Sociology 597C

The Social Psychology of Close Relationships

Spring, 2004

Thursday, 9:00-11:30, 907 Oswald

Instructor: Mike Johnson

415 Oswald Tower

mpj@psu.edu, 865-1937

www.personal.psu.edu/mpj

I get to teach a seminar on close relationships about every four years and the decisions about what to cover make me crazy. Fifteen weeks is hardly enough to touch the surface, so I've never really been sure what to do, and the course has changed rather dramatically from offering to offering, but I thought this year maybe I’d just “coast” and use the old reading list (with a few tweaks). Couldn’t do it—and in fact I ended up finding so much new stuff that I’m changing everything. So, here’s where I’ve ended up.

The first section of the course puts close relationships into their proper sociological context, beginning with some classic discussions of relationships in general as the foundation of society and some thoughts on the importance of close relationships in particular. The next section deals with general sources of theory, probably what Merton would call general orientations. That’s pretty abstract stuff for the first four weeks, so it seemed like a good idea to break things up with two of my own specific, concrete interests: relationship violence and relationship commitment. Of course, since I'm not the only one who does work in these areas, I’m not the only one we read. Ready for more general theory? First we do some of my favorite non-feminist perspectives: interdependence & attribution theories, other cognitive theories, Gottman (whatever he is), Huston (whatever he is), and Marxist/materialist theories (which could have been put into the feminist section to follow). Finally, we end with lots of feminist work (as if we hadn’t already read lots of feminist stuff), and the thoughtful ruminations of George and Ann Levinger about their 50-year marriage. It’s a smart analysis by people I love.

COURSE STRUCTURE

This class will run as a seminar, with one or two people assigned to facilitate discussion on each topic, and the rest of us participating about equally. (You may at times find me talking too much, or too little, for your taste—you’ll need to push me in your preferred direction in that respect.) Here’s my plan. At the end of each day, I will do a mini-lecture on the readings for the next day, giving you my take on the main points. At the beginning of each day, you (the person in charge of that topic) will introduce the readings with your take on:

1) the major contributions of the readings to our understanding of close relationships, and

2) the most exciting, surprising, or interesting aspects of the readings.

In these introductions I want no criticism. I’d like your introduction to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative. Then you facilitate the discussion, during which we may indeed get critical.

Grades will be based on (1) general level of contribution to the seminar discussions (about 25%), (2) quality of reading introduction and discussion facilitation (about 25%), (3) the quality of your rewritable, 15-20 page term paper, the first version of which will be due some time in March (about 50%).

About the paper. It must be focused on close relationship research (broadly conceived). Other than that, I’m quite flexible. As preliminary steps, a one page topic choice and justification is due January 29 (two weeks), and an outline and tentative bibliography is due February 19 (three weeks more). Believe it or not, the papers will be due March 25. That gives you over a month to finish writing the paper. I will grade the papers as quickly as I can, given that I will be giving you more feedback than you’d like. You may then rewrite the paper, and the rewrite will be due April 29. If you do rewrite the paper, only the grade on the final version will affect your course grade.

COURSE OUTLINE

I. The Relationship as the Foundation of Society (½ week)

II. The Importance of Close Relationships (½ week)

III. Some General Sources of Theory (3 weeks)

A. The Close Relationship Framework

B. Practitioners & Just Plain Folks

C. Social Psychology

D. Feminism & Queer Theory

E. Chaos & Dialectics

IV. Mike’s Specific Interests (3½ weeks)

A. Relationship Violence

B. Relationship Commitment

V. Some Favorite Theoretical Perspectives (4 weeks)

A. Kelley: Interdependence and Attribution Theories

B. Other Cognitive Theories

C. Gottman: Social learning theories (sort of)

D. Huston: Even he doesn’t know what he is

D. Marxist & Materialist theories (really Marxist feminist)

VII. Feminist Perspectives Get a Whole Section (3 weeks)

VIII. Reminiscences of George and Ann Levinger ( ½ week)

READING LIST

The readings are collected in a reading packet, one copy of which will be available in 212 Oswald Tower, from which you will make your own copies. This will save you $200 or so, but with as many as 15 people in the seminar coordination will be awkward and will require some empathy and discipline.

*Asterisks indicate the assigned readings. All other references are for your information only, and will not be discussed in class.

January 15: Introduction (no readings)

January 22a: The Relationship as the Foundation of Society (47pp)

*Alfred Schutz. (1967). Weber's concept of social relationship. The motivational context of social interaction. Pp. 151-163 in The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston: Northwestern U.

*Alfred Schutz & Thomas Luckmann. (1973). The social arrangement of the life-world of everyday existence. Pp. 59-92 in The Structures of the Life-World. Evanston: Northwestern U.

