findings within psychology. For instance, a
number of researchers assert that we want more of that which is scarce (the
 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 151

scarcity effect; e.g., Worchel, Lee, and Adewole, 1975) or forbidden (the for-
bidden fruit hypothesis, DeWall et al., 2011; reactance theory, Brehm, 1966).
Many researchers also believe that we want more of that for which we work
harder (the effort justification aspect of Festinger’s [1957] cognitive dissonance
theory), or of that which we overcome adversity to obtain (e.g., Fisher’s [2004]
frustration–attraction hypothesis]. Accordingly, we wanted to examine the
possibility that both the Romeo and Juliet and the social network effects
could exist. Were there certain circumstances under which we would continue
to love those unloved by our social network?
We drew from both the story of Romeo and Juliet and psychological
theories to identify potential individual and situational factors that could
contribute to the occurrence of the effect. We start with the assumption that
Romeo and Juliet stayed together because of disapproval, then move to
tackling the perception that their story was one of destiny. Lastly, we address
whether or not Romeo and Juliet were really acting in defiance of their social
network.

is it really about disapproval?

“My only love sprung from my only hate.”
Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 1.5.138
Part of the premise of the Romeo and Juliet effect is that adversity, in the form
of parental interference, can enhance relationship qualities. Perhaps, in certain
circumstances, adversity can add to a relationship (Miron, Knepfel, and
Parkinson, 2009; see also Brehm’s 1999 Emotional Intensity Theory). For
instance, it might be when there is only slight–moderate disapproval present
(Parks et al., 1983) or perhaps when some members of the network disapprove
but others do not (Felmlee, 2001) that adversity enhances relationships. In the
case of the Romeo and Juliet effect, it may be the latter that is important to
consider. After all, if we draw inspiration from the story, few would say that the
disapproval Romeo and Juliet faced was slight or moderate. However, an aspect
of the story that is often neglected is that Romeo and Juliet were not without
support. Let’s not forget about the nanny, the friar, and Romeo’s cousin
Benvolio, who supported the couple.
Accordingly, Wright and Sinclair (2012b) sought to examine whether the
“positive” effects of disapproval from one network source could possibly be due
to approval from different sources within a person’s social network. If we only
look at one source (e.g., just parental interference) or just at global assessments
of network disapproval, important sources of support within the network may
be overlooked. For instance, global assessments where participants indicate
that there is “slight” disapproval may be an average of one important source
disapproving and another approving.
152 H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe

To parse effects of disapproval and approval, both correlational and

experimental studies were undertaken. It was hypothesized that experiencing
approval from both parents and friends would be linked to higher relationship
quality than would perceiving unanimous social network disapproval.
However, we also examined what happened when network opinions conflicted.
Wanting to maintain positive illusions of their relationship, individuals may
attend more to positive information and may overlook negative opinions
(Wright and Sinclair, 2012a) or believe those opinions could be changed
(Leslie, Huston, and Johnson, 1986). Also, arguably consistent with Brehm’s
(1999) Emotional Intensity Theory, the moderate obstacle presented by one
source’s disapproval that is countered by the approval of other members of the
network might increase relationship affect and motivate work toward the goal
of maintaining a relationship. Thus, in cases of conflicting network opinions, it
was anticipated that if either friends or family approved of the relationship,
relationship quality would remain high, despite disapproval from the other
party. However, disapproval that was strong and consistent across multiple
sources should lower romantic relationship quality, not heighten it.

Perceiving approval and disapproval: a correlational survey

To test these hypotheses, we ran two studies. The first was a cross-sectional
correlational survey with 797 individuals (average age = 19, 75 percent
Caucasian) who were already in romantic relationships (average relationship
length: 19.8 months) where we examined the association between social net-
work opinions, relationship satisfaction, and love. Levels of network approval
and disapproval were assessed with the Social Network Opinion Scale (SNOS;
Sinclair, 2008) that participants completed four times, once for each parent/
guardian and once for each of their two closest friends. The scores were
averaged to create a parent opinion variable and a friend opinion variable.
Half the items measured approval and half measured disapproval. A sample
item for approval includes: “How supportive are your parents of your romantic
relationship?” A sample item for disapproval includes: “To what degree do your
parents/friends disapprove of your romantic relationship?” Scores ranged from
−4 to +4 (Parent Opinion Mean: 1.22, SD: 1.08; Friend Opinion Mean: 1.22, SD:
1.04). Positive scores indicated approval of the relationship. Negative scores
indicated disapproval. Rubin’s (1970) Love Scale and Hendrick, Dicke, and
Hendrick’s (1998) Relationship Assessment Scale were included as measures of
relationship quality (scores ranged from 1 to 9, with higher scores = more love,
more satisfaction).
Using centered scores on the SNOS, we grouped participants into four
categories based on the opinion of their friends and parents. Either both
parents and friends were approving of the relationship (had opinion scores
above the scale average on the SNOS), one party approved while the other
 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 153

RELATIONSHIP AFFECT
8

6
Both approve
5 Parents disapprove/friends approve
4 Parents approve/friends disapprove

3 Both disapprove
Love
Satisfaction

Love Satisfaction
Both Disapprove 6.51 6.39
Parents Approve/Friends Disapprove 7.47 7.55
Parents Disapprove/Friends Approve 7.51 7.65
Both Approve 7.76 8.09

figure 7.1 Interaction of friend and parent opinions on relationship affect among
daters

disapproved, or both parties were disapproving (had opinion scores below the
scale average on the SNOS). We then assessed differences in relationship
quality as a function of these opinions by entering the categories of Parent
Opinion and Friend Opinion as independent variables (IVs) into a multi-
variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with love and satisfaction as the
dependent variables (note, we also repeated these analyses using regressions
and maintaining the SNOS opinions as continuous variables). The results
yielded main effects of the IVs and an interaction for both love and satisfaction
(all p values <.005, ɳ2 values between .02 and .09).
As revealed by Tukey’s post-hoc tests, love remained high when there was
at least one party approving of the romantic relationship. Reports of love only
dropped when both friends and parents disapproved of the relationship. Also
consistent with the hypotheses, relationship satisfaction was high when at least
one party approved, but dropped only when both friends and parents disap-
proved of the romantic relationship. These effects are illustrated in Figure 7.1.

Experiencing approval and disapproval: a virtual dating

game experiment
The first study revealed that relationships could remain strong even when
network disapproval was present, as long as individuals also perceived some
network approval. However, given the correlational nature of the study and its
reliance on self-reports of opinion, we could not be sure whether the opinions
caused the differences in relationship affect or vice versa. Accordingly, we
constructed an experiment to see if manipulations of network opinion could
154 H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe

affect people’s perceptions of a partner, and this time we focused on where

relationships begin – dating choice.2
We recruited individuals who were currently single for a study of online
impression formation. Participants (n = 228, average age = 18.6, 73 percent
Caucasian) first completed a screening survey that provided us with contact
information for a friend and parent as well as various personality inventories,
a dating profile, and what they were looking for in a romantic partner.
Approximately two weeks later, under the guise that we were interested in
how relationships, including romantic relationships, developed online, partic-
ipants returned to engage in a series of interactions with two “bachelors” or
“bachelorettes” over instant messenger.
All the interaction partners were actually trained research assistants work-
ing from scripts. One research assistant, unbeknownst to the assistant, was
randomly assigned to be the “evaluated partner” and the other assistant was the
“unevaluated partner.” After an initial set of 10-minute getting-to-know-you
interactions over instant messenger with each of the potential dates, partic-
ipants were told that their parent and friend had been contacted in order for us
to obtain their opinions about the quality of the prospects. Participants were
then informed in private about what their friend and parent thought of one of
the interaction partners (i.e., “the evaluated partner”). Their alleged parent’s
and friend’s opinions – actually randomly assigned as no one was contacted –
were either in agreement (both approved or both disapproved) or were con-
flicting (the parent liked the potential date but the friend did not, or vice versa).
Participants were also told the other interaction partner was a later addition
and thus we had not had time to get their opinions of him/her. Thus, the
unevaluated partner served as our within-subjects control condition.
Post-feedback, the participant had a second set of interactions over instant
messenger with each potential date. After each interaction participants com-
pleted likeability ratings to assess how much liking they felt for their prospects
(range 1–8, with higher scores = more liking). We then entered the scores for
the likeability ratings of the evaluated partner and the unevaluated partner as
dependent variables in a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA),
with parent opinion and friend opinion entered as the independent variables.
This analysis was repeated twice, once for pre-feedback liking and once for
post-feedback liking. There were no differences between how the evaluated and
unevaluated partners were liked pre-feedback, but clear differences emerged
between how much people liked their dating prospects after they heard what
friends and family thought.
Our hypotheses were the same as in the survey study, where we anticipated
approval to yield greater liking than disapproval when from both sources.

2
For a thorough description of this study’s methodology, please see Wright and Sinclair (2012a).
 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 155

LIKING 5.5

4.5 Evaluated partner

ve
Unevaluated partner
ro

ve
pp

ro
sa

e
pp

ov
di

e
sa

pr
th

ov
ap
di
Bo

pr
ds

ds

ap
en

en

th
fri

fri

Bo
e/

/
ve
ov

ro
pr

pp
ap

sa
ts

di
en

ts
r
Pa

en
r
Pa

Parents Approve/ Parents Disapprove/

Both Disapprove Both Approve
Friends Disapprove Friends Approve
Unevaluated Partner 5.15 5.32 5.01 5.15
Evaluated Partner 4.95 5.71 5.71 5.73

figure 7.2 Liking of prospective dating partners as predicted by network opinions

When the opinions were in conflict, we expected approval to help individuals

look past disapproval. Consistent with these hypotheses, the evaluated partner
was liked when at least one party approved of him/her. When the evaluated
partner was disapproved of by both the friend and parent, the participants did
not dislike him or her, per se, but rather did not like him or her any more than a
potential date about whom they had no network opinions (i.e., the unevaluated
partner). These effects are illustrated in Figure 7.2.

We get by with a little help from our friends

In sum, across our two studies, we could find no evidence of disapproval
enhancing relationship quality over when the relationship was approved.
Even though one might expect that mixed opinions from one’s social network
would result in perceptions of relationship quality as midway between instan-
ces where “everyone approves” and “everyone disapproves,” those experienc-
ing conflicting network opinions were not significantly different in love, liking,
or satisfaction from those perceiving “everyone approves.” It seemed that just
one positive source could counteract the negative impact of a negative opinion
from another.
Drawing parallels to the story of Romeo and Juliet, these results paint the
story in a different light. They make the story less about combating familial
disapproval, and more about getting by with a little help from their friends.
Therefore, it may not have been that the couple stayed together because adversity
brought them closer together or even that they stayed together despite
156 H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe

disapproval. Rather, they may have stayed together due to the approval they did
have. Thus, maybe the Romeo and Juliet effect would be better described as a
Nurse and Friar effect.

is it really about destiny?

“O, I am fortune’s fool!”
Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 3.1.11

So we see that real-life Romeos and Juliets (i.e., individuals who remain in their
relationship even when social network members disapprove) may in fact be
staying together because they have some source of approval to help them over-
come the disapproval. Thus, a situational variable – the presence of network
approval – can help predict responses to other situational variables. However,
how much weight social network opinions carry may be dictated not just by the
consensus and valence of the opinion, but also by the person listening to these
opinions. We turn next to individual differences of the involved intimates.
In particular, ideals about romantic destiny seem to be a large part of the
story of Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet are “star-crossed lovers” perceived
as destined to fall in love and fated to be together, even in death. That it was “just
meant to be” seems to be a belief that the characters embrace. Accordingly, we
wanted to examine what role belief in destiny might actually play for real-life
Romeos and Juliets. In psychological terms, this means we examined whether
someone’s implicit theories of relationships, including beliefs about romantic
destiny as well as beliefs about relationship growth, could play a role in predicting
the Romeo and Juliet effect.

Implicit theories of relationships

People have basic “lay” ideas about how things work in their social world that
are strongly held but are often not explicitly recognized. They have what
Dweck, Chiu, and Hong (1995) refer to as implicit theories. For instance,
people have implicit theories about whether people’s intelligence is a fixed
characteristic (i.e., an “entity” theory) or changeable through effort (i.e., an
“incremental” theory). Adapting Dweck and colleagues’ work, Knee (1998)
identified two types of implicit theories people hold about relationships (ITRs).
Namely, people can believe in romantic destiny or relationship growth (Knee,
Patrick, and Lonsbary, 2003). People high in beliefs of romantic destiny see
their relationship as either meant to be or not. People high in relationship
growth beliefs see their relationship as something that grows gradually and
takes work to maintain (Knee, 1998). The combination of these beliefs makes
up orientations that affect how people approach obstacles in their romantic
relationships.
 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 157

A person with an evaluation orientation is high in destiny, but low in

growth, while a person with a cultivation orientation is high in growth, but
low in destiny. People with a cultivation orientation reject romanticized
notions of destiny and instead want to maintain their romantic relationships
because they invest themselves in the well-being of the relationship and the
other person in the relationship (Dweck et al., 1995; Knee et al., 2003). These
people believe that problems can be worked through, learned from, and
overcome when they arise in the relationship. They believe obstacles can
actually improve the relationship by getting the couple to work together and
leading the couple to become closer (Franiuk, Cohen, and Pomerantz, 2002).
Barriers are, in this way, just opportunities to improve the relationship, not
reasons the relationship should end.
On the other hand, people with an evaluation orientation tend to be on the
lookout for signs that may indicate whether the relationship is, in fact, meant to
be (Knee et al., 2003). However, because they reject ideas of growth, people with
this orientation are likely to see obstacles to the relationship as signs that they
are not meant to be with the partner. Each obstacle, even a small one, carries
meaning for the fate of the relationship. If a relationship is meant to be, it
should just be. It should not require work.
People endorsing these different orientations will likely respond to social
network disapproval in different ways. After all, social network disapproval is
a potential obstacle to a relationship succeeding (Le et al., 2010). However,
considering the story of Romeo and Juliet as the prototypical tale of fate
throwing two lovers together, one might think that embracing romantic
ideals of destiny would predict greater passion when faced with parental
interference. After all, the notion that such interference would enhance
relationship quality has been much romanticized. And so disapproval may
be seen not as an obstacle but as a positive sign. Yet, given that past research
seems to indicate that social network disapproval is more of an obstacle than
a boon, this could present problems for those evincing an evaluation ori-
entation. Applying the psychological definition of destiny beliefs, it actually
seems more likely that someone who embraces destiny and rejects growth
would see social network disapproval as a “sign” the relationship is not meant
to be. In contrast, people with a cultivation orientation are those likely to
approach this obstacle and work through it, potentially strengthening their
relationship.

Destined to be or not to be: a survey

Following the survey methodology reviewed earlier, we turned our attention
to examining whether orientations would moderate reactions to social net-
work opinions (Colvin and Sinclair, 2012). Given that the Romeo and Juliet
effect has been found predominantly with parental opinion (see Wright and
158 H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe

Sinclair, 2012a for review), we focused on parental opinions this time

around. We hypothesized that generally parental approval would be linked
to higher commitment and investment than parental disapproval, based on
previous studies finding disapproval’s link to negative outcomes in a rela-
tionship. However, we anticipated that those with the cultivation orienta-
tion (low destiny/high growth) would be less negatively affected by parental
disapproval than those with an evaluation orientation (high destiny/low
growth).
To examine this hypothesis, we recruited 376 participants in dating rela-
tionships (average relationship length = 18.7 months, average age = 18, 74 per-
cent Caucasian) to complete a survey including measures of social network
opinion (Sinclair, 2008; completed for both parents and averaged, scores ranged
from −4 to +4, positive scores = approval, negative scores = disapproval),
implicit theories about relationships (Knee, 1998, including sub-scales of
destiny and growth beliefs, score range 1–6, higher scores = higher endorse-
ment of growth or destiny), and commitment and investment (Lund, 1985,
response range 0–6, higher scores = more committed/invested). Following
methods recommended by Aiken and West (1991), scores on all of the
scales were centered. Then two hierarchical regressions were run, one for
each outcome variable (i.e., commitment and investment). Direct effects of
parental opinion, growth, and destiny were entered in step one, two-way
interactions of these variables in step two, and three-way interactions of them
in step three.
For both outcome variables, there were main effects of parental opinion
and growth beliefs (higher approval and endorsing growth were linked to
higher commitment and investment scores), as well as two-way interactions
of opinion with growth beliefs and of opinion with destiny beliefs. However, of
particular interest was the three-way interaction of opinion, destiny, and
growth, because it is only in the interaction of destiny and growth that you
can see the role orientations (which are combinations of destiny and growth)
play out. Following recommendations of Dawson and Richter (2006) for
mapping three-way interactions, we plotted the interactions for both outcomes
in Figures 7.3a and 7.3b.
Looking at the figures, one slope quickly stands out from the rest. Simple
slope comparisons confirmed that those exhibiting the evaluation orientation –
high on destiny and low on growth – were the ones most likely to exhibit the
social network effect (not the Romeo and Juliet effect). They were significantly
less likely to report investing in their current relationship or to stay in that
relationship when they perceived it was disapproved of by their parents than
when it was perceived as approved. The modern-day Romeos and Juliets –
those who maintained their investment and commitment levels even when
parental approval was low – were those who exhibited the cultivation orienta-
tion (or were generally high on growth).
 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 159

(a) 3.5

2.5 High on both

COMMITMENT

Cultivation (high
2 growth/low destiny)

1.5 Evaluation (low

growth/high destiny)
1 Low on both

0.5

0
Parent disapproval Parent approval

(b) 4
3.8
3.6
3.4 High on both
INVESTMENT

3.2 Cultivation (high

growth/low destiny)
3
Evaluation (low
2.8 growth/high destiny)
2.6 Low on both
2.4
2.2
2
Parent disapproval Parent approval
figure 7.3 Three-way interaction of destiny, growth, and parent opinion on commitment
and investment

One to grow on
To review, everyone fares well when social network members are approving.
However, once people start to perceive network members as disapproving of
their relationship, it is those who embrace relationship growth, even if rejecting
ideals of romantic destiny, who tend to maintain commitment and investment
in their romantic relationship. Although the romance of Romeo and Juliet was
deemed as “written in the stars,” the ironic thing is that if Romeo and Juliet
were really high in destiny beliefs they might not have exhibited the “Romeo
and Juliet effect” (Driscoll et al., 1972). There would have been no secret
wedding. Rather, their parents’ disapproval would have been seen as a sign
that they were not meant to be, and they would have ended their brief relation-
ship instead of their lives.
160 H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe

is it really about defiance?