Max Weber. (1947). "The concept of social relationship." Pp. 118-120 in The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Talcott Parsons, ed.). New York: Free Press.

Max Weber. (1947). "Types of solidary social relationships" and "Open and closed relationships." Pp. 136-143 in The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Talcott Parsons, ed.). New York: Free Press.

George J. McCall and J. L. Simmons' (1978) (mis)interpretation of Weber. Page 167 in Identities and Interactions. New York: The Free Press.

Georg Simmel. (1950). "The isolated individual and the dyad." Pp. 118-138 in The Sociology of Georg Simmel. (Kurt Wolff, ed.). New York: Free Press.

January 22b: The Importance of Close Relationships (54pp)

*Marwell, G. & Hage, J. (1970). The organization of role relationships: A systematic description. American Sociological Review, 35, 884-900.

*Harold H. Kelley. (1986). Personal relationships: Their nature and significance. Pp. 3-19 in R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), The Emerging Field of Personal Relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Allan, G. (2001). Personal relationships in late modernity. Personal Relationships, 8(3), 325-339.

Ellen Berscheid & Harry T. Reis. (1998). “Attraction and close relationships.” Pp. 193-254 in Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske & Gardner Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Philip Blumstein & Peter Kollock. (1989). "Personal relationships." Pp. 467-490in W. Richard Scott (Ed.), Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 14. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.

Margaret S. Clark & Harry T. Reis. (1988). "Interpersonal processes in close relationships." Pp. 609-672 in Mark R. Rosenzweig & Lyman W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 39. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.

Ted L. Huston & George Levinger. (1978). "Interpersonal attraction and relationships." Pp. 115-156 in Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 39. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.

January 29a: General Sources of Theory: The CR Framework (48pp)

*Harold H. Kelley, Ellen Berscheid, Andrew Christensen, John H. Harvey, Ted L. Huston, George Levinger, Evie McClintock, Letitia Anne Peplau & Donald R. Peterson. (1983). Analyzing close relationships. Pp. 20-67 in their Close Relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman. (Recently re-released by Pergeron, 2002)

Ellen Berscheid. (1986). Mea culpas and lamentations: Sir Francis, Sir Isaac, and “The slow progress of soft psychology.” Pp. 267-286 in Robin Gilmour & Steve Duck (eds.), The Emerging Field of Personal Relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

January 29b: General Sources of Theory: CRs and Families (54pp)

*Stephen R. Marks. (1987). Critique of Burr et al.: “An epistemological basic for primary explanations in family science.” Presented at the Theory and Methods Workshop at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations. Atlanta, Georgia. 5pp. This is a critique of the Burr et al. paper below, which is the original version of the Beutler et al. paper below. These papers are the culmination of a major political/conceptual battle over the meaning of “family.” Scanzoni et al. captures the feminist (a la Marks) position that won the day.

*John Scanzoni, Karen Polonko, Jay Teachman, and Linda Thompson. (1989). Framing the problem. A fresh construct. Pp. 12-50 in The Sexual Bond. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wesley R. Burr, Donald A. Herrin, Randal D. Day, Ivan F. Beutler & Geoffrey K. Leigh. (1987). An epistemological basis for primary explanations in family science. Paper presented at the Theory and Methods Workshop at the annual meetings of the National Council on Family Relations. Atlanta, Georgia. 27pp.

Ivan F. Beutler, Wesley R. Burr, Kathleen S. Barr and Donald A. Herrin. (1989). "The family realm: Theoretical contributions for understanding its uniqueness." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 805-815.

John N. Edwards. (1989). "The family realm: A future paradigm or failed nostalgia?" Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 816-818.

Joan A. Jurich. (1989). "The family realm: Expanding its parameters." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 819-821.

Elizabeth G. Menaghan. (1989). "Escaping from the family realm." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 822-825.

Ivan F. Beutler et al. ""A seventh group has visited the elephant." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 826-830.

February 5a: General Sources of Theory: Practitioners & Just Plain Folks (43pp)

*Bradbury, T. N. (2002). Invited program overview: Research on relationships as a prelude to action. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(5), 571-599.

*Daly, K. (2003). Family theory versus the theories families live by. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(4), 771-784.

Reis, H. T. (2002). Action matters, but relationship science is basic. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(5), 601-611.

Muehlhoff, T. M., & Wood, J. T. (2002). Speaking of marital communication: The marriage between theory and practice. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(5), 613-619.

Hendrick, C. (2002). A new age of prevention? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(5), 621-627.

Bradbury, T. N. (2002). Research on relationships as a prelude to action: Response to commentaries. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(5), 629-638.