“Then I defy you, stars!”
Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 5.1.24
For our final Act, we turned to another assumption about the Romeo and Juliet
effect, namely that the story of Romeo and Juliet and, as a result, the Romeo and
Juliet effect, could be interpreted as a story of defiance. Perceiving a threat to
the freedom to choose whom they love and want to be with, Romeo and Juliet
defy their interfering parents and exhibit a classic reactive response by falling
even more intensely in love with each other. Accordingly, we wanted to
examine whether or not this story is one of defiance. In psychological terms,
we wanted to examine the role of reactance in predicting the Romeo and Juliet
effect.

Reactance theory
Originally conceived by Brehm (1966) and further developed by Brehm and
Brehm (1981), the theory of psychological reactance argues that people are
motivated to maintain free will. When people’s personal freedoms, such as
choice, are eliminated or threatened with elimination, they respond by trying
to restore their freedom or regain what was lost. Psychological reactance can be
both an individual trait and triggered by the situation. Certain people are more
chronically prone to perceiving others as interfering with their free will, but
there are also situations that can provoke reactance among even those not
prone to perceiving threats.
In some situations, people can restore their freedom by resisting those trying
to deprive them of it. Resistance can take the form of individuals maintaining
their original course of action by merely disregarding the influence attempts of
others. For example, if a person were told not to smoke, that person might simply
shrug and continue to do so anyway. This reaction would be more of a passive
resistance, driven by the desire to be free of the influence of others.
In other cases, interference might trigger a more extreme form of oppo-
sition, in which people do the opposite of whatever is being pressed upon them.
In this case, the person being told not to smoke may respond by smoking an
entire pack of cigarettes. This reaction would be more of an active defiance.
Here an individual is not acting independently of the influence of others but
rather is reacting in a contrary fashion to influence attempts. Such active
defiance is likely the prototypical response that comes to mind whenever
people think someone is exhibiting reactance.
Extending reactance theory to the Romeo and Juliet effect, the disapproval
of one’s social network, especially if perceived as “interference,” could be
perceived as a threat to an individual’s freedom to choose a romantic partner.
Indeed, psychological reactance was originally offered as an explanation for the
 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 161

Romeo and Juliet effect by Driscoll and colleagues (1972). They stated that “the
desire to restore freedom results in a behavioral resistance and attitude change
in a direction opposing that advocated by the threat source . . . reactance theory
predicts an intensification of feelings of love between the couple and behavioral
resistance to the threat [of parental interference]” (p. 2). Thus, Driscoll and
colleagues specifically argued that parental interference should trigger not just
resistance to influence, but opposition. So interfering disapproval should not
just lead one to maintain affection for a partner regardless of the opinions of
others; rather, they asserted that affection would intensify as a result of the
interference. Although Driscoll and colleagues proposed reactance as a theo-
retical explanation for the effect, they did not actually test whether reactance
played the role they expected. Accordingly, Sinclair and colleagues (under
review) put reactance to the test.
As the previous studies have predicted, we also expected the general social
network effect such that, across the two studies, we expected greater approval
to be associated with higher scores on indices of relationship quality. When it
came to responses to more disapproving opinions, however, we thought that
reactions might depend upon whether the opinions triggered reactance. We
had two possible hypotheses. It could be that reactance serves more as a buffer,
allowing individuals to maintain their relationship despite disapproval, thus
maintaining their independence from influence. We call this the independence
hypothesis.
Alternatively, it could be that people respond with opposition more than
resistance. As Driscoll and colleagues (1972) suggested, the disapproval may
actually intensify responses such that individuals experiencing reactance feel
even more in love and more committed to a disapproved partner than when
the partner is approved of by the social network.3 We call this the defiance
hypothesis.

Independence or defiance: a correlational study

To test these hypotheses, we ran two studies. The first one was a correlational
survey with 858 daters (average relationship length = 18 months, average age =
19, 76 percent Caucasian) where we examined the relationship between social
network opinions, trait reactance, and love. As in our other studies, levels of
perceived network approval and disapproval were assessed with the Social
Network Opinion Scale (Sinclair, 2008) that participants completed four times,

3
We also considered how reactance might influence responses to approval, which had not
previously been considered. Following the assumptions of the defiance hypothesis, if people
really do not like others telling them who to like, this could apply to network members
approving as well as disapproving. Thus, oppositional responses might have even been seen
in response to network approval. To reassert their freedom of choice, people could increase
liking of the disliked partner more, but they could also dislike the liked partner.
162 H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe

once for each parent/guardian and once for each of their two closest friends.
Items were scored such that higher scores indicated that the relationship and
partner were approved. Negative scores were indicative of disapproval. These
scores were averaged to give estimates of level of friend approval and parent
approval. For the outcome variable, we included the Sternberg (1997) measures
of passion and commitment. The two scales were so highly correlated, and the
results for each were so virtually identical, that we combined them into a single
index of “love.”
Participants also completed Hong’s (1992) and Merz’s (1983) scales of
reactance. We included both of these scales, as there has been some discrep-
ancy in the past about the factor structure of existing measures (Brown, Finney,
and France, 2011; Donnell, Thomas, and Buboltz, 2001; Jonason, Bryan, and
Herrera, 2010; Merz, 1983; Shen and Dillard, 2006; Tucker and Byers, 1987).
Past studies have only examined either one scale or the other. Thus, we
included both scales (response format: −4 to +4) and ran our own factor
analysis to see what factor structure emerged for our sample.
Interestingly, when we ran a principal components factor analysis and
eliminated two items, the two-factor structure that emerged seemed to capture
the two different behavioral responses to perceived threats to personal free-
doms. The thirteen items that clustered together on the first factor seemed to
capture active defiance, meaning these items represented a desire to go against
the grain and act contrary to that which is perceived as desired by others (e.g.,
“Advice and suggestions make me want to do the opposite”). The second
factor, consisting of fifteen items, seemed to capture a desire to be free of the
influence of others and to be independent (e.g., “I do best when I do things my
own way”). We took the items that loaded best on a given factor and created
two sub-scales; both evidenced very good internal consistency (.91 for each).
We then centered the means on these independent and defiant reactance scales
as well as on the parent opinion and friend opinion measures, and also
computed the interactions between each of the variables, and regressed them
onto love.
Following methods recommended by Aiken and West (1991), direct effects
were entered in step one, two-way interactions in step two, and three-way
interactions in step three.4 Consistent with the social network effect, there were
significant direct effects of parental opinion and friend opinion, such that the
more positive these opinions were, the higher the scores on passion and
commitment. However, we were most interested in examining the hypotheses
regarding how independent and defiant reactance interacted with network
opinions. Indeed, a significant interaction of network opinions and reactance

4
We did include an exploratory fourth step with the four-way interaction, but it was non-
significant.
 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 163

8.5
Both approve
8
Parents
7.5 disapprove/friends
approve
7
LOVE

Friends
6.5 disapprove/parents
approve
6
Both disapprove
5.5

5
Low independent High independent
reactance reactance
figure 7.4 Three-way interaction of independent reactance and friend and parent
opinion on love

was found but it was with independent reactance, not defiant reactance.
Specifically, we found significant two-way interactions of independent reac-
tance and both friend and parent opinion, as well as a significant three-way
interaction between friend opinion, parent opinion, and independent reac-
tance. We illustrate the three-way interaction in Figure 7.4.
Everyone appears to be happy when social network members are approv-
ing. However, as earlier studies found, it is when both parent and friend
opinions become more negative that the romantic relationship is most at risk
of decline. This risk is most evident for those lower in independent reactance.
In contrast, those higher in a desire to make free and independent decisions
seem to be better able to maintain, rather than intensify, their love for their
partner.
Despite those high in defiant reactance claiming that they would do the
opposite of what is wanted of them, they seem not to exhibit their contradictory
nature in the face of parental or friend disapproval. Defiant reactance did not
make individuals more or less susceptible to network influence on their roman-
tic relationship. The only significant effect we found was that being highly
oppositional apparently does not bode well for the relationship in general.
There was a direct effect of defiant reactance on the outcome variable of love,
such that the higher people were in defiance, the lower they were in love.

Asserting independence: an experimental study

To further explore the consequences of this desire for independence on
romantic relationships, we conducted a second study. In this study, we exper-
imentally manipulated social network opinions in a vignette, and then assessed
whether individuals would perceive the opinions as a threat to their ability to
make free and independent decisions about their romantic relationships. We
164 H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe

then measured how committed they would be to the hypothetical relationship.

Consistent with the social network effect, we expected that individuals would
express more commitment to an approved relationship than a disapproved
relationship. We also examined whether state reactance would serve as a buffer,
such that those who reported experiencing reactance would maintain their
assessment of the hypothetical partner regardless of network opinions.
Participants (n = 340, average age = 19, 72 percent Caucasian, all unin-
volved in romantic relationships) received one of four vignettes describing a
newly developing romantic relationship. The scenarios varied as to whether the
partner was being introduced to friends or parents, and whether or not, after
the introduction, the friends or parents expressed that they liked the partner or
disliked the partner. After reading the vignettes, participants responded to
various “reaction” items assessing what they would think and feel about their
friend or family opinions if they were in the situation described. Included
among these items were six reactance items adapted from the independent
sub-scale we discovered previously (alpha = .79, 7-point Likert scale response
format). Trait items were reworded to assess any present feelings of reactance.
Sample items included: “I would strongly resist my friends’/guardians’ attempts
to influence me about my relationship choices” or “I would feel that my ability
to make free and independent decisions about my relationship was being
blocked.”
Next, participants completed an adapted form of Lund’s (1985) nine-item
commitment scale that asked them to make predictions about how likely they
would be to stay with the hypothetical partner. Finally, participants completed
a few manipulation checks to verify that they accurately recalled the source of
the opinion and valence, approving or disapproving, of the opinion. These
checks affirmed that participants viewed their network’s opinions as more
negative in the disapproval condition than in the approval condition.
After the manipulation checks, we ran a hierarchical regression, including
source of opinion as a dummy coded variable (parents = 0, friends = 1), type of
opinion coded as −1 for disapproval and 1 for approval, and centered scores on
the reactance inventory in step one. The interactions of these variables were
included in subsequent steps. Commitment was our dependent variable.
Consistent with our first hypothesis, we did get a main effect of opinion,
such that approval for the relationship yielded greater commitment. We also
obtained a significant interaction of type of opinion and level of independent
reactance.5 As seen in Figure 7.5, as independent reactance decreased individ-
uals were more likely to exhibit the social network effect by displaying

5
There was no three-way interaction of source, opinion, and reactance. Thus, the source of the
opinion did not affect the relationship between opinion, reactance, and anticipated commit-
ment. Also, preliminary analyses revealed that disapproval from parents did not trigger more
state reactance than disapproval from friends.
 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 165

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2
COMMITMENT

5
Low independent
4.8 reactance
High independent
4.6 reactance

4.4

4.2

4
Disapproval Approval
figure 7.5 Interaction of network opinion and reactive responses on commitment of
hypothetical partner

significantly lower levels of commitment when facing disapproval rather than

approval; in contrast, those expressing higher levels of perceived threat to their
ability to make free and independent decisions about their romantic relation-
ship appeared impervious to opinions. They maintained their opinion of the
hypothetical partner regardless of network opinions.

I disregard you, stars?

In the present set of studies, we continued to find support for the general social
network effect. Approval from friends and family is a boon to relationships,
even hypothetical ones. However, the social network effect can be tempered.
Indeed, all of the studies show that additional variables can lessen the impact of
network opinions, particularly negative ones. Here we established that reac-
tance was one such variable. But it was independent reactance that was shown
to matter. Specifically, having a desire to be independent of influence seemed to
result successfully in individuals disregarding the negative opinions of others.
In contrast, what we labeled defiance, or actively doing the opposite of what
others want you to do, did not seem to matter much. Although “disregarding”
rather than “defying” the stars may not sound as exciting, it seems to be more
consistent with what we find. So, contrary to perceptions of the story of Romeo
and Juliet as two adolescents defying all odds to be together, could it really be
more a story of two young people seeking independence and the freedom to
make their own choices? If so, it might involve a little rewriting.
166 H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe

the new story of romeo and juliet

In contrast to the idea that adversity heightens relationship quality, we did not
find that adversity enhanced love, satisfaction, commitment, or investment in
any of our studies. Rather, consistent with vulnerability stress adaptation
models (e.g., Karney and Bradbury, 1995), there were situations or individual
differences that enabled couple members to be better able to weather the storm
of network disapproval. We believe modern-day Romeos and Juliets exist but
they are couples who stay together despite disapproval, not because of it.6
Although people may look at their own relationships and see a couple passion-
ately in love even in the face of social disapproval, it appears unlikely that they
would be more in love than a couple garnering social approval.
What helps modern-day Romeos and Juliets stay together? It certainly
seems to help if they have some support. Even if their parents are not approv-
ing, it is not the end of the relationship as long as they have the support of
others such as their friends. Other sources of support, such as the partner’s
friends or family (or maybe a Nurse or a Friar; see Haddad, Chen, and
Greenberger, 2011), could also potentially help keep the couple together. In
this regard, the story of modern-day Romeos and Juliets is a story not so much
about disapproval as it is about finding sources of approval.
If those sources of approval are hard to find, it also appears to help if
individuals within the relationship take the perspective that the inevitable
challenges a relationship faces are possible to overcome, or even an opportu-
nity for the relationship to grow. It is not completely necessary to reject ideas of
romantic destiny, but ultimately it is not destiny that keeps a couple together
when faced with social disapproval; rather, it is working together to cultivate a
relationship.
Lastly, withstanding the slings and arrows of a disapproving social network
can also be a matter of individual desires to be just that, individual. Motivation to
make decisions about one’s life – including one’s love life – independent of the
influence of others enables resistance to social influence. In fact, in combining
our various survey studies, we identified individuals in dating relationships who
exhibited the social network effect (e.g., strongly loved an approved partner) and
those who could be construed as exhibiting the Romeo and Juliet effect (e.g.,
strongly loved a disapproved partner). The two groups were not different on how
much they loved their partner. Nor were they different on levels of destiny or
defiant reactance. And further replicating findings reviewed above, they were
significantly different on their endorsement of growth beliefs and independent
reactance. However, they also showed significant differences on additional

6
We do acknowledge that the question remains as to whether the circumstances under which
disapproval rather than approval would lead to better outcomes is simply yet to be found, but it
does appear clear that network approval is strongly linked to positive relationship outcomes.
 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 167

measures. Specifically, we had included measures of independent self-construal

(Singelis, 1994) and individualism (Oyserman, 1993).7 Those exhibiting love for a
disapproved partner were significantly higher on both of these inventories than
were those exhibiting the social network effect (Blaney and Sinclair, 2013).
Accordingly, it does appear that those who maintain love for a disapproved
partner may be driven by desire for autonomy. They hear the opinions regarding
their relationship choice, but are not swayed as it is more important for them to
make their own choices.
These findings are consistent with the story of Romeo and Juliet. Romeo
and Juliet did have support. They did attempt to overcome obstacles, and even
tried to change the opinions of some of their most stalwart opponents (e.g.,
Tybalt). Further, as adolescents they were approaching the stage of emerging
adulthood when they were most likely to seek an individual identity and
independence from the influence of their families (Arnett, 2000). So perhaps
the true story of Romeo and Juliet is really one of striving for independence by
cultivating the relationship one wants, even when others oppose it.
Ironically, the aspect of the tale of Romeo and Juliet that is overlooked by
the Romeo and Juliet effect is that ultimately attempting to maintain a relation-
ship that lacked network support did not end too well for Romeo and Juliet
themselves. Thus, in the end, the story of Romeo and Juliet seems to actually
reinforce the social network effect, that lack of network approval can spell the
demise of one’s romantic relationship. However, what the present collection of
findings highlights is that although social network opinions can have a power-
ful influence on the fate of one’s romantic relationship, that influence is not
fated.

references
Aiken, L. S., and West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting inter-
actions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469−480.
Berscheid, E., and Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. Gilbert,
S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of social psychology, 4th edn.
(pp. 193–281). Oxford University Press.
Blair, K. L., and Holmberg, D. (2008). Perceived social network support and well-being
in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 25, 769–791.

7
Measures of relational self-construal or collectivism were also included, but no differences were
found. Note, we operationalized independent and relational self-construal (or Individualism
and Collectivism) not on a continuum, but rather as independent constructs, meaning we
computed the means on relational self-construal separately from the means on independent
self-construal (the same for individualism and collectivism). The differences were only found
on independent/individualism scales, not relational/collectivism scales.
168 H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe

Blaney, A., and Sinclair, H. C. (2013). Who exhibits the Romeo and Juliet effect? Poster
presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology conference, New
Orleans.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
(1999). The intensity of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 2–22.
Brehm, S., and Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: a theory of freedom and
control. New York: Academic Press.
Brown, A. R., Finney, S. J., and France, M. K. (2011). Using the bifactor model to assess
the dimensionality of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 71, 170–185.
Bryant, C. M., and Conger, R. D. (1999). Marital success and domains of social support
in long-term relationships: does the influence of network members ever end?
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 437−450.
Bryant, C. M., Conger, R. D., and Meehan, J. M. (2001). The influence of in-laws on
change in marital status. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 614–626.
Colvin, L. W., and Sinclair, H. C. (2012). Is it really about destiny? How implicit theories
and social network opinions can influence commitment. Paper presented at the
2012 International Association of Relationships Research conference, Chicago, IL.
Cox, C. L., Wexler, M. O., Rusbult, C. E., and Gaines, S. O., Jr. (1997). Prescriptive
support and commitment processes in close relationships. Social Psychological
Quarterly, 60, 79–90.
Dawson, J. F., and Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated
multiple regression: development and application of a slope difference test.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926.
DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Deckman, T., and Rouby, D. A. (2011). Forbidden fruit:
inattention to attractive alternatives provokes implicit relationship reactance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 621–629.
Donnell, A. J., Thomas, A., and Buboltz, W. C. (2001). Psychological reactance: factor
structure and internal consistency of the questionnaire for the measurement of
psychological reactance. Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 679–687.
Driscoll, R., Davis, K. E., and Lipetz, M. E. (1972). Parental interference and romantic
love: the Romeo and Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24,
1–10.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., and Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgment
and reactions: a world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.
Etcheverry, P. E., and Agnew, C. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of
romantic relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11, 409−428.
Felmlee, D. (2001). No couple is an island: a social stability network perspective on
dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79, 1259–1287.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.
Fisher, H. (2004). Why we love: the nature and chemistry of romantic love. New York:
Henry Holt.
Franiuk, R., Cohen, D., and Pomerantz, E. M. (2002). Implicit theories of relationships:
implications for relationship satisfaction and longevity. Personal Relationships, 9,
345–367.
Goodwin, P. Y. (2003). African American and European American women’s marital
well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, 550–560.
Haddad, E., Chen, C., and Greenberger, E. (2011). The role of important non-parental
adults (VIPs) in the lives of older adolescents: a comparison of three ethnic
groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 310–319.
 The new story of Romeo and Juliet 169

Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., and Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship Assessment Scale.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137–142.
Hong, S. M. (1992). Hong’s psychological reactance scale: a further factor analytic
validation. Psychological Reports, 70, 512–514.
Johnson, M. P., and Milardo, R. M. (1984). Network interference in pair relationships: a
social psychological recasting of Slater’s theory of social regression. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 46, 893–899.
Jonason, P. K., Bryan, A., and Herrera, J. (2010). Trimming the fat reveals a one-factor
construct of Hong’s psychological reactance scale. Individual Differences Research,
8, 220–228.
Karney, B. R., and Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality
and stability: a review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118,
3–34.
Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: assessment and prediction of
romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 360–370.
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., and Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships:
orientations toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 7, 41– 55.
Knobloch, L. K., and Donovan-Kicken, E. (2006). Perceived involvement of network
members in courtships: a test of the relational turbulence model. Personal
Relationships, 13, 281– 302.
Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., and Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting
nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: a meta-analytic synthesis. Personal
Relationships, 17, 377–390.
Lehmiller, J. J., and Agnew, C. R. (2006). Marginalized relationships: the impact of
social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 40–51.
Leslie, L. A., Huston, T. L., and Johnson, M. P. (1986). Parental reactions to dating
relationships: do they make a difference? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,
57–66.
Lewis, R. (1973). Social reactions and the formation of dyads: an interactionist approach
to mate selection. Sociometry, 36, 409−418.
Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting
continuity of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
2, 3–23.
MacDonald, G., and Jessica, M. (2006). Family approval as a constraint in dependency
regulation: evidence from Australia and Indonesia. Personal Relationships, 13,
183–194.
Merz, J. (1983). Fragebogen zur Messung der psychologischen Reaktanz. Diagnostica,
29, 75–82.
Miron, A., Knepfel, D., and Parkinson, S. K. (2009). The surprising effect of partner
flaws and qualities on romantic affect. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 261–276.
Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: viewing the self, others, and conflict
in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
993–1009.
Parks, M. R. (2007). Personal relationships and personal networks. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Parks, M. R., Stan, C. M., and Eggert, L. L. (1983). Romantic involvement and social
network involvement. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 116–131.
170 H. Colleen Sinclair and Chelsea N. Ellithorpe

Reis, H. T. (2011). When good things happen to good people: capitalizing on personal
positive events in a relationship context. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew,
L. M. Hough, and J. R. Pomerantz (eds.), Psychology and the real world: essays
illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 237–244). New York: Worth.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 16, 265–273.
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C. R., and Arriaga, X. B. (2012). The Investment Model of
Commitment Processes. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and
E. T. Higgins (eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 218–231).
Los Angeles: Sage.
Shen, L., and Dillard, J. P. (2006). Reactance proneness assessment. In R. A. Reynolds,
R. Woods, and J. D. Baker (eds.) Handbook of research on electronic surveys and
measurements (pp. 320–326). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Sinclair, H. C. (2008). Why source matters: consequences of self-construal for source
differences in the association between social network opinion and romantic
relationship dynamics. Paper presented at the International Association of
Relationships Research conference, Providence, RI.
Sinclair, H. C., Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., and Wright, B. L. (under review). Defying or
disregarding disapproval? Reactance and the Romeo and Juliet effect.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-
construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.
Sprecher, S. (2011). The influence of social networks on romantic relationships: through
the lens of the social network. Personal Relationships, 18, 630–644.
Sprecher, S., and Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality
and stability of romantic relationships: a three-wave longitudinal investigation.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 888–900.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 27, 313–335.
Tucker, R. K., and Byers, P. Y. (1987). Factorial validity of Merz’s Psychological
Reactance scale. Psychological Reports, 61, 811–815.
Wildermuth, S. (2004). The effects of stigmatizing discourse on the quality of on-line
relationships. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 73–84.
Worchel, S., Lee, J., and Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on ratings of
object value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 906–914.
Wright, B. L., and Sinclair, H. C. (2012a). Pulling the strings: effects of friend and parent
opinions on dating choices. Personal Relationships, 19, 743–748.
(2012b). Is it really about disapproval? Comparing the consequences of social network
approval and disapproval on relationship initiation. Paper presented at the
International Association of Relationships Research conference, Chicago, IL.
Zak, A., Coulter, C., Giglio, S., Hall, J., and Pellowski, N. (2002). Do his friends and
family like me? Predictors of infidelity in intimate relationships. North American
Journal of Psychology, 4, 287–291.
Zhang, S., and Kline, S. L. (2009). Can I make my own decision? A cross-cultural study
of perceived social network influence in mate selection. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 40, 3–23.
 8

Third-party forgiveness: social influences

on intimate dyads
jeffrey d. green, jody l. davis,
and chelsea a. reid

Bona Sforza was a queen of Poland in the sixteenth century and a notorious
mother-in-law. Her son eventually became King Sigismund II and married his
mistress Barbara Radziwill. A mere five months after the wedding, Barbara
died of a mysterious illness, and it was rumored that she was poisoned by her
treacherous mother-in-law, Bona. What if the rumor were true, and the death
was caused by Bona’s refusal to forgive an affront against her son? For example,
perhaps Barbara embarrassed her husband by flirting with a nobleman at a
ball. Sigismund soon forgave this act of disrespect, but his mother’s fury never
abated, ultimately culminating in cold-blooded murder.
Although homicide is an extreme form of unforgiveness, the relationship
dynamics in this story are far from unusual. Mothers-in-law may have an
undeserved bad reputation, but they, as well as other family members and close
friends of transgression victims, frequently are less forgiving of transgressions
than the victims themselves. Individuals are embedded in a network of social
relationships. Dyadic relationships arguably are the most important, but the
broader social network (third parties – individuals who are close to the victim
and/or the transgressor but not directly involved in the transgression) may
distally affect processes within dyadic relationships. Only recently has there
been an explosion of research beyond the dyad, thanks to advances and exten-
sions in theory as well as refinements in statistical techniques. In this chapter, we
focus primarily on established, ongoing intimate relationships and how third
parties might affect a process critical to the health of relationships: forgiveness.
Past research has tended to focus on individual or dyad-level processes to
account for likelihood of forgiveness, largely overlooking the possible contribu-
tions of the broader social context of third parties within which the dyad is
embedded.
In an effort to seek support, individuals may disclose about transgressions
by their romantic partner to third parties in their social networks, who may
develop their own opinions regarding the severity of the transgression and
whether the partner deserves forgiveness. Third parties may or may not share

171
172 Jeffrey D. Green et al.

the victim’s opinion about how deserving the partner is of forgiveness, and
their level of forgiveness may be influenced by similar or different processes
compared to the victim. The process of third-party forgiveness is important to
understand because it likely has implications for the victim’s level of forgive-
ness as well as for the relationship between the victim and the romantic
partner, and between the victim and the third party. We begin by focusing
on couple forgiveness, as research on couple forgiveness lays the groundwork
for more recent theory and research on third-party forgiveness.

couple forgiveness

Definition of forgiveness
Forgiveness as a topic of empirical research is relatively young and some
variation exists in the literature concerning definitions of the concept. Though
researchers have not always agreed on the precise definition, most agree on
the core elements of forgiveness, whether they are studying forgiveness in
the context of romantic or non-romantic relationships (Worthington, 2005).
Specifically, forgiveness involves a prosocial change in orientation by a victim
toward the transgression perpetrator (McCullough and Root, 2005). In addition,
forgiveness is not necessarily accompanied by forgetting, condoning, or excus-
ing the transgression, nor is trust in and reconciliation with the perpetrator a
requirement of forgiveness (Exline et al., 2003).
Two definitions are particularly useful in the conceptualization of forgive-
ness. First, McCullough and colleagues describe forgiveness as a change in
motivation in which a victim’s motivations toward retaliation against the
perpetrator (i.e., revenge) and avoidance of the perpetrator are decreased,
but the motivation to show goodwill toward the perpetrator (i.e., benevolence)
is increased (McCullough et al., 1998; McCullough, Worthington, and Rachal,
1997). Second, Worthington and colleagues made the distinction between
decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness. Decisional forgiveness is a
change in a victim’s behavioral intention toward the perpetrator, whereas
emotional forgiveness involves the replacement of negative, unforgiving emo-
tions with more positive, other-oriented emotions. Negative emotions domi-
nate the immediate experience of the victim following a transgression, but as
positive emotions increase, the overall experience becomes increasingly less
negative and more positive (Wade and Worthington, 2003; Worthington,
2003). The distinction between decisional and emotional forgiveness is impor-
tant because in some cases a victim may engage in decisional forgiveness while
still harboring anger or anxiety, engaging in depressive rumination, or feeling
motivated toward revenge and avoidance. In other cases it is possible for
decisional forgiveness to serve as a catalyst for emotional forgiveness
(Worthington and Scherer, 2004).
 Third-party forgiveness 173

These definitions characterize forgiveness as an intrapersonal process, but

characterizing it as an interpersonal process seems appropriate as well, given
that transgressions frequently occur in the context of ongoing relationships
in which there is mutual desire to maintain the relationship (Exline and
Baumeister, 2000; Finkel et al., 2002). It is suitable to consider forgiveness as
an intrapersonal process when the victim and perpetrator are strangers who
have neither a past nor a future, but it should be considered as an interpersonal
process as well when the victim and perpetrator have a past and potentially a
future together (Rusbult et al., 2005). From an interdependence theory per-
spective (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959), forgiveness is characterized by a victim’s
willingness to return to pre-transgression interaction patterns, to relinquish
grudge or vengeance seeking, and to behave toward the perpetrator in a con-
structive manner. The forgiveness process can be seen as a transformation in
which the victim considers concern for the perpetrator, the relationship, and
broader norms and values (Rusbult et al., 2005) in order to refrain from self-
protective, relationship-damaging behaviors and instead engage in relationship-
enhancing behaviors (McCullough et al., 1998).

Mediators of forgiveness
In recent decades an explosion of forgiveness research has expanded our
scientific understanding of forgiveness by identifying processes through
which forgiveness is reached. Victims are more likely to forgive perpetrators
for their transgressions when they take the perspective of or empathize with the
perpetrator (Brown, 2003; Hargrave and Sells, 1997; McCullough et al., 1997;
McCullough et al., 1998), and they are less likely to forgive when they ruminate
about the transgression (McCullough, Bono, and Root, 2007). Rumination may
be particularly powerful in decreasing forgiveness due to its tendency to
perpetuate psychological distress (Greenberg, 1995; Holman and Silver, 1996)
and fuel revenge motivations (McCullough et al., 1998). Victims also are more
likely to forgive perpetrators to the degree that they make benign attributions
and judgments of low responsibility for the perpetrator’s behavior (Fincham,
Paleari, and Regalia, 2002; McCullough, Fincham, and Tsang, 2003). However,
attributing responsibility to the perpetrator may motivate victims to confront
their perpetrator, sometimes leading to an apology from the perpetrator
(McCullough et al., 2003).

Moderators of forgiveness
Several other variables that enhance or diminish the likelihood of forgive-
ness have been identified. The influence of apology on forgiveness highlights
the role of perpetrator-related factors, which have received considerably
less research attention than victim-related factors (Rusbult et al., 2005).
174 Jeffrey D. Green et al.

Perpetrator amends (e.g., accepting responsibility, offering sincere apology

and atonement) often lead to greater forgiveness (Carlisle at al., 2012; Hannon
et al., 2010; McCullough et al., 1997; Weiner et al., 1991) because amends may
promote empathy and reveal extenuating circumstances (Rusbult et al., 2005)
that reduce the likelihood of victims attributing malevolent motives to the
perpetrator (Fincham et al., 2002; McCullough et al. 1998). Similarly, perpetrator
expression of remorse (Gold and Weiner, 2000; Weiner et al., 1991) and a low
risk of exploitation by the perpetrator also enhance forgiveness (Burnette
et al., 2012).
Importantly, forgiveness also is affected by relationship-related factors.
Relationship commitment (Finkel et al., 2002), relationship value (Burnette
et al., 2012), and positive marital quality (Fincham et al., 2002) all are linked to
greater forgiveness. When transgressions transpire between individuals who
are engaged in an ongoing relationship, victims may be motivated to forgive
because they want to maintain a relationship in which they have invested
resources (e.g., time, effort; Rusbult, Verrette, and Whitney, 1991; Goodfriend
and Agnew, 2008). In addition, these individuals may overlook hurtful events
to a greater degree because of their long-term orientation toward the rela-
tionship (Rusbult et al., 1991) and their shared history with the perpetrator
(McCullough et al., 1998), which leads to better understanding of the perpe-
trator’s thoughts, feelings, and motivations. For instance, victims of trans-
gressions were more likely to develop empathy for the perpetrator when
their relationships were committed, satisfying, and close, and relationship
closeness, empathy, and forgiveness appeared to be highly interrelated
(McCullough et al., 1998). Victims of transgressions in relationships of
greater global marital quality also were more likely to make benign attribu-
tions about perpetrators, which facilitated forgiveness (Fincham et al., 2002).
For their part, perpetrators in highly committed relationships may be more
likely to offer sincere apologies and express remorse than perpetrators in less
committed relationships because they have more to lose from relationship
dissolution and likely feel a heightened sense of guilt due to empathy with the
victim (McCullough et al., 1998). We draw from many of these concepts (e.g.,
commitment, attributions, apologies) in describing third-party forgiveness in
the next section.

Consequences of forgiveness
When individuals forgive close others, their relationship is likely to benefit. For
instance, forgiveness promotes cognitive interdependence (Agnew et al., 1998;
i.e., the extent to which victims perceive overlap between their own selves
and their partners’ selves) and greater use of first-person plural pronouns when
giving descriptions of their relationship, even after controlling for initial relation-
ship commitment and mood (Karremans and Van Lange, 2008). Additionally,
 Third-party forgiveness 175

forgiveness helps individuals feel greater commitment and satisfaction with their
romantic relationship (Karremans, Van Lange, and Holland, 2005; Paleari,
Regalia, and Fincham, 2005).
Forgiveness also provides victims with psychological and physical health
benefits. Not only do forgiving individuals experience greater life satisfaction,
positive affect, optimism, and satisfaction with life, they also experience lower
levels of negative affect, psychological distress, and pessimism (Hill and
Allemand, 2010; 2011; Toussaint et al., 2001). In terms of physical health,
forgiveness is associated with better sleep quality, reduction of alcohol-related
problems among adults seeking treatment for alcohol use disorders, and even
lower levels of suicidal behavior among individuals with mild to severe depres-
sive symptoms (Hirsch, Webb, and Jeglic, 2011; Stoia-Carballo et al., 2008;
Webb, Robinson, and Brower, 2011).
Though forgiveness offers many benefits, it also can have drawbacks.
Forgiveness can beget future transgressions: perpetrators who are forgiven
one day are more likely to transgress the next and are more likely to maintain
levels of psychological and physical aggression against their forgiving spouse
(McNulty, 2010; 2011). Victims who offer forgiveness repeatedly in the absence
of feeling valued and safe in the relationship report losses in self-respect
(Luchies et al., 2010), and spouses who repeatedly forgive transgressions report
loss of relationship satisfaction (McNulty, 2008).

third-party forgiveness

Definition of third-party forgiveness

In the context of third-party forgiveness, we define third parties as individuals
close to a victim of a transgression who were not directly involved in the
transgression, but who feel that they are in a position to grant or withhold
forgiveness themselves, and/or influence the forgiveness process between
victim and perpetrator. In contrast to couple forgiveness, only a handful of
studies have been done on the topic of third-party forgiveness. Do third-party
forgiveness processes operate in parallel to couple-forgiveness processes? In
two experiments, Green, Burnette, and Davis (2008) identified the third-party
forgiveness effect. We hypothesized that in the aftermath of a transgression
committed by one member of a couple, third parties, such as close friends and
family members of victims, would be less forgiving of perpetrators than the
victims themselves. (We wanted, somewhat cheekily, to call it the mother-in-
law effect, though reviewers correctly pointed out that none of our participants
were mothers-in-law. However, some work by Bryant, Conger, and Meehan
[2001] and Wu et al. [2010] has investigated how conflict with in-laws can
adversely affect romantic relationships.)
176 Jeffrey D. Green et al.