February 5b: General Sources of Theory: Social Psychology (44pp)

*Orbuch, T. L., & Veroff, J. (2002). A programmatic review: Building a two-way bridge between social psychology and the study of the early years of marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(4), 549-568.

*Orbuch, T. L., & Sprecher, S. (2003). Attraction and interpersonal relationships. In John Delamater, (Ed). Handbook of social psychology (pp. 339-362). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

February 12a: General Sources of Theory: Feminism & Queer Theory (49pp)

*DeReus, L. A., Few, A., & Blume, L. B. (2003, November). Theorizing identities and intersectionalities: Third-wave feminism, critical race theory, and families. Paper presented at the Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop, National Council on Family Relations, Vancouver. 29pp

*Oswald, R. F., Blume, L. B., & Marks, S. (2003, November). Decentering heteronormativity: Transforming family studies. Paper presented at the Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop, National Council on Family Relations, Vancouver. 20pp

February 12b: General Sources of Theory: Chaos & Dialectics (57pp)

*Weigel, D. J., & Murray, C. (2000). The paradox of stability and change in relationships: What does chaos theory offer for the study of romantic relationships? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 425-449.

*Olson, L. N., Fine, M. A., & Lloyd, S. A. (2003, November). A dialectical approach to theorizing about violence between intimates. Paper presented at the Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop, National Council on Family Relations, Vancouver.

February 19a: Relationship Violence: General (56pp)

*R. Emerson Dobash & Russell Dobash. (1979). “Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy” and “The nuclear family and the chastisement of wives.” Pp. 1-13, 48-74 in Dobash and Dobash, Violence Against Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy. New York: The Free Press.

*Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 948-963.

Yllo, K. (1988). Political and methodological debates in wife abuse research. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse (pp. 28-50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Murray A. Straus & Christine Smith. (1990). "Family patterns and primary prevention of family violence." Pp. 507-526 in Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

R. Emerson Dobash and Russell P. Dobash. (1992). Women, Violence and Social Change. New York: Routledge.

Claire M. Renzetti. (1992). Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships. Newbury Park: Sage.

Catherine Kirkwood. (1993). Leaving Abusive Partners. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pamela Choice and Leanne K. Lamke. (1997). A conceptual approach to understanding abused women’s stay/leave decisions. Journal of Family Issues, 18, 290-314.

February 19b: Relationship Violence: The Great Debate (49pp)

*Russell P. Dobash, R. Emerson Dobash, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71-91.

*Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. B. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in Intimate Relationships (pp. 17-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651-680.

Suzanne K. Steinmetz (1977/78). "The battered husband syndrome." Victimology, 2, 499-509.

Murray A. Straus. (1990). "The Conflict Tactics Scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on reliability and validity." Pp. 49-73 in Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Murray A. Straus. (1990). "Critics of the national surveys." Pp. 9-14 in Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

February 26a: Relationship Violence: Mike’s Answer (58pp)

*Johnson, M. P. (forthcoming). “Introduction,” “Chapter One: Control and Violence in Intimate Relationships,” “Chapter Two: Intimate Terrorism: Controlling Your Partner.” In Violence and Control in Intimate Relationships: Intimate Terrorism and Other Types of Domestic Violence (pp. 4-61). Boston: Northeastern University Press. 58pp, but they’re manuscript pages.

Michael P. Johnson. (1995). “Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women in U.S. families." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.

Michael P. Johnson. (2001). "Conflict and control: Images of symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence." In Alan Booth, Ann C. Crouter and Mari Clements (Eds.), Couples in Conflict. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johnson, M. P., Conklin, V., & Menon, N. (2002, November). The effects of different types of domestic violence on women: Intimate terrorism vs. situational couple violence. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations annual meetings, Houston, Texas.

Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (in press). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues.

Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., & Cohan, C. L. (2003, November). Help-seeking among women in violent relationships: Factors associated with formal and informal help utilization. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations annual meetings, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., Cohan, C. M., & Lloyd, S. (in press). Consequences of different types of domestic violence for low-income, ethnic women: A control-based typology of male-partner violence. Journal of Marriage and Family.

February 26b: Relationship Violence: Recent Good Things by Other People (74pp, really more like 54)

*Wood, J. T. (in press). Monsters and victims: Male felons’ accounts of intimate partner violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 41pp, but they’re manuscript pages.

*Kimmel, M. S. (2002). "Gender symmetry" in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence against Women, 8(11), 1332-1363.

Wood, J. T. (2001). The normalization of violence in heterosexual romantic relationships: Women's narratives of love and violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(2), 239-261.