Mediators of third-party forgiveness

In one experiment, participants were randomly assigned to imagine a trans-
gression committed either by their own romantic partner (first-party condi-
tion) or by the romantic partner of one of their closest friends (third-party
condition). The perpetrator in the scenario revealed an important, secret fear
held by his or her partner to several friends, and then made fun of the partner
for possessing such a “silly and irrational” fear. After vividly imagining this
scene, participants reported their attributions for the transgression and indi-
cated their level of forgiveness. As expected, third parties were less forgiving.
Moreover, this reduced forgiveness was mediated by attributions: first parties
made more benevolent attributions for why their partner revealed the secret
fear (e.g., assigned less blame and attributed the cause to more external and
unstable factors), and consequently were more forgiving. Third parties, how-
ever, made more negative attributions for the behavior by their close friend’s
romantic partner (assigned more blame and attributed the cause to more
internal and stable factors), and consequently were less forgiving.
A second experiment used a different method and investigated two addi-
tional mediators. Individuals in romantic relationships recalled an actual,
recent transgression either from their own romantic relationship (first-party
condition) or from the relationship of a close friend (third-party condition),
in which the close friend was the victim. Once again, third parties were less
forgiving than first parties, replicating the findings from Experiment 1. In
addition, relationship commitment mediated the effect of first versus third
party on forgiveness: first parties were more committed to their partner-
perpetrators than third parties were, and consequently were more forgiving.
Furthermore, both apologies and amends (i.e., attempts to make up with the
victim in some fashion) increased forgiveness by first and third parties, but
had a greater impact on third-party forgiveness. It is notable that first parties
reported greater hurt feelings than third parties, but viewed the transgressions
as less severe and forgave more. That is, high commitment to the relationship
apparently initiates a host of cognitive and emotional mechanisms designed to
deal with the transgression by taking a longer-term view of the relationship.
Other research has revealed differences in how victims and third parties
react to apologies. Risen and Gilovich (2007) compared the acceptance of
apologies by targets (victims) and third-party observers who were strangers
to the victims. When the perpetrator apologized with either spontaneous or
coerced apologies, victims accepted both apologies equally. However, the
third-party observers tended to accept spontaneous apologies but not coerced
apologies, indicating that the forgiveness process operates differently for third-
party observers than for actual victims of transgressions.
Research on Australian victims of violent and sexual crimes and their
third parties (friends and families of the victims) replicated the third-party
 Third-party forgiveness 177

forgiveness effect with a very different sample and suggested additional possible
mediators (Cooney et al., 2011). Third parties may not see the benefits of
forgiveness for either the victims or themselves. Many victims considered
forgiveness to be beneficial to them – part of their healing process – but virtually
no third parties considered that either they themselves or the victim would
benefit. Moreover, a majority of third parties felt that they were not entitled to
forgive, and that forgiving the perpetrator meant that they had betrayed their
close friend or family member who had been victimized. It is unclear whether
these intriguing findings would extend beyond the context of very serious
crimes. However, the inability to see potential benefits of forgiving for the
victim, as well as the feeling that they personally should not forgive, are
potentially considerable barriers that third parties may not be able to overcome,
resulting in a lack of forgiveness and perhaps implicitly or explicitly encouraging
the victim to not forgive.

Moderators of third-party forgiveness

What makes some third parties more likely to forgive than others? Put another
way, what might be some potential moderators of the third-party forgiveness
effect? Fortunately, recent research on social networks has revealed valuable
insights regarding disclosure to, as well as support versus interference from,
network members. That is, research has discovered conditions under which
victims may share with third parties (who shares what with whom and under
what conditions) as well as possible responses by third parties (who provides
support versus interference and under what conditions).
Of course, third-party forgiveness assumes that third parties even know
about the existence of a given relationship in which a transgression of some
kind has occurred. Some relationships may be kept secret in the very early
stages or because of anticipated disapproval (Foster, Foster, and Campbell,
2010). Relatedly, McBride (2010) investigated reconciliations and how indivi-
duals often do not share news of reconciliations with family members, partic-
ularly if the partner had committed a severe transgression. Such failures to
disclose may be motivated by an expectation that third parties are unlikely to
have forgiven the partner. For example, McBride reported that “Mindy”
reconciled with her fiancé even after he slept with her roommate, but she
said that she did not update her family because “if you weren’t in the relation-
ship, I’m sure it didn’t make a whole lot of sense why you would ever talk to
that person again much less spend time with him” (p. 228). Even in the context
of non-secret relationships, individuals vary in the types of relationship dis-
closures that they make to third parties.
Helms, Crouter, and McHale (2003) found that husbands engage in less
“marriage work” (disclosing concerns about their marriage) overall, and dis-
close about their marriage to their close friends significantly less than their
178 Jeffrey D. Green et al.

wives (directing most “marriage work” toward their wives). Moreover, marital
quality was related to disclosing to partners versus friends for wives, but not for
husbands. For wives who engaged in less marriage work with husbands, greater
disclosure to their friends was associated with feeling less marital love and
engaging in more ineffectual arguing with their husbands. Tschann (1988) also
found more intimate disclosures by wives than husbands, which is consistent
with findings for the communication patterns of men and women generally
(Haas, 1979).
Similarly, Julien and Markman (1991) found that for both husbands and
wives, greater marital distress was associated with increased mobilization of
outside support by disclosing marital problems to a greater number of third
parties. Julien and colleagues (1994) videotaped how wives disclosed to con-
fidants. Less-well-adjusted wives had a higher proportion of confidants who
were divorced, single, or unhappy in their marriages. Put another way, better-
adjusted wives had more people in their social networks who were similarly
well adjusted, leading to mutual support. Better-adjusted wives’ confidants
were more supportive during a discussion of a marital conflict, though it is not
clear if this is because adjusted wives brought a more supportive confidant to
the taping session or because they somehow elicited it (or some other cause).
In short, it appears that third parties of female partners may hear more
about transgressions and thus are more likely to be in a position to engage in
third-party unforgiveness. In addition, relationship partners who are already
stressed or troubled may be more likely to disclose transgressions to friends
and family members. Even if third parties hear predominantly positive infor-
mation about relationships, they are likely to weight negative information
more heavily in their evaluations of partners; this bias is evident even in larger
amplitude event-related brain potentials for negative (relative to positive or
neutral) information (Ito et al., 1998).

Consequences of third-party (un)forgiveness

Given that third parties oftentimes are less forgiving, it is important to consider
possible repercussions of the third-party forgiveness effect. Individuals may
decrease their own level of forgiveness after learning of a third party’s unfor-
giveness. In an organizational setting, individuals were more likely to trust
someone the greater the number of third parties in their social network who
trusted the person (Ferrin, Dirks, and Shah, 2006). There also may be con-
sequences for third-party relationships (friendships or family relationships) or
for romantic relationships when third parties bear a grudge against an indi-
vidual’s partner. It seems likely that individuals would feel tension and dis-
comfort in such situations. Furthermore, it seems plausible that over time such
unpleasant states would resolve in some manner (e.g., the third party’s for-
giveness of the partner may increase, the relationship with the third party or
 Third-party forgiveness 179

romantic partner may become more or less close, or individuals’ forgiveness of

their partner may decrease). However, in which manner will the situation be
resolved?
Balance theory provides a useful framework for examining such possibi-
lities (Heider, 1946; 1958; Newcomb, 1953, 1968). The fundamental tenet of
balance theory is that cognitions tend to be organized in a harmonious manner.
The perceiver (p), another person (o), and an attitude object (x) are a harmo-
nious and balanced triad when either p and o like each other and hold similar
beliefs about x, or p and o do not like each other and hold dissimilar beliefs
about x. An example of an imbalanced triad would be when an individual
(p) and a close friend (o) disagree about whether to forgive the individual’s
dating partner (x). Imbalanced triads tend to yield negative affect, physiological
arousal, or changes in the relationships within the triad (e.g., Burdick and
Burnes, 1958; Jordan, 1953; Taylor, 1967; Tsai and Levenson, 1997). Various
strategies can lead to a balanced triad. Individuals could decide to not forgive
their partner, they could convince the third party to forgive, or they could sever
or weaken their relationship with the third party or with the partner. Such
changes would require effort and involve tradeoffs. Individuals generally have
multiple ongoing dyadic relationships (e.g., with the perpetrator and the third
party) that are likely to vary in their level of commitment (e.g., long-term
orientation), and they may be differentially motivated to maintain each rela-
tionship. Another solution would be to tolerate the asymmetry without change
(Newcomb, 1953) or to reduce the importance of the topic of disagreement
(Byrne and Blaylock, 1963); for example, Davis and Rusbult (2001) examined
disagreements between close partners and demonstrated that shifts in centrality
of issues (e.g., decreasing the importance of issues to individuals’ self-concepts)
can occur when disagreements become salient.
Recent research on balance considerations with respect to third-party
forgiveness is relevant here. Participants in ongoing dating relationships imag-
ined a scenario in which they forgave their partner immediately following
a transgression. They identified an actual close friend and were randomly
assigned to imagine that when talking with the close friend they discovered
that the close friend had either forgiven or not forgiven the partner (Davis
et al., 2013). Those who imagined that their close friend did not forgive (versus
did forgive) the partner reported feeling greater tension (e.g., tense, bothered,
uncomfortable) and, in turn, greater rumination, leading to their own subse-
quent level of forgiveness being lower. Importantly, this process hinged on the
closeness of their friendship. Among those who imagined that the close friend
did not forgive, it was only those who reported greater closeness to the friend
who reported feeling greater tension and rumination and subsequent lower
forgiveness. Consistent with balance theory reasoning, disagreement with a
close friend about whether to forgive an individual’s partner (when the close
friend did not forgive the partner) led to imbalance-induced tension, which in
180 Jeffrey D. Green et al.

this case was reduced by individuals reporting lower forgiveness toward the
partner themselves. Future research will examine this process in the context of
actual (versus hypothetical) transgressions in relationships.

Views of third parties and acting on those views

Network members, or third parties, can make a difference in romantic rela-
tionships. A two-year longitudinal study found that network support (primar-
ily one’s own network rather than the partner’s network) had positive effects
on three measures of relationship quality (love, satisfaction, and commitment),
while controlling for relationship quality at earlier time points (Sprecher and
Felmlee, 1992). In addition, relationships were less likely to break up when
women had support from family and friends (though this effect was absent
for men). Overall (and consistent with the third-party forgiveness research as
well as research on idealization within dyads), third parties form more negative
views of relationship states than members of the dyad (Agnew, Loving, and
Drigotas, 2001).
A more recent study by Sprecher (2011) provided needed insights from the
perspective of third parties. Individuals were assigned to write about a relation-
ship about which they either approved or disapproved. The disapproved
relationships were rated as more committed than the approved relationships.
This finding, together with related work (Johnson and Milardo, 1984; Knobloch
and Donovan-Kicken, 2006), suggests that the strongest reactions by third
parties – and perhaps related influence behaviors – occur at moderate levels
of intimacy. Put another way, there may be little point to a third party getting
involved (such as expressing disapproval or urging unforgiveness of a trans-
gression) at the earliest stages of dating, since it is unclear whether the relation-
ship will last. At the other end of the commitment spectrum, however,
particularly when the couple is engaged or married, strong approval or dis-
approval may be deemed ineffective or destructive; likely reactions by victims
may include them thinking “why didn’t you say anything earlier?” or distanc-
ing themselves from that third party. Thus, the critical period when a relation-
ship is becoming more serious and committed may be when third parties are
most likely to try to exert an influence on the relationship, including expressing
unforgiveness of serious transgressions, which could, in some cases, open up
old wounds and spur victims to reconsider an offense that they previously had
forgiven. Sprecher (2011) found that approval of a relationship was associated
with more positive influence and less negative influence by third parties (both
communication and more direct interference), whereas less positive influence,
and more negative communication as well as interference, was associated with
disapproved relationships. Finally, most third parties (two-thirds) believed
that their behaviors influenced the course of the relationship (strengthened
approved relationships or helped terminate disapproved relationships). Third
 Third-party forgiveness 181

parties have opinions, and they share opinions as well as behaviors consistent
with those opinions.

Third parties as faciliators of forgiveness

Although less forgiveness by third parties (and possible concordant influence
attempts toward the victim) appears to be the default response, we suspect that
there may be cases in which third parties facilitate forgiveness. Mentors, role
models, and religious leaders may encourage forgiveness by exhortation as well
as by example. To the extent that these efforts are less targeted toward a specific
transgression, they may not be very effective. For example, hearing a religious
leader urge greater general forgiveness of others may be largely ineffective at
generating forgiveness toward a specific person. Some reviews suggest that a
small positive correlation exists between religiosity and trait forgivingness,
but not between religiosity and forgiveness of actual transgressions (Fehr,
Gelfand, and Nag, 2010; McCullough and Worthington, 1999). More recent
approaches have examined the conditions under which religiosity might
facilitate forgiveness and related processes, such as when forgiveness is sanc-
tified or given sacred meaning (Davis et al., 2012) or when individuals are
more intrinsically (as opposed to extrinsically) religious (Van Tongeren et al.,
2013). In short, we suspect that general exhortations have little effect one way
or another on forgiveness. However, specific exhortations regarding specific
transgressions, particularly when made by someone with whom the victim or
perpetrator has an established relationship, may facilitate forgiveness by the
victim. Analogous exhortations to perpetrators may spur them to offer an
apology or make amends, which would then increase the likelihood of for-
giveness by the victim.
Our research emphasizing the mediating role of commitment (as well as a
different pattern of attributions), and balance theory more generally, can help
to predict the conditions under which a third party might facilitate forgiveness.
When a third party is highly committed to both the victim and the perpetrator,
a state of imbalance exists and the third party will feel tension and discomfort.
Though reducing commitment to one of the parties is possible, it may not be
the path of least resistance, and, in the case of family relationships in particular
(i.e., when all three parties are related), reducing commitment may not seem
a palatable or plausible option. Rather, the third party may take more direct
steps (in some cases even putting pressure on one or both parties) to facilitate
forgiveness and reconciliation. A parent helping two siblings to patch up a
squabble, or one sibling helping another to reconcile with a parent, are common
examples that come to mind. These third parties will likely have greater empathy
toward both the victim and the perpetrator, make more benign attributions
regarding the transgression, and thus directly or indirectly exert pressure toward
greater forgiveness.
182 Jeffrey D. Green et al.

Other research supports this theorizing somewhat indirectly. To the extent

that each partner has separate friendship networks, friends are more likely
to be partisan and encourage victims to be less forgiving and encourage the
perpetrator to make fewer amends and apologies. Greater integration of net-
works, on the other hand, may increase the likelihood of more benevolent rather
than contentious conflict management styles and, ultimately, forgiveness (Klein
and Milardo, 2000).
Merely having a third party acknowledge the hurt of a transgression may
set the stage for greater forgiveness in some situations. Eaton, Struthers, and
Santelli (2006) had individuals play an online game in which a perpetrator
targeted the participant by taking his or her tokens that would later constitute
entries for a cash drawing. Afterward, during a simulated online chat, an
innocent third party acknowledged the transgression by saying, “I can imagine
how that must have made you feel. I wouldn’t blame you if you were mad!”
(Eaton et al., 2006, p. 1396). Victims who received this acknowledgment from a
third party reported reduced revenge and avoidance motivations. Mediational
analyses demonstrated that acknowledgment reduced unforgiveness by pro-
viding victims with a sense of perceptual validation.

suggestions for future research

and conclusion
There has been little direct research on third-party influences on forgiveness;
thus, the area is a particularly promising one for future research. Research
questions abound. For example, does tension from third-party unforgiveness
affect decisional forgiveness, emotional forgiveness, or both? How might empa-
thy and rumination influence this process? What are third parties’ motives for
being less forgiving? One motive may be to increase relational closeness to a
victim by validating the victim’s perspective and expressing reduced forgiveness
of the perpetrator. What if there are multiple third parties who may have similar
or different levels of forgiveness? A best friend may encourage a victim to forgive
his partner, but his sister may disapprove of forgiveness and reconciliation (or
vice versa). Finally, we have speculated about conditions under which third
parties may facilitate forgiveness, but research is needed to test these hypotheses
directly.
We also recommend research on third-party influences on perpetrators.
We suspect that these third parties also may influence the forgiveness and
reconciliation process. They may help validate perpetrator views of trans-
gressions (e.g., that the transgression was less severe, or the perpetrator had
less control over the transgression). Third parties close to perpetrators may
derogate the quality of the relationship or its likelihood of future success, either
spontaneously or in response to similar opinions by perpetrators. They also
may discourage the perpetrator from apologizing or making amends for the
 Third-party forgiveness 183

transgression. Or, under certain circumstances, third parties of perpetrators

may encourage amends and facilitate the forgiveness process.
Research also could address how third parties influence other relationship
maintenance behaviors. Forgiveness may be relatively unique due to the tension
between partners that extends to third parties, but other relational behaviors and
cognitions such as sacrifice, derogation of alternatives, and perceived relationship
superiority may be influenced by third parties. For example, third parties may
have opinions about whether individuals should sacrifice their own needs to meet
the needs of the partner, and their opinions may affect individuals’ behavior.
In summary, forgiveness is a complex process that unfolds according to
individual tendencies, relationship dynamics, and third-party influences. Since
transgressions are inevitable in interdependent relationships, especially roman-
tic relationships, they may be significant topics of conversation with third
parties, particularly when romantic relationships are becoming more serious
or are going through a difficult period. Third parties who are close to trans-
gression victims generally will be less committed to the perpetrator and will
render harsher attributions about the cause of transgressions. Thus, they may
frequently encourage less forgiveness directly or indirectly. Not only is forgive-
ness more than merely an intrapersonal process, it is an interpersonal process
that involves more than just the dyad.

references
Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., and Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the
trees: social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042–1057.
Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., and Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive
interdependence: commitment and the mental representation of close relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954.
Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive:
construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29, 759–771.
Bryant, C. M., Conger, R. D., and Meehan, J. M. (2001). The influence of in-laws on
change in marital success. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 614–626.
Burdick, H. A., and Burnes, A. J. (1958). A test of “strain toward symmetry” theories.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 367–370.
Burnette, J. L., McCullough, M. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., and Davis, D. E. (2012).
Forgiveness results from integrating information about relationship value and
exploitation risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 345–356.
Byrne, D., and Blaylock, B. (1963). Similarity and assumed similarity of attitudes
between husbands and wives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67,
636–640.
Carlisle, R. D., Tsang, J., Ahmad, N. Y., Worthington, E. L., Jr., van Oyen Witvliet, C.,
and Wade, N. (2012). Do actions speak louder than words? Differential effects of
apology and restitution on behavioral and self-report measures of forgiveness.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 294–305.
184 Jeffrey D. Green et al.

Cooney, A., Allan, A., Allan, M. M., McKillop, D., and Drake, D. G. (2011). The
forgiveness process in primary and secondary victims of violent and sexual
offences. Australian Journal of Psychology, 63, 107–118.
Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Van Tongeren, D. R., and Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2012).
Sanctification of forgiveness. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4, 31–39.
Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., Burnette, J. L., Reid, C. A., and Moloney, J. M. (2013). How the
third-party forgiveness effect shapes relationships. Unpublished manuscript.
Davis, J. L., and Rusbult, C. E. (2001). Attitude alignment in close relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 65–84.
Eaton, J., Struthers, C. W., and Santelli, A. G. (2006). The mediating role of perceptual
validation in the repentance–forgiveness process. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 10, 1389–1401.
Exline, J. J., and Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance: benefits
and barriers. In M. E. MucCullough, K. I. Pargament, and C. E. Thoresen (eds.),
Forgiveness: theory, research, and practice (pp. 133–155). New York: Guilford Press.
Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hill, P., and McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgiveness
and justice: a research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 7, 337–348.
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., and Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: a meta-analytic
synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136,
894–914.
Ferrin, D. L., Dirks, K. T., and Shah, P. P. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of
third-party relationships on interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 870–883.
Fincham, F. D., Paleari, F. G., and Regalia, C. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: the role of
relationship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9, 27–37.
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., and Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with
betrayal in close relationships: does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 956–974.
Foster, C. A., Foster, J. D., and Campbell, W. K. (2010). Are secret relationships hot,
then not? Romantic secrecy as a function of relationship duration. Journal of
Social Psychology, 150, 668–688.
Gold, G. J., and Weiner, B. (2000). Remorse, confession, group identity, and expect-
ancies about repeating a transgression. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22,
291–300.
Goodfriend, W., and Agnew, C. R. (2008). Sunken costs and desired plans: examining
different types of investments in close relationships. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1639–1652.
Green, J. D., Burnette, J. L., and Davis, J. L. (2008). Third-party forgiveness: (not)
forgiving your close other’s betrayer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
34, 407–418.
Greenberg, M. A. (1995). Cognitive processing of traumas: the role of intrusive thoughts
and reappraisals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1262–1296.
Haas, A. (1979). Male and female spoken language differences: stereotypes and evi-
dence. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 616–626.
Hannon, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., and Kamishiro, M. (2010). In the wake of
betrayal: amends, forgiveness, and the resolution of betrayal. Personal Relationships,
17, 253–278.
Hargrave, T. D., and Sells, J. N. (1997). The development of a forgiveness scale. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 41–62.
 Third-party forgiveness 185

Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21,

107–112.
(1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Helms, H. M., Crouter, C., and McHale, S. M. (2003). Marital quality and spouses’
marriage work with close friends and each other. Journal of Marriage and Family
Therapy, 65, 963–977.
Hill, P. L., and Allemand, M. (2010). Forgiveness and adult patterns of individual
differences in environmental mastery and personal growth. Journal of Research
in Personality, 44, 245–250.
(2011). Gratitude, forgiveness, and well-being in adulthood: tests of moderation and
incremental prediction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 397–407.
Hirsch, J. K., Webb, J. R., and Jeglic, E. L. (2011). Forgiveness, depression, and suicidal
behavior among a diverse sample of college students. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 67, 896–906.
Holman, E. A., and Silver, R. C. (1996). Is it abuse or the aftermath? A stress and coping
approach to understanding responses to incest. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 15, 318–339.
Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information
weighs more heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 887–900.
Johnson, M. P., and Milardo, R. M. (1984). Network interference in pair relationships: a
social psychological recasting of Slater’s theory of social regression. Journal of
Marriage and Family Therapy, 46, 893–899.
Jordan, N. (1953). Behavioral forces that are a function of attitude and of cognitive
organization. Human Relations, 6, 273–287.
Julien, D., and Markman, H. J. (1991). Social support and social networks as determi-
nants of individual and marital outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 8, 549–568.
Julien, D., Markman, H. J., Léveillé, S., Chartrand, E., and Begin, J. (1994). Networks’
support and interference with regard to marriage: disclosures of marital problems
to confidants. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 16–31.
Karremans, J. C., and Van Lange, P. A. M. (2008). The role of forgiving in shifting from
“me” to “we.” Self and Identity, 7, 75–88.
Karremans, J. C., Van Lange, P. A. M., and Holland, R. W. (2005). Forgiveness and its
associations with prosocial thinking, feeling, and doing beyond the relationship
with the offender. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1315–1326.
Klein, R. C. A., and Milardo, R. M. (2000). The social context of couple conflict: support
and criticism from informal third parties. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 17, 618–637.
Knobloch, L. K., and Donovan-Kicken, E. (2006). Perceived involvement of network
members in courtships: a test of the relational turbulence model. Personal
Relationships, 13, 281–302.
Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., McNulty, J. K., and Kumashiro, M. (2010). When forgiving
erodes self-respect and self-concept clarity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98, 734–749.
McBride, M. C. (2010). Saving face with family members: corrective facework after
reconciling with a romantic partner. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 215–235.
McCullough, M. E., Bono, G., and Root, L. M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, and
forgiveness: three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 490–505.
186 Jeffrey D. Green et al.

McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., and Tsang, A. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance,

and time: the temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motiva-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 540–557.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W.,
and Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II.
Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 1586–1603.
McCullough, M. E., and Root, L. M. (2005). Forgiveness as change. In E. L. Worthington
Jr. (ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 91–108). New York: Taylor and Francis.
McCullough, M. E., and Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1999). Religion and the forgiving
personality. Journal of Personality, 67, 1141–1164.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., and Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal
forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
321–336.
McNulty, J. K. (2008). Forgiveness in marriage: putting the benefits into context.
Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 171–175.
(2010). Forgiveness increases the likelihood of subsequent partner transgressions in
marriage. Journal of Family Therapy, 24, 787–790.
(2011). The dark side of forgiveness: the tendency to forgive predicts continued
psychological and physical aggression in marriage. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37, 770–783.
Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological
Review, 60, 393–404.
(1968). Interpersonal balance. In R. P. Abelson et al. (eds.), Theories of cognitive
consistency: a source book. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., and Fincham, F. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empa-
thy, and rumination: a longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 31, 368–378.
Risen, J. L., and Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of
questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 418–433.
Rusbult, C. E., Hannon, P. A., Stocker, S. L., and Finkel, E. J. (2005). Forgiveness
and relational repair. In E. L. Worthington Jr. (ed.), Handbook of forgiveness
(pp. 185–206). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Rusbult, C. E., Verrette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., and Lipkus, I. (1991).
Accommodation processes in close relationships: theory and preliminary empiri-
cal evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78.
Sprecher, S. (2011). The influence of social networks on romantic relationships: through
the lens of the social network. Personal Relationships, 18, 630–644.
Sprecher, S., and Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality
and stability of romantic relationships: a three-wave longitudinal investigation.
Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 54, 888–900.
Stoia-Carballo, R., Rye, M. S., Pan, W., Kirschman, K. J. B., Lutz-Zois, C., and
Lyons, A. M. (2008). Negative affect and anger rumination as mediators between
forgiveness and sleep quality. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 478–488.
Taylor, H. F. (1967). Balance and change in the two-person group. Sociometry, 30,
232–279.
Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Toussaint, L. L., Williams, D. R., Musick, M. A., and Everson, S. A. (2001). Forgiveness
and health: age differences in a U.S. probability sample. Journal of Adult
Development, 8, 249–257.
 Third-party forgiveness 187

Tsai, J. L., and Levenson, R. W. (1997). Cultural influences of emotional responding:

Chinese American and European American dating couples during interpersonal
conflict. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 600–625.
Tschann, J. M. (1988). Self-disclosure in adult friendship: gender and marital status
differences, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 65–81.
Van Tongeren, D. R., McIntosh, D. N., Raad, J., and Pae, J. (2013). The existential
function of intrinsic religiousness: moderation of effects of priming religion on
intercultural tolerance and afterlife anxiety. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 52, 508–523.
Wade, N. G., and Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2003). Overcoming interpersonal offenses: is
forgiveness the only way to deal with unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling and
Development, 81, 343–353.
Webb, J. R., Robinson, E. A. R., and Brower, K. J. (2011). Mental health, not social
support, mediates the forgiveness–alcohol outcome relationship. Psychology of
Addictive Behavior, 25, 462–473.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, O., and Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and
forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 281–312.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2003). Forgiving and reconciling: bridges to wholeness and hope.
Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
(2005). Initial questions about the art and science of forgiving. In E. L. Worthington
Jr. (ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 159–182). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Worthington, E. L., Jr., and Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused
coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: theory,
review, and hypnosis. Psychology and Health, 19, 385–405.
Wu, T., Yeh, K., Cross, S. E., Larson, L. M., Wang, Y., and Tsai, Y. (2010). Conflicts with
mothers-in-law and Taiwanese women’s marital satisfaction: the moderating role
of husband support. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 497–522.
 9

Relationship advice
erina l. macgeorge and elizabeth
dorrance hall

Writing to a nationally syndicated columnist, a woman recently lamented that

she had stayed with her abusive, philandering husband for twenty-three years –
and that she had done so on the repeated advice of her sister not to reveal the
abuse or get a divorce (Hax, 2012).
As evidenced by the chapters in this book, relationship scientists are
increasingly attentive to the fact that dyadic relationships – such as this
woman’s twenty-three-year marriage – are unavoidably connected to other
people and relationships within social networks, and are fundamentally influ-
enced by the people in those networks (Felmlee, 2001; Parks, 2011; Widmer,
2007). Indeed, the evidence of social network influence on both voluntary and
involuntary relationships is both substantial and increasing (Le et al., 2010;
Sprecher, 2011). For example, recent studies show that approval from social
network members contributes substantially to relationship stability and com-
mitment in dating relationships (Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004; Etcheverry,
Le, and Charania, 2008), and that perceived interference in the marital rela-
tionship by social network members has a negative effect on marital quality
(Widmer et al., 2009). In same-sex friendships, communication, closeness, and
commitment are all positively influenced by contact with, quantity of commu-
nication from, and perceived support for the friendship from the (other)
friend’s network (Parks, 2007). There is also growing evidence that social
networks affect the conduct and quality of relationships between parents and
children (Cochran and Niego, 2002; Cochran and Walker, 2005). Not only is
the quality of parent–child relationships connected to the quality of the
parental relationship (Erel and Burman, 1995; Hair et al., 2009), but parents’
connections with family and friends influence the quality of relationships with
their children (Widmer et al., 2006), as well as specific parenting behaviors
(e.g., monitoring what children are doing; Riggs et al., 2004).
Understanding social network influences on relationships is a vital cor-
rection to the historical tendency to focus exclusively on individual or dyadic
processes (Agnew, this volume; Felmlee and Sprecher, 2000). Yet, as evidence

188
 Relationship advice 189

for social network influence multiplies, so does the need for theory and
research to explain why and how these influences occur, which returns atten-
tion to dyadic and individual processes. Certainly, structural features of net-
works may be invoked to explain relationship outcomes (e.g., people are more
likely to form relationships with others already known to members of their
social networks; Parks, 2007), but many influences of social networks on dyadic
outcomes derive from interactions between network members and one or both
members of the dyad – and to perceptions based on those interactions
(Knobloch and Donovan-Kicken, 2006; Sprecher, 2011). For example, parents
may show approval of their children’s dating relationships by inviting the
couple to do things with them, or disapproval by talking about others the
child could date (Leslie, Huston, and Johnson, 1986). Network members might
also signal their views of a relationship through welcoming or rejecting behav-
ior in social situations, expressing attitudes about relationship-relevant topics
(“I can’t stand people who . . .”), making statements that encourage social
comparison processes (“Maggie’s boyfriend treats her SO well”), or directly
evaluating the relationship (“He’s not good enough for you”).
To date, there appears to have been only limited work focused on the
communicative processes through which social network members influence
dyadic relationships (Baxter, Dun, and Sahlstein, 2001; Klein and Milardo,
2000; Leslie et al., 1986; Proulx, Helms, and Chris Payne, 2004). In the current
chapter, we explore the phenomenon of relationship advice, which we believe
is one of those processes (see also Baxter et al., 2001; Sprecher, 2011). Consistent
with research on advice as social support and social influence (Bonaccio and
Dalal, 2006; MacGeorge, Feng, and Thompson, 2008), we define advice as
recommendations about action to be taken in response to an uncertainty,
decision, or problem. By extension, we define relationship advice as recom-
mendations about actions to be taken with regard to relationships, including
things to do, think, or feel. We include in this definition advice about actual
relationships, but also about potential relationships and categories of relation-
ship (e.g., dating advice given without a particular “other” in mind; Kellas,
2010). We also include both advice about altering the status of the relationship
(“You can find a better relationship”; Sprecher, 2011), and behaviors involved
in maintaining the relationship (“Treat your partner with respect”; Harper
et al., 2012). We recognize that people may obtain relationship advice from
strangers and acquaintances (Fingerman, 2009), as well as from a variety of
media sources, books, or educational materials (Kramer and Ramsburg, 2005;
Rutherford, 2009; Spalding et al., 2010; Walker and Riley, 2001). However,
given the focus of this book, we pay primary attention to relationship advice
provided by social network members such as family, friends, co-workers, and
neighbors.
There is an increasingly robust research literature on the seeking, giving,
evaluation, and utilization of advice “in general,” without restriction on its
190 Erina L. MacGeorge and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

content (Bonaccio and Dalal, 2006; MacGeorge et al., 2008). The advice
examined in this literature includes that exchanged by close relationship
partners (friends, family members, etc.; Feng and MacGeorge, 2010;
MacGeorge, Feng, Butler, and Budarz, 2004), and consequently, some of the
advice that has been studied has almost certainly been relationship advice.
However, this work does not have a specific focus on relationship advice.
Indeed, in our review of relevant scholarly literature, we found that research
on relationship advice is both scattered and sparse, largely unconnected either
to research on advice more generally or to research on relationships and social
networks. We also found very little direct attention to advice in studies of social
network effects on dyads (for one exception focused on advice to exit relation-
ships, see Sprecher, 2011).
Given the character of the existing research, we have organized this
chapter into three sections. In the first section, we synthesize and then critique
studies that have directly examined the phenomenon of relationship advice –
largely advice to young people about dating and sexuality, or to parents about
child rearing behavior. Second, we review theory and research focused on
“general” advice-seeking, -giving, evaluation, and utilization, emphasizing
what this work helps to explain about the influence of relationship advice.
Indeed, despite the lack of prior integration, there is clear compatibility
between what is known about the exchange of advice in general and what
has been observed about relationship advice. Third, based on the convergence
of the two literatures, we sketch a research agenda for examining the exchange
and impact of relationship advice within social networks. Overall, given the
state of existing research, our goal is to marshal the evidence that relationship
advice is one of the processes by which social networks influence the dyadic
relationships within them, to use existing theory and research on advice to
explain conditions under which relationship advice might be expected to have
greater or lesser influence, and to suggest directions for obtaining more insight
into this process.

research on relationship advice

Typically, people seek advice when they have a decision to make or a problem
to solve, and have some level of uncertainty about what to do (Lu and Yuan,
2011; Skeat et al., 2010). Correspondingly, people often give advice when they
perceive another person as uncertain about what to do, or as likely to do
something the advice-giver views as ineffective or inappropriate in some way
(Guntzviller and MacGeorge, 2013). Relationships provide us with myriad
uncertainties, decisions, and problems, so it is possible that people seek and
receive a great deal of relationship advice. However, most of the relationship
advice documented in scholarly research appears to fall into one of two
relatively narrow categories: (1) to young people about dating and sexuality,
 Relationship advice 191

and (2) to parents, especially new parents, about child rearing. There are also a
handful of studies that discuss premarital advice and advice in the context of
extra-marital affairs, divorce, and remarriage. Thus, research on relationship
advice has tended to focus on key relational turning-points (e.g., transition to
marriage or parenthood) and consequential behaviors (e.g., teenage sexuality,
divorce) and does not necessarily represent its full range. In addition, the work
reviewed below does not represent a programmatic approach to studying
relationship advice. Instead, these studies are highly heterogeneous, involving
disparate populations, methodologies, and research purposes. We return to the
strengths and limitations of this work after first examining what it indicates
about the sources, content, and evaluation of relationship advice.