Campbell, J. C., & Weber, N. (2000). An empirical test of a self-care model of women's responses to battering. Nursing Science Quarterly, 13(1), 45-53.

Cook, S. L. (2000). Investigating the roles of context and meaning in violence against women. Unpublished manuscript.

Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (1999). Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for women with abusive partners. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 43-53.

Swan, S. C. (2000). Women who fight back: The development of a theory of women's use of violence in intimate relationships. Paper presented at the National Institute of Justice Gender Symmetry Workshop, Arlington, VA.

Swan, S. C., & Snow, D. L. (2002). A typology of women's use of violence in intimate relationships. Violence against Women, 8(3), 286-319.

March 4a: Commitment: The General Question of Relationship Longevity (53pp)

*Ellen Berscheid & Bruce Campbell. (1981). The changing longevity of heterosexual close relationships: A commentary and forecast. Pp. 209-234 in M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The Justice Motive in Social Behavior. New York: Plenum.

*Caryl Rusbult, Julie Verette, Gregory A. Whitney, Linda F. Slovik, and Isaac Lipkus. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,60 (1), 53-79.

Graham B. Spanier & Robert A. Lewis. (1980). "Marital quality: A review of the Seventies." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42 (November), 96-124.

Lynn K. White. (1990). "Determinants of divorce: A review of research in the Eighties." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52 (November), 904-912.

March 4b: Commitment: Mike's Commitment Framework (57pp)

*Michael P. Johnson. (1997). Personal, moral and structural commitment to relationships: Experiences of choice and constraint. Pp. 73-87 in Jeffrey M. Adams & Warren H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Commitment and Relationship Stability. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

*Michael P. Johnson, John P. Caughlin and Ted L. Huston. (1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and the Family,61 (February), 160-177.

*Cate, R. M., Levin, L. A., & Richmond, L. S. (2002). Premarital relationship stability: A review of recent research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(2), 261-284.

Howard S. Becker. (1960). "Notes on the concept of commitment." American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-40.

Michael P. Johnson. (1991). "Commitment to personal relationships." Pp. 117-143 in Warren H. Jones & Daniel W. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships, Volume 3. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Scott M. Stanley and Howard J. Markman. (1992). "Assessing commitment in personal relationships." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54 (August), 595-608.

George Levinger. (1965). "Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27, 19-29.

George Levinger. (1979). "A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution." Pp. 37-60 in George Levinger & Oliver C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and Separation: Context, Causes and Consequences. New York: Basic Books.

Caryl E. Rusbult. (1980). "Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.

Caryl E. Rusbult, D. J. Johnson & G. D. Morrow. (1986). "Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic involvements: An assessment of the generalizability of the investment model." Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 81-89.

Caryl E. Rusbult and Bram P. Buunk. (1993). "Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10 (#2), 175-204.

March 18a: Commitment/Longevity: Some Good Recent Stuff (41pp)

*Surra, C. A., & Hughes, D. (1997). Commitment processes in accounts of the development of premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 5–21.

*Orbuch, T. L., Veroff, J., Hassan, H., & Horrocks, J. (2002). Who will divorce: A 14-year longitudinal study of Black couples and White couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(2), 179-202.

Kurdek, L. A. (2000). Attractions and constraints as determinants of relationship commitment: Longitudinal evidence from gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples. Personal Relationships, 7(3), 245-262.

March 18b: Kelley: Interdependence Theory (55pp)

*Harold H. Kelley. (1979). Pp. 1-55 in Personal Relationships: Their Structures and Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gerald W. McDonald. (1981). "Structural exchange and marital interaction." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 825-839.

Ted L. Huston and Robert L. Burgess. (1979). "Social exchange in developing relationships." Pp. 3-28 in Robert L. Burgess and Ted L. Huston (eds.), Social Exchange in Developing Relationships. New York: Academic.

Elaine Walster, G. William Walster & Ellen Berscheid. (1978). "Equity theory and intimate relationships." Pp. 143-200 in Equity: Theory & Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

March 25a: Kelley: Attribution Theory & Interdependence Theory (64pp)

*Harold H. Kelley. (1979). Pp. 57-120 in H. H. Kelley, Personal Relationships: Their Structures and Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

March 25b: Cognitive Theories: Expectations and attributions (49pp)

*Holmes, J. G. (2002). Interpersonal expectations as the building blocks of social cognition: An interdependence theory perspective. Personal Relationships, 9(1), 1-26.

*Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: From attributing responsibility to forgiving. Personal Relationships, 7(1), 1-23.

Thomas Bradbury and Frank D. Fincham. (1987). "Affect and cognition in close relationships: Towards an integrative model." Cognition and Emotion