Relationship advice to teenagers and young adults

One subset of research on relationship advice is focused on the advice that
teenagers and young adults receive from social network members about their
romantic relationships and sexuality within those relationships. The interest in
this particular type is consistent with the idea that young people need advice as
they develop and sustain potentially long-term and consequential relation-
ships, and engage in sexual behavior (Adams and Williams, 2011). A subset of
these studies also reference advice about other types of relationships, such as
those with siblings (McHale et al., 2004) or parents (Milardo, 2005).
Collectively, this body of research indicates that young people receive
relationship advice from multiple advisors. These sources of advice include
parents (Hutchinson and Cederbaum, 2011; Kellas, 2010; Powell, 2008; Trice,
2002; Updegraff et al., 2001), siblings (Tucker, 1997; Tucker, Barber, and Eccles,
2001; Tucker, McHale, and Crouter, 2001), grandparents (Crosnoe and
Elder, 2002; Harper et al., 2012; Powell, 2008), and a variety of other relatives,
including uncles (Milardo, 2005), aunts (Ellingson and Sotirin, 2006), cousins
(Harper et al., 2012), and fictive kin (Shipley, 2011). Unsurprisingly, young
people also report receiving relationship advice from friends, especially other
teenagers and young adults (Adams and Williams, 2011; Martsolf et al., 2011;
Wright and Sinclair, 2012).
Most studies that address relationship advice to young adults were
designed with a primary focus on something other than advice, such as
young adult relationships or sexuality. Consequently, many provide little detail
about the content of the advice. However, some of the broad categories of
advice include romantic relationships (Adams and Williams, 2011; Kellas, 2010;
Powell, 2008; Shipley, 2011), sex (Hutchinson and Cederbaum, 2011; Morgan,
Thorne, and Zurbriggen, 2010; Powell, 2008; Shipley, 2011), and social life issues
such as conflict (McHale et al., 2004; Tucker, McHale, and Crouter 2001). A few
recent studies have provided more detailed insight into the topics of relation-
ship advice directed at young people. For example, Morgan et al. (2010)
192 Erina L. MacGeorge and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

documented instances of parental advice on multiple aspects of sex and dating,

including safe sexual practices and handling relationship problems. Manning,
Cohen, and Smock (2011) reported that parental advice about premarital
cohabitation influenced dating couples’ views of this practice. And Harper
(2012) found that African American adolescents received advice from family
members about mate selection and relationship maintenance including
respecting, pleasing, and persuading one’s partner, maintaining mutual inde-
pendence, and handling dating violence.
In general, friends and family members appear to be trusted sources of
relationship advice for young people, but there are also indications across studies
that different sources are valued (or devalued) for certain qualities of the advice
they provide. Parents’ and grandparents’ life experiences confer legitimacy on
their advice (Powell, 2008), but grandparents may provide relatively little advice
about dating relationships compared to parents and other relatives (Harper et al.,
2012). Research on uncles and aunts is especially sparse, but suggests that these
relatives sometimes provide advice on relationship topics that young people feel
they cannot discuss with their parents, including the relationship between the
parent and the young person (Ellingson and Sotirin, 2006; Milardo, 2005). The
use of both parents and extended family members for advice appears to decline
as young people mature, with these sources being replaced by siblings, romantic
partners, and friends (Powell, 2008; Sebald, 1986). Siblings, especially older
siblings, are described as providing broad-ranging, valuable advice on relation-
ship matters, including dating, sexual behavior, and projected future relation-
ships (Harper et al., 2012; Tucker, Barber, and Crouter, 2001; Tucker, McHale,
and Eccles, 2001). Advice from both siblings and friends appears to be valued for
its basis in similar beliefs, values, and experiences (e.g., going through puberty
together; Powell, 2008), and for the opportunity to reciprocate the giving of
advice (Tucker, McHale, and Eccles, 2001). Indeed, one study of dating choices
found that advice from friends had more influence than advice from parents
(Wright and Sinclair, 2012). However, not all friends are equally valued sources of
relationship advice: some are seen as more credible sources due to perceived
maturity, time spent in dating relationships, or quantity of sexual experience
(Martsolf et al., 2011; Powell, 2008).
Several studies indicate that gender, culture, and relational traits affect the
giving, receiving, and evaluation of relationship advice for young people.
Young women appear to give and receive more advice than young men in a
variety of relationship types (Tucker, Barber, and Crouter, 2001; Tucker,
McHale, and Eccles, 2001), including advice that is specifically about romantic
relationships (Adams and Williams, 2011). This is connected with a tendency
for female friends to talk more extensively than male friends about relation-
ships and sexuality (Powell, 2008). Research also indicates that relationship
advice from parents tends to be gendered: young women are more likely to go
to their mothers, and boys to their fathers for relationship advice (Powell,
 Relationship advice 193

2008). In fact, two recent studies suggest that young women receive relatively
little advice about men and relationships from their fathers (Hutchinson and
Cederbaum, 2011; Shipley, 2011). Although some young women report wanting
more of the “male perspective” that fathers (and opposite-sex friends) can
provide (Hutchinson and Cederbaum, 2011), others view a low level of advice
from fathers as appropriate (Shipley, 2011). There are also hints of cultural and
socio-economic influences on the content and pervasiveness of relationship
advice. Bernadi and Oppo (2011) describe how Europeans in their twenties and
thirties continue to live in their parents’ homes due to economic conditions
and social norms, and consequently how their romantic relationships are
shaped by familial influences, including advice. In a rare study that directly
compared cultural groups and focused on relationship advice exchanged by
teenagers, Adams and Williams (2011) reported that advice from white female
teens was more likely than advice from Mexican American teens to focus on
the future, and to directly address issues of power and control in relationships.
Finally, there are indications that parenting style affects how much advice
young adults seek from their parents. Trice (2002) found that college students’
seeking of “social advice” from parents was greatest for students with author-
itarian parents, least for those with permissive parents, and intermediate for
those with authoritative parents.

Parenting advice
A second subset of research on relationship advice focuses on advice to parents
about the parent–child relationship, especially (but not limited to) caregiving
behaviors. Many parents, especially new parents, appear to want or need advice
on nurturing, guiding, and relating to their children (Fuligni and Brooks-
Gunn, 2002); much of this research also reflects societal concern for the
improvement of parenting, especially as it relates to the welfare of the child
(Keller and McDade, 2000).
Studies of parenting advice show that parents seek and receive much of
their advice from their spouses or partners (Gillies, 2004; Shwalb et al., 1995;
Walker, 2005), but also get advice from grandparents (Aubel, 2012; Reid,
Schmied, and Beale, 2010; Sandel et al., 2009; Walker, 2005), especially maternal
grandparents (Johnson, 2009; Marx, Miller, and Huffmon, 2011), and friends,
especially those with similar-aged children (Walker, 2005; Walker and Riley,
2001). Other relatives (Riley and Cochran, 1985), teachers (Cheatham and
Ostrosky, 2011), and health care professionals (Walker, 2005) also provide
advice. A handful of studies create a small window into the content of some
of this advice, indicating that parents of infants and toddlers receive advice
about feeding children (Aubel, 2012; Walker, 2005), dealing with problem
behaviors (Cheatham and Ostrosky, 2011; Marx et al., 2011), and expectations
for growth and development (Walker, 2005).
194 Erina L. MacGeorge and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

Many studies indicate that parents actively solicit parenting advice, view it
as useful, and utilize it (Johnson, 2009; Shwalb et al., 1995; Walker, 2005).
However, multiple studies document preferences for advice from some social
network members rather than others. For example, in Walker’s (2005) study of
new mothers in Wisconsin, grandparents and friends were seen as more useful
sources of advice than spouses on the topics of infant growth and development,
how to start solid foods, and where to obtain clothes. In addition, some
parenting advice is viewed as intrusive (Gillies, 2004), critical (Dun, 2010), or
out-of-date (Walker, 2005), and is rejected for these reasons.
As with relationship advice to young people, it appears that gender affects
the extent to which parenting advice is solicited, valued, and implemented.
Several studies indicate that mothers seek more parenting advice than fathers
(Marx et al., 2011; Shwalb et al., 1995), probably due to traditional social roles in
which mothers are more involved with child rearing than fathers. Fathers with
more education, white-collar occupations, or working spouses, as well as those
for whom the parental role is more salient, report having more social network
sources of child rearing advice than fathers who do not have these character-
istics (Riley and Cochran, 1985). Culture and socio-economic status also appear
to affect the extent to which parents are given or rely on advice from their social
networks (Aubel, 2012; Johnson, 2009; Kakinuma, 1993). For example, Sandel
and colleagues’ (2009) study of Taiwanese and Euro-American grandmothers
revealed that whereas Euro-American grandmothers found advice-giving to be
problematic (i.e., reported not wanting to interfere, or only giving advice when
asked), Taiwanese grandmothers gave advice freely.

Advice about marriage and divorce

Compared to the number of studies that address advice about young people’s
dating and sexuality, or those focused on parenting advice, there are very few
studies specific to advice about marriage and divorce. Strikingly, it appears that
the only scholarly research with a focus on premarital advice from social
network members comes from two master’s thesis projects conducted with
young, religious, newly wed Mormons in rural Utah (Rios, 2010; Sullivan,
2008). In one of these studies, husbands and wives independently reported
an average of nearly four sources of premarital advice, with friends ranked as
the top source for both spouses (Sullivan, 2008). Husbands reported getting the
most advice from their male friends, followed by religious leaders, fathers, and
mothers, whereas wives reported getting the most advice from their female
friends, followed by mothers, religious leaders, and fathers. However, when
Rios (2010) interviewed couples together, participants reported that mothers
were the top sources, followed by religious leaders and fathers. Both studies
indicate that the advice was perceived as beneficial and utilized by the couples.
In Sullivan’s study, more than 90 percent of husbands and wives reported using
 Relationship advice 195

the advice they received, and ratings of helpfulness from the various advisors
typically exceeded 8 on a 10-point scale. The closeness of the relationship
influenced the perceived helpfulness of some advisors; for example, husbands
with closer relationships to their fathers perceived fatherly advice as more
helpful than those who were less close. In Rios’s study, couples who perceived
advice as more helpful also reported that their expectations of marriage were
more fully met, suggesting that the advice helped them set expectations that
proved consistent with their experiences.
There is similarly little research on advice from social network members in
the context of coping with extra-marital affairs, divorce, or remarriage. One
study of rural women from Malawi (Africa) indicates that friends and family can
motivate wives to confront husbands who are risking HIV infection through
extra-marital affairs (Schatz, 2005), while another study of Midwestern
American couples indicates that advice can also motivate reconciliation with
partners who have been unfaithful (Olson et al., 2002). In a study focused on
second marriages, 10 percent of “second wives” reported that friends or family
members actively tried to discourage them from marrying their current hus-
bands (Knox and Zusman, 2001). Another study indicates that giving advice
about divorce is recognized as risky (Hamon, 1995). In this study, parents with an
adult child who divorced reported contemplating whether giving advice was a
good idea, with some indicating that it could inhibit the adult child from
assuming responsibility, and that it should only be given when requested.

Strengths, weaknesses, and implications of relationship

advice research
In general, the research on relationship advice indicates that social network
members give relationship advice, especially at significant turning-points in
relationships, and with regard to certain types of relationships. Many of these
studies also suggest that this advice influences behavior with regard to these
relationships (e.g., whom to date; Wright and Sinclair, 2012) and behavior within
them (e.g., showing respect to one’s partner; Harper et al., 2012). Overall, the
existing research is consistent with the contention that relationship advice is one
of the communicative mechanisms by which social network members influence
relationships. However, the paucity of the research literature also highlights a
number of questions about relationship advice that need to be answered in order
to fully understand its role in producing social network influence on relationships.
One obvious issue is prevalence. Is relationship advice a common phe-
nomenon, provided with respect to many relationship decisions, problems, or
uncertainties, or is it largely limited to major relationship turning-points? Do
the particular populations, relationships, and turning-points that have been
previously studied actually reflect the situations in which most relationship
advice is given, or are these simply an artifact of researcher interests and
196 Erina L. MacGeorge and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

societal concerns? Beyond prevalence, there is the question of content. What

kind(s) of advice do social network members actually give about others’
relationships? One distinction might be made between advice about changing
the definition or status of the relationship (“You should go out with him”) and
advice about behaviors involved with relationship maintenance (“You need to
spend more time together”). Presumably, advice about behaviors involved in
maintaining a relationship will be more common than advice about altering
the relationship simply because there are so many more behaviors within
relationships than “on” relationships, but this is currently an open empirical
question. Other content distinctions may be context-specific, but could be
important to relational outcomes in those contexts. For example, if the advice
college students receive from parents about sex has more restrictive or negative
content rather than positive content (Morgan et al., 2010), what are the
implications for students’ sexual behavior and satisfaction with intimate rela-
tionships? Finally, in order to determine the extent to which social network
influence is accomplished through relationship advice, it is critical to assess not
just whether advice is given or received, but its evaluation and utilization. Some
prior studies of relationship advice provide indications that advice was valued
and utilized, or that advice was ignored or rejected (Sullivan, 2008; Walker,
2005), but there has been little systematic attention to the amount of influence
exerted by advice, or to the factors that promote or diminish its influence.
Some of these questions, especially about the prevalence and specific
content of relationship advice, cannot be answered without empirical research
focused directly on those issues. However, for questions about the influence of
relationship advice, and variability of this influence, there is a relevant body of
theory and research on the seeking, giving, evaluation, and utilization of advice
(for reviews, see Bonaccio and Dalal, 2006; MacGeorge et al., 2008). Although
this work is not focused specifically on relationship advice, it identifies key
factors that affect advice outcomes, and therefore provides a useful framework
for explaining variation in the impact of relationship advice on relational
outcomes. In the following section, we discuss this body of theory and research.

giving, seeking and responding

to relationship advice
For relationship advice to operate as a means by which social network mem-
bers influence relationships within those networks, the social network mem-
bers have to give advice. This is an important observation because there are
multiple factors that may constrain the giving of relationship advice. One
central constraint is awareness: to the extent that social network members
are unaware of uncertainties, decisions, or problems relevant to a relationship,
they are almost certainly less likely to give advice about those issues. The level
of awareness is likely to be affected by the frequency and quantity of interaction
 Relationship advice 197

between social network members and potential advice recipients, as well as the
breadth and depth of disclosure relevant to the relationship during these
interactions. Thus, some of the same network characteristics that affect the
stability of relationships (e.g., frequency of contact between one relationship
partner and the other partner’s network; Parks, 2007) may also affect how
much relationship advice is given.
Even when social network members are aware of issues that make relation-
ship advice relevant, there are many reasons why they may choose not to give
it. Theorists have described the capacity for advice to threaten the “face,” self-
image, or feelings of the recipient, including threats to a recipient’s sense
of connectedness, competence, and autonomy (Goldsmith, 1994; Lim and
Bowers, 1991). Indeed, research on both advice generally and relationship
advice specifically provides ample evidence that advice can be seen as intrusive,
bossy, or critical (Gillies, 2004; Goldsmith and Fitch, 1997; Keller and McDade,
2000; Martsolf et al., 2011). The risk of face-threat may be especially great for
relationship advice, since choices about whom to associate with, and how to
behave within personal relationships, tend to be seen as individual and per-
sonal, especially in individualistic cultures (Gillies, 2004; Zhang and Kline,
2009). Since people are reluctant to comment negatively on the relationships of
their friends (Wilson, Roloff, and Carey, 1998; Zhang and Merolla, 2006),
advice that indicates a negative evaluation of a relationship may be withheld.
Overall, advisors who believe that their advice will badly damage the relation-
ship with the recipient, or otherwise do more harm than good, may choose not
to give it; this phenomenon is clearly illustrated in the relationship advice
research by parents wary of giving advice to their children about parenting
(Sandel et al., 2009) and divorce (Hamon, 1995).
Of course, advice-giving can be encouraged by direct solicitation (Chentsova-
Dutton and Vaughn, 2012), or by disclosing a problem in ways that suggest advice
is desired (Goldsmith, 2000). The likelihood that someone will seek advice from
others is increased when uncertainty or anxiety is greater (Butler et al., 2012; Gino,
Brooks, and Schweitzer, 2012), and when decisions or problems are perceived as
more significant (Gino and Moore, 2007; Skeat et al., 2010). People also tend to
choose advisors they perceive as more accessible, willing to advise, expert, and
trustworthy (Bonaccio and Dalal, 2010; Creswick and Westbrook, 2010; Nebus,
2006). These findings are consistent with observable patterns of advice-seeking in
research on relationship advice. For example, young people’s lack of experience
with romantic relationships and the significance of these relationships in their
lives appears to create uncertainty and motivate advice-seeking (Adams and
Williams, 2011); siblings and friends are easily accessed and perceived as trust-
worthy advisors (Powell, 2008; Tucker, 1997). And certain social network mem-
bers may achieve the status of favored advisor on virtually any issue, probably due
to their combination of accessibility, expertise, trustworthiness, and other positive
characteristics (Ellingson and Sotirin, 2006).
198 Erina L. MacGeorge and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

The potential influence of relationship advice on dyadic relationships

depends not only on whether it is given or sought, but how it is evaluated
when received, and consequently whether it is utilized. There is a great deal of
evidence that advice, even of high quality, often goes unheeded; this tendency to
ignore or “discount” advice appears to be linked to recipients’ preference for their
own perspectives and intended actions (Schrah, Dalal, and Sniezek, 2006; Yaniv,
2004; Yaniv and Kleinberger, 2000). However, as described by advice response
theory (Feng and MacGeorge, 2010; MacGeorge et al., in press), the evaluation
and utilization of advice is influenced by characteristics of advisors, advice
messages and interactions, and recipients, as well as by certain situational factors.
Much of the psychological research on advice has focused on character-
istics of advisors as influences on advice utilization (Bonaccio and Dalal, 2006;
2010). Unsurprisingly, many of the same characteristics that motivate the
solicitation of advice also appear to affect how it is evaluated and how much
it is utilized. Advice is evaluated more positively and utilized more extensively
when advisors are perceived as more credible or expert, trustworthy, likeable,
close to the recipient, and similar to the recipient (Bonaccio and Dalal,
2010; Feng and MacGeorge, 2010; Van Swol, 2011; White, 2005). In addition,
advisors who express more confidence in their advised actions have a greater
influence on utilization (Sniezek and Van Swol, 2001). Although research on
relationship advice has not systematically examined these advisor character-
istics as influences on evaluation or utilization, it does provide hints that these
factors operate much as they do for advice more generally. For example,
perceived advisor expertise seems to be a key influence on whether parents
appreciate and implement parenting advice (Dun, 2010; Walker, 2005), and
perceived advisor similarity appears to increase the value placed on dating
advice to young people from siblings and friends (Adams and Williams, 2011;
Tucker, 1997).
Research conducted by communication scholars indicates that qualities of
advice messages and interactions are key influences on the evaluation and
utilization of advice. Indeed, multiple studies show that recipients’ evaluations
of advice quality and intention to implement the advised action are influenced
by advice message content and style (for a review, see MacGeorge, Feng, and
Burleson, 2011). Specifically, advice recipients respond more positively to
messages that advise actions they perceive as more efficacious and feasible,
and having few limitations (Feng and Burleson, 2008; Feng and Feng, 2012;
Feng and MacGeorge, 2010; MacGeorge, Feng et al., 2004). They also respond
more positively to advice they perceive as confirming their already intended
actions (Feng and MacGeorge, 2010; MacGeorge et al., in press), and as more
polite or less face-threatening (Feng and Burleson, 2008; Feng and MacGeorge,
2010; Goldsmith and MacGeorge, 2000; MacGeorge, Feng et al., 2004).
Advisors can improve the reception of advice by making explicit arguments
that advised actions are indeed efficacious, feasible, and not possessed of too
 Relationship advice 199

many limitations (Feng and Burleson, 2008); they can also influence advice
uptake by framing the advice in face-protective ways (Caplan and Samter, 1999;
MacGeorge, Lichtman, and Pressey, 2002). Recent work testing advice
response theory (Feng and MacGeorge, 2010; MacGeorge et al., in press)
shows that the content and style of advice messages are stronger influences
on responses to advice than are characteristics of advisors, and that advisor
characteristics have their primary influence through their impact on percep-
tions of message content and style (message content is rated as more effica-
cious, feasible, etc. when produced by advisors who are more expert,
trustworthy, and so forth). Finally, several studies show that the sequencing
of advice in interactions between advisors and recipients affects how it is
evaluated. Not only is advice evaluated more positively when it is solicited
(Goldsmith and Fitch, 1997; Smith and Goodnow, 1999), but when it is given in
response to disclosure of a problem, it is evaluated more positively when
prefaced by emotional support and analysis of the problem (Feng, 2009; 2012).
As previously noted, there has been very limited attention to the details of
what is advised, or exactly how the advice is given, in past research on relation-
ship advice. However, given the accumulating research on advice content,
style, and sequence as influences on advice evaluation and outcomes, it
seems likely these factors are just as relevant to relationship advice as to advice
of other types. Several studies provide indications that this is true. For example,
Martsolf’s (2011) analysis of adolescent responses to conversations about dat-
ing violence shows that adolescents evaluate advice on this topic for whether it
confirms or disconfirms their existing perspectives – and that they are more
likely to heed advice to end an abusive relationship when they have already
been thinking about taking this step. Similarly, collegiate women in Shipley’s
(2011) study reported evaluating relationship advice on dimensions that
included relevance, timeliness, and match to their experiences.
Beyond the influence of advisors and messages, research on advice eval-
uation and utilization indicates that certain recipient characteristics or traits
also impact how advice is received, and may thus affect the outcomes of
relationship advice. Recent studies suggest some of the ways that culture and
culture-related personality traits may affect responses to advice. One study
shows that Russians view advice as more supportive and less intrusive than do
Americans, possibly because personal advice is a more critical resource for
managing practical problems in post-Soviet Russia than in the United States
(Chentsova-Dutton and Vaughn, 2012). Other work has examined differences
in Chinese and American evaluations of advice (Feng, 2012; Feng and Feng,
2012). For Chinese advice recipients, evaluations of advice about a personal
problem are more influenced by characteristics of the advisor and less influ-
enced by qualities of the advice content than Euro-American advice recipients
(though both cultural groups are more highly influenced by content than
advisor; Feng and Feng, 2012). Chinese advice recipients also appear to be
200 Erina L. MacGeorge and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

less affected than Euro-American recipients by whether advice is preceded by

emotional support or problem analysis, and this difference is connected to
differences in Chinese and American self-construal (interdependent versus
independent; Feng, 2012). Most research on relationship advice has not system-
atically compared cultural differences (for one exception, see Adams and
Williams, 2011), but studies conducted with specific cultural groups strongly
suggest variation in the extensiveness and influence of advice-giving as a
function of culture and socio-economic factors (Aubel, 2012; Bernardi and
Oppo, 2011; Harper et al., 2012)
In comparison to culture, the research on gender and advice utilization
suggests that gender is a much weaker influence. Although some research has
suggested that women evaluate advice as a type of support somewhat more
positively than do men (Burleson et al., 2006; Michaud and Warner, 1997), the
effects for gender are very small, and other studies have reported no gender
differences in responses to advice (Basow and Rubenfeld, 2003; MacGeorge,
Graves, Feng, Gillihan, and Burleson, 2004), or that women evaluate advice less
positively than men (MacGeorge et al., 2002). Women may be more sensitive
to the politeness with which advice is given (MacGeorge et al., 2002), but this
claim is also not consistently supported (MacGeorge, Graves et al., 2004).
Although studies of relationship advice have suggested larger influences of
gender, these differences are in the preference for relationship advice (rather
than advice in general; Powell, 2008), or in the preference for advisors of a
particular gender for certain advice content (e.g., about sexuality; Shipley,
2011), so there may be no contradiction.
Thus far, we have identified relationship advice as one form of communi-
cation by which social network members may influence relationships, reviewed
and critiqued existing research on relationship advice, and explored how
research on general advice-giving and utilization helps to explain likely varia-
tion in the impact of relationship advice. This exploration suggests that givers
and recipients of relationship advice are influenced by many of the same
factors that influence givers and recipients of advice on other problems,
decisions, and uncertainties, but research is needed to assess this claim. In
the final section, we focus on directions for future research that will improve
understanding of both relationship advice and advice more generally, along
with social network influence on relationship processes.

advancing research on relationship advice

and social network influence
Of the directions available for research on relationship advice, the most
obvious ones are those suggested in prior sections of this chapter. Since most
of the existing work on relationship advice is narrowly focused on dating
advice (to young people) or parenting advice, there is a clear warrant for efforts
 Relationship advice 201

to assess the prevalence, sources, content, and impact of relationship advice

outside of these narrow contexts. In addition, advice response theory (Feng
and MacGeorge, 2010; MacGeorge et al., in press) provides a ready scaffold for
research testing whether advisor, message, recipient, and situational factors
affect evaluation and utilization of relationship advice in ways that are similar
to the effect of these factors on other types of advice. Moreover, recent work
documenting the prevalence of efforts to influence others’ relationships
(Sprecher, 2011) suggests further attention to different types of influence
attempts, and their relative impact.
Beyond these immediate questions are other interesting and important
avenues for exploration. First, studies of relationship advice suggest attention
to characteristics of advisors and advisor–recipient relationships that have not
been given much research attention. One of these is the motivation to comply
with the advisor (Etcheverry and Agnew, 2004), a type of subjective norm that
may be especially relevant in relationships with parents and grandparents.
Consistent with the idea that some relationship advice is perceived as less
advisory and more compulsory, Wright and Sinclair (2012) showed that paren-
tal influence on college students’ dating choices was stronger when the students
received more resources from their parents. In addition, studies of social
network influence and relationship advice suggest significant cultural variation
in the perceived obligation to follow parental or grandparental advice, and
consequently the extent to which that advice influences the targeted relation-
ship (Aubel, 2012; Zhang and Kline, 2009).
Second, a focus on relationship advice foregrounds the possibility (even
probability) of multiple advisors on the same issue, and the potential for
disparate views. Consensus across advice from multiple sources may lead to
greater utilization, but dissensus requires that the recipient decide how to
weight input from multiple sources – and against his or her own perspective.
When advice is given on matters of fact (e.g., dates of historical events),
averaging estimates from multiple advisors can enhance the accuracy of
decision-making (Yaniv and Milyavsky, 2007). However, recipients often
weight their preexisting opinions more heavily than the advice they receive
from others (Yaniv and Kleinberger, 2000), and an averaging strategy may be
inapplicable or inappropriate for the utilization of relationship advice (i.e., if
two friends think one should pursue a relationship, but another friend dis-
agrees, does one pursue the relationship with two-thirds the effort?). One
recent study suggests that evaluation of advice on “matters of taste” is influ-
enced by the perceived behavioral similarity of the advisor (Yaniv, Choshen-
Hillel, and Milyavsky, 2011). However, laboratory studies of advice on choosing
movies may not fully capture the complexity of utilizing advice from social
network members – a complexity that includes advisors’ potential awareness of
whether their advice is followed, and the possibility that they will impose
sanctions on advisees who are not compliant.
202 Erina L. MacGeorge and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

Second, understanding the function of relationship advice within social

networks will require attention to several dimensions of advice evaluation and
outcome that have not been emphasized in prior research. By definition,
relationship advice recommends action with regard to a relationship, so the
utilization of that advice will often result in some kind of change that can be
detected by the relational partner. Thus, recipients of relationship advice may
evaluate the advised behaviors not only for themselves, but with regard to the
perspective and likely response of the relational partner. In addition, behaviors
that significantly alter the definition of a relationship or behaviors within it
may affect surrounding relationships (McDermott, Fowler, and Christakis,
2009), so relationship advice may also be evaluated for its potential impact
on connected relationships in the social network. Tracking the influence of
relationship advice will also require attention to outcomes different from those
traditionally examined in research on advice utilization. These include not only
objective, structural outcomes (e.g., breakups, marriages), but outcomes from
the perspective of the “non-advised” partner and other network members, such
as perceived changes in the relationship or relational behavior, and the evalua-
tion of those changes. It is also relevant for researchers to examine the impact
of relationship advice on the advisor and the advisor–recipient relationship.
Clearly, exchanges of advice, including relationship advice, are some of the
strings that hold relationships and networks together. However, due to emo-
tional investment in relationships, relationship advice that is evaluated neg-
atively may result in more rejection of the advisor than advice on other matters
(Wilson et al., 1998).
Third, many people today are connected with far-flung members of
their social networks via social networking sites such as Facebook. To the
extent that people post details about their close relationships on these sites,
they may receive advice about their relationships from distant relatives,
acquaintances, and others who would not have these details of the relation-
ship or entrée to giving advice without the site. Thus, one intriguing direc-
tion for subsequent research is examining the prevalence, evaluation, and
impact of relationship advice conveyed through social media, especially
advice from network members whose primary access to the relationship is
via social media.

references
Adams, H. L., and Williams, L. R. (2011). Advice from teens to teens about dating:
implications for healthy relationships. Children and Youth Services Review, 33,
254–264.
Aubel, J. (2012). The role and influence of grandmothers on child nutrition: culturally
designated advisors and caregivers. Maternal and Child Nutrition, 8, 19–35.
Basow, S. A., and Rubenfeld, K. (2003). “Troubles talk”: effects of gender and gender-
typing. Sex Roles, 48, 183–187.
 Relationship advice 203

Baxter, L. A., Dun, T., and Sahlstein, E. (2001). Rules for relating communicated
among social network members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18,
173–199.
Bernardi, L., and Oppo, A. (2011). Couple formation as a transition between families. In
R. Jallinoja and E. M. Widmer (eds.), Families and kinship in contemporary
Europe (pp. 95–111). Aldershot: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bonaccio, S., and Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice-taking and decision-making: an integrative
review of the literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
101, 127–151.
(2010). Evaluating advisors: a policy-capturing study under conditions of complete
and missing information. Journal of Behavioral Decision-Making, 23, 227–249.
Burleson, B. R., Liu, M., Liu, Y., and Mortenson, S. T. (2006). Chinese evaluations of
emotional support skills, goals, and behaviors: an assessment of gender-related
similarities and differences. Communication Research, 33, 38–63.
Butler, M. G., Farley, J. F., Sleath, B. L., Murray, M. D., and Maciejewski, M. L. (2012).
Medicare part D information seeking: the role of recognition of need and patient
activation. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 8, 433–442.
Caplan, S. E., and Samter, W. (1999). The role of facework in younger and older adults’
evaluations of social support messages. Communication Quarterly, 47, 245–264.
Cheatham, G. A., and Ostrosky, M. M. (2011). Whose expertise? An analysis of advice
giving in early childhood parent–teacher conferences. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 25, 24–44.
Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E., and Vaughn, A. (2012). Let me tell you what to do: cultural
differences in advice-giving. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Cochran, M., and Niego, S. (2002). Parenting and social networks. In M. H. Bornstein
(ed.), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting
(pp. 123–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cochran, M., and Walker, S. K. (2005). Parenting and personal social networks. In
T. Luster and L. Ogakaki (eds.), Parenting: an ecological perspective, 2nd edn.
(pp. 235–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Creswick, N., and Westbrook, J. I. (2010). Social network analysis of medication advice-
seeking interactions among staff in an Australian hospital. International Journal
of Medical Informatics, 79, e116–e125.
Crosnoe, R., and Elder, G. H. (2002). Life course transitions, the generational stake, and
grandparent–grandchild relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64,
1089–1096.
Dun, T. (2010). Turning points in parent–grandparent relationships during the start of
a new generation. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 194–210.
Ellingson, L. L., and Sotirin, P. J. (2006). Exploring young adults’ perspectives on
communication with aunts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23,
483–501.
Erel, O., and Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent–child
relations: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108–132.
Etcheverry, P. E., and Agnew, C. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of
romantic relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11, 409–428.
Etcheverry, P. E., Le, B., and Charania, M. R. (2008). Perceived versus reported social
referent approval and romantic relationship commitment and persistence.
Personal Relationships, 15, 281–295.
Felmlee, D. H. (2001). No couple is an island: a social network perspective on dyadic
stability. Social Forces, 79, 1259–1287.
204 Erina L. MacGeorge and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

Felmlee, D. H., and Sprecher, S. (2000). Close relationships and social psychology:
intersections and future paths. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 365–376.
Feng, B. (2009). Testing an integrated model of advice-giving in supportive interac-
tions. Human Communication Research, 35, 115–129.
(2012). When should advice be given? Assessing the role of sequential placement of
advice in supportive interactions in two cultures. Communication Research, 39.
Feng, B., and Burleson, B. R. (2008). The effects of argument explicitness on responses
to advice in supportive interactions. Communication Research, 35, 849–874.
Feng, B., and Feng, H. (2012). Examining cultural similarities and differences in
responses to advice: a comparison of American and Chinese college students.
Communication Research, 39.
Feng, B., and MacGeorge, E. L. (2010). The influences of message and source factors on
advice outcomes. Communication Research, 37, 576–598.
Fingerman, K. L. (2009). Consequential strangers and peripheral ties: the importance of
unimportant relationships. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 69–86.
Fuligni, A. S., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). Meeting the challenges of new parenthood:
responsibilities, advice, and perceptions. In N. Halfon, K. T. McLearn, and
M. A. Schuster (eds.), Child rearing in America: challenges facing parents with
young children (pp. 83–116). Cambridge University Press.
Gillies, V. (2004). Parenting and social capital: accessing help and support from
informal social networks. Sociologija, 46, 245–258.
Gino, F., Brooks, A. W., and Schweitzer, M. E. (2012). Anxiety, advice, and the ability to
discern: feeling anxious motivates individuals to seek and use advice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 497.
Gino, F., and Moore, D. A. (2007). Effects of task difficulty on use of advice. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 21–35.
Goldsmith, D. J. (1994). The role of facework in supportive communication. In
B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, and I. G. Sarason (eds.), Communication of social
support: messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 29–49). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
(2000). Soliciting advice: the role of sequential placement in mitigating face threat.
Communication Monographs, 67, 1–19.
Goldsmith, D. J., and Fitch, K. (1997). The normative context of advice as social
support. Human Communication Research, 23, 454–476.
Goldsmith, D. J., and MacGeorge, E. L. (2000). The impact of politeness and relation-
ship on perceived quality of advice about a problem. Human Communication
Research, 26, 234–263.
Guntzviller, L. M., and MacGeorge, E. L. (2013). Modeling interactional influence in
advice exchanges: advice giver goals and recipient evaluations. Communication
Monographs, 80, 83–100.
Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Hadley, A. M., Kaye, K., Day, R. D., and Orthner, D. K. (2009).
Parent marital quality and the parent–adolescent relationship: profiles of relation-
ship quality. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 189–217.
Hamon, R. R. (1995). Parents as resources when adult children divorce. Journal of
Divorce and Remarriage, 23, 171–184.
Harper, G. W., Timmons, A., Motley, D. N., Tyler, D. H., Catania, J. A., Boyer, C. B.,
and Dolcini, M. M. (2012). “It takes a village”: familial messages regarding dating
among African American adolescents. Research in Human Development, 9, 29–53.
Hax, C. (2012). Divorcing after years in the dark. StarTribune, November 21. Retrieved
from www.startribune.com/lifestyle/relationship/180378591.html?refer=y.
 Relationship advice 205

Hutchinson, M. K., and Cederbaum, J. A. (2011). Talking to Daddy’s little girl about sex:
daughters’ reports of sexual communication and support from fathers. Journal of
Family Issues, 32, 550–572.
Johnson, L. R. (2009). Challenging “best practices” in family literacy and parent
education programs: the development and enactment of mothering knowledge
among Puerto Rican and Latina mothers in Chicago. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 40, 257–276.
Kakinuma, M. (1993). A comparison of the child rearing attitudes of Japanese and
American mothers. Childhood, 1, 253–242.
Kellas, J. K. (2010). Transmitting relational worldviews: the relationship between
mother–daughter memorable messages and adult daughters’ romantic relational
schemata. Communication Quarterly, 58, 458–479.
Keller, J., and McDade, K. (2000). Attitudes of low-income parents toward seeking help
with parenting: implications for practice. Child Welfare – New York, 79, 285–314.
Klein, R. C. A., and Milardo, R. M. (2000). The social context of couple conflict: support
and criticism from informal third parties. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 17, 618–637.
Knobloch, L. K., and Donovan-Kicken, E. (2006). Perceived involvement of network
members in courtships: a test of the relational turbulence model. Personal
Relationships, 13, 281–302.
Knox, D., and Zusman, M. E. (2001). Marrying a man with “baggage.” Journal of
Divorce and Remarriage, 35, 67–79.
Kramer, L., and Ramsburg, D. (2005). Advice given to parents on welcoming a second
child: a critical review. Family Relations, 51, 2–14.
Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., and Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting
nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: a meta-analytic synthesis. Personal
Relationships, 17, 377–390.
Leslie, L. A., Huston, T. L., and Johnson, M. P. (1986). Parental reactions to dating
relationships: do they make a difference? Journal of Marriage and Family, 48,
57–66.
Lim, T.-S., and Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework: solidarity, approbation, and tact.
Human Communication Research, 17, 415–450.
Lu, L., and Yuan, Y. C. (2011). Shall I Google it or ask the competent villain down the
hall? The moderating role of information need in information source selection.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62,
133–145.
MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., and Burleson, B. R. (2011). Supportive communication. In
M. L. Knapp and J. A. Daly (eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication,
4th edn. (pp. 317–354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., Butler, G. L., and Budarz, S. K. (2004). Understanding
advice in supportive interactions: beyond the facework and message evaluation
paradigm. Human Communication Research, 30, 42–70.
MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., and Thompson, E. R. (2008). “Good” and “bad” advice: how
to advise more effectively. In M. T. Motley (ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal
communication (pp. 145–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacGeorge, E. L., Graves, A. R., Feng, B., Gillihan, S. J., and Burleson, B. R. (2004). The
myth of gender cultures: similarities outweigh differences in men’s and women’s
provision of and responses to supportive communication. Sex Roles, 50, 143–175.
MacGeorge, E. L., Guntzviller, L. M., Hanasono, L. K., and Feng, B. (in press). Testing
advice response theory in interactions with friends. Communication Research.
206 Erina L. MacGeorge and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

MacGeorge, E. L., Lichtman, R. M., and Pressey, L. C. (2002). The evaluation of advice
in supportive interactions: facework and contextual factors. Human
Communication Research, 28, 451–463.
Manning, W. D., Cohen, J. A., and Smock, P. J. (2011). The role of romantic partners,
family, and peer networks in dating couples’ views about cohabitation. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 26, 115.
Martsolf, D. S., Draucker, C. B., Bednarz, L. C., and Lea, J. A. (2011). Listening to the
voices of important others: how adolescents make sense of troubled dating
relationships. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 25, 430–444.
Marx, J., Miller, L. Q., and Huffmon, S. (2011). Excluding mothers-in-law. Journal of
Family Issues, 32, 1205–1222.
McDermott, R., Fowler, J., and Christakis, N. (2009). Breaking up is hard to do, unless
everyone else is doing it too: social network effects on divorce in a longitudinal
sample followed for 32 years. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=1490708.
McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Tucker, C. J., and Crouter, A. C. (2004). Step in or stay
out? Parents’ roles in adolescent siblings’ relationships. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 62, 746–760.
Michaud, S. L., and Warner, R. M. (1997). Gender differences in self-reported response
to troubles talk. Sex Roles, 37, 527–540.
Milardo, R. M. (2005). Generative uncle and nephew relationships. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 67, 1226–1236.
Morgan, E. M., Thorne, A., and Zurbriggen, E. L. (2010). A longitudinal study of
conversations with parents about sex and dating during college. Developmental
Psychology, 46, 139–150.
Nebus, J. (2006). Building collegial information networks: a theory of advice network
generation. Academy of Management Review, 31, 615–637.
Olson, M. M., Russell, C. S., Higgins-Kessler, M., and Miller, R. B. (2002). Emotional
processes following disclosure of an extramarital affair. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 28, 423–434.
Parks, M. R. (2007). Personal relationships and personal networks. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
(2011). Social networks and the life of relationships. In M. L. Knapp and J. A. Daly
(eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 355–388). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Powell, E. (2008). Young people’s use of friends and family for sex and relationships
information and advice. Sex Education, 8, 289–302.
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., and Payne, C. (2004). Wives’ domain-specific “marriage
work” with friends and spouses: links to marital quality. Family Relations, 53(4),
393–404.
Reid, J., Schmied, V., and Beale, B. (2010). “I only give advice if I am asked”: examining
the grandmother’s potential to influence infant feeding decisions and parenting
practices of new mothers. Women and Birth, 23, 74–80.
Riggs, L., Holmbeck, G., Paikoff, R., and Bryant, F. B. (2004). Teen mothers parenting
their own teen offspring: the moderating role of parenting support. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 24, 200–230.
Riley, D. A., and Cochran, M. M. (1985). Naturally occurring childrearing advice for
fathers: utilization of the personal social network. Journal of Marriage and Family,
47, 275–286.
 Relationship advice 207

Rios, C. M. (2010). The relationship between premarital advice, expectations and

marital satisfaction. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.
usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1532&context=etd http://digitalcommons.
usu.edu/etd/536
Rutherford, M. (2009). Children’s autonomy and responsibility: an analysis of child-
rearing advice. Qualitative Sociology, 32, 337–353.
Sandel, T. L., Cho, G. E., Miller, P. J., and Wang, S.-H. (2009). What it means to be a
grandmother: a cross-cultural study of Taiwanese and Euro-American grand-
mothers’ beliefs. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 255–278.
Schatz, E. (2005). “Take your mat and go!” Rural Malawian women’s strategies in the
HIV/AIDS era. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 7(5), 479–492.
Schrah, G. E., Dalal, R. S., and Sniezek, J. A. (2006). No decision-maker is an island:
integrating expert advice with information acquisition. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 19, 43–60.
Sebald, H. (1986). Adolescents’ shifting orientation toward parents and peers: a curvi-
linear trend over recent decades. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 5–13.
Shipley, A. J. N. (2011). An exploratory study of intimate relationship socialization
among Black collegiate women. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky.
Retrieved from http://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_diss/171.
Shwalb, D. W., Kawai, H., Shoji, J., and Tsunetsugu, K. (1995). The place of advice:
Japanese parents’ sources of information about childrearing and child health.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 629–644.
Skeat, J., Eadie, P., Ukoumunne, O., and Reilly, S. (2010). Predictors of parents seeking
help or advice about children’s communication development in the early years.
Child: Care, Health and Development, 36, 878–887.
Smith, J., and Goodnow, J. J. (1999). Unasked-for support and unsolicited advice: age
and the quality of social experience. Psychology and Aging, 14, 108–121.
Sniezek, J. A., and Van Swol, L. M. (2001). Trust, confidence, and expertise in a judge-
advisor system. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84,
288–307.
Spalding, R., Zimmerman, T. S., Fruhauf, C. A., Banning, J. H., and Pepin, J. (2010).
Relationship advice in top-selling men’s magazines: a qualitative document anal-
ysis. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 22, 203–224.
Sprecher, S. (2011). The influence of social networks on romantic relationships: through
the lens of the social network. Personal Relationships, 18, 630–644.
Sullivan, N. J. (2008). Sex differences in the use and evaluated helpfulness of premarital
advice. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/152.
Trice, A. D. (2002). First semester college students’ email to parents: I. Frequency and
content related to parenting style. College Student Journal, 36, 327.
Tucker, C. J. (1997). Advice about life plans and personal problems in late adolescent
sibling relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 63–76.
Tucker, C. J., Barber, B. L., and Eccles, J. S. (2001). Advice about life plans from mothers,
fathers, and siblings in always-married and divorced families during late adoles-
cence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 729–747.
Tucker, C. J., McHale, S. M., and Crouter, A. C. (2001). Conditions of sibling support in
adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 254–271.
Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., and Kupanoff, K. (2001). Parents’
involvement in adolescents’ peer relationships: a comparison of mothers’ and
fathers’ roles. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 655–668.
208 Erina L. MacGeorge and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

Van Swol, L. M. (2011). Forecasting another’s enjoyment versus giving the right answer:
trust, shared values, task effects, and confidence in improving the acceptance of
advice. International Journal of Forecasting, 27, 103–120.
Walker, S. K. (2005). Use of a parenting newsletter series and other child-rearing
information sources by mothers of infants. Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal, 34, 153–172.
Walker, S. K., and Riley, D. A. (2001). Involvement of the personal social network as a
factor in parent education effectiveness. Family Relations, 50, 186–193.
White, T. B. (2005). Consumer trust and advice acceptance: the moderating roles of
benevolence, expertise, and negative emotions. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
15, 141–148.
Widmer, E. D. (2007). Couples and their networks. In J. Scott, J. K. Treas, and M. Richards
(eds.), Blackwell companion to the sociology of families (pp. 356–373). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Widmer, E. D., Giudici, F., Le Goff, J.-M., and Pollien, A. (2009). From support to
control: a configurational perspective on conjugal quality. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 71, 437–448.
Widmer, E. D., Goff, J.-M. L., Levy, R., Hammer, R., and Kellerhals, J. (2006).
Embedded parenting? The influence of conjugal networks on parent–child rela-
tionships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 387–406.
Wilson, L. L., Roloff, M. E., and Carey, C. M. (1998). Boundary rules that inhibit
expressing concerns about another’s romantic relationship. Communication
Research, 25, 618–640.
Wright, B. L., and Sinclair, H. C. (2012). Pulling the strings: effects of friend and parent
opinions on dating choices. Personal Relationships, 19, 743–758.
Yaniv, I. (2004). Receiving other people’s advice: influence and benefit. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 1–13.
Yaniv, I., Choshen-Hillel, S., and Milyavsky, M. (2011). Receiving advice on matters of
taste: similarity, majority influence, and taste discrimination. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 111–120.
Yaniv, I., and Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice taking in decision making: egocentric
discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 84, 260–281.
Yaniv, I., and Milyavsky, M. (2007). Using advice from multiple sources to revise and
improve judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103,
104–120.
Zhang, S., and Kline, S. L. (2009). Can I make my own decision? A cross-cultural study
of perceived social network influence in mate selection. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 40, 3–23.
Zhang, S., and Merolla, A. J. (2006). Communicating dislike of close friends’ romantic
partners. Communication Research Reports, 23, 179–186.
 index

ABCX model, 66 dating advice, 190, 191

advice, 189 dating relationships, 128
advice response theory, 198, 199, 201 defiance, 160, 162
age-gap relationships, 84 defiance hypothesis, 161
ambiguous loss, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74 deliberative mindset, 128, 129
applications on smartphones, 12 destiny beliefs, 159
attachment theory, 22, 64, 72, 73, 74 difficulty with reintegration, 72
authoritarian structure, 61, 74 disclosure, 130, 131, 133, 136, 137, 138, 139, 177
availability heuristic, 109 divorce, 37
awareness, 196 double ABCX model, 67, 68

balance theory, 110, 179 eHarmony, 14

behavioral intentions, 111, 112, 113, 172 emotional intensity theory, 151, 152
belongingness needs, 96 emotional interdependency, 36
boundary ambiguity, 69, 70 evaluation orientation, 157, 158
exchange networks, 40
chat rooms, 12 expansion of the European Union, 20
child rearing advice, 191, 193, 194 experience sampling, 41
coercive power, 117 external influences, 1
cognitive biases, 116
cognitive consistency, 110 Facebook, 11, 17, 18, 19, 35, 106, 202
cognitive dissonance theory, 151 face-threat, 197
cognitive interdependence, 87, 174 family influences on relationships, 16
commitment, 4, 15, 18, 20, 22, 71, 87, 88, family relationships, 58
107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 126, 129, family stress theory, 66, 72, 73, 74
132, 133, 134, 149, 158, 162, 164, 174, 176, 180, feature matching model, 109
181, 188 forbidden fruit hypothesis, 151
communication, 188, 198 forgiveness, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 181,
communicative influences on romantic 182, 183
relationships, 4 formation of relationships, 11
compatibility, 14 frustration-attraction hypothesis, 151
compliance, 117, 118, 121
computer mediated communication, 13 genetic factors in compatibility, 14
contextual family stress model, 67 geographic mobility, 62
couple disclosure, 5 ghettoization, 21
couple forgiveness, 172, 175 globalization, 2, 11, 24, 25
cross-cultural differences, 13 globalized relationships, 15
cultivation orientation, 157, 158 growth beliefs, 166

209
210 Index

HIV-related stigma, 92 power, 117, 118, 120

prejudice and discrimination, 3, 83, 89, 91, 92, 97
immune system and couple compatibility, 14 premarital cohabitation, 192
implemental mindset, 129 primacy of the mission, 61
independence hypothesis, 161 psychological network, 105
individualism, 15 psychological reactance, 160
injunctive norms, 107 public demonstrations of love, 18
institutional marginalization, 88, 90, 91
institutionalized discrimination, 95 reactance theory, 151
interactive networks, 41, 105 referent power, 120
intercultural marriages, 15, 16 rejection-sensitivity, 93
interdependence theory, 173 relational turbulence model, 70, 73, 74
interference from partners, 70 relational turmoil, 110
international migration, 15 relationship advice, 6, 118, 188, 189, 190, 192, 195,
internet, 11 196, 199
internet generation, 25 relationship amplification hypothesis, 21
investment model, 15, 87, 108, 109, 132, 149 relationship appraisals, 131, 134, 135, 137, 141
investments, 2, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, relationship expertise, 118, 119, 121
46, 47, 51 relationship growth, 156
relationship illusions, 116
jealousy, 19, 25 relationship satisfaction, 19, 20, 92, 116, 117
relationship secrecy, 4, 87, 88, 90, 95
legitimate power, 120 relationship stability, 4, 108, 109
long-distance relationships, 19 relationship status, 18, 87, 89, 92
looking glass reflection, 110 relationship transitions, 129, 130, 131, 191, 195
reward power, 117
marginalized relationships, 4, 83, 84, 85, 92, 95, 142 risk of disaster, injury, and death, 63, 74
moral outcasts, 24 romantic destiny, 156, 159, 166
mortality salience, 22 Romeo and Juliet, 5
mother-in-law effect, 175 Romeo and Juliet effect, 5, 148, 149, 150, 158, 159,
motivation to comply, 4, 112, 113, 114, 117, 118, 120, 160, 161, 166, 167
121, 122, 201
safe sexual practices, 192
natural disasters, 23 same-sex relationships, 84
network perceptions of daters’ romances, 4, 127 scarcity effect, 151
network size, 42 self-esteem, 19
network structure, 37, 38, 42, 49, 51 self-perception, 141
normative beliefs, 4, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121, 141 self-transcendent values, 21
sentimental ties, 38
observations by social network members, 5, 138, 139 serial relocations, 62
online dating, 12, 13, 14 siblings, 192
online dating websites, 13 social acceptance, 86
online forums, 12 social capital, 18, 33, 34, 38, 42, 43, 48, 50
online gaming, 12 social capitalization, 2, 33, 35, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,
outside interference, 5 46, 48, 49, 51
social complexity, 21
pandemics, 2, 23, 24 social consequences of compliance, 118, 119
parental disapproval, 149 social influence, 2, 111, 115, 117, 120, 189
parental interference, 149, 150, 151, 161 social interaction, 35
perceived marginalization, 86, 87, 88, 90, 94, 96 social network approval, 4, 89, 90, 94, 106, 107, 108,
periodic separations, 63 109, 110, 111, 117, 138, 140, 141, 156
personal websites, 12 social network effect, 149, 150, 158, 161, 162, 164,
photo/video sharing, 18 165, 166, 167
physical health, 4 social network evaluation and transmission
positive illusions, 117 model (S-NET), 4, 135, 136, 141, 142
 Index 211

social network influence, 107, 126 technological developments, 2

social network websites, 17, 18, 20 terror management theorists, 22
social networks, 4, 11, 16, 38, 95, 105, 106, 112, 115, terrorism, 2, 22, 58
122, 149, 188 theory of reasoned action, 111
social networks of migrants, 20 third-party forgiveness, 6, 172, 175, 176,
social norms, 37 177, 178
social prescription, 86 third-party forgiveness effect, 175
social rejection, 93 third-party unforgiveness, 182
social representations theorists, 24 transnational networks, 21
social stratification, 21 traumatologists, 23
social support, 21, 46, 86, 89, 90, 92, 94, 189
societal mobility, 12 uncertainty, 50, 68, 70, 71, 110, 121, 128, 129, 130, 131,
source of relationship approval, 95 190, 197
stigma, 83, 95, 97 uncertainty reduction theory, 130
strength of weak ties, 43 uncertainty theory, 110, 120, 121
stress, 4, 88, 91, 97 United States military culture, 3, 58, 59
stressors, 22, 64, 67, 68, 69, 72
structural features of networks, 122, 189 vulnerability stress adaptation
subjective norms, 4, 86, 94, 106, 111, 112, 113, 114, models, 166
120, 121, 122, 201
symbolic interactionism, 110, 120 warrior identity, 60, 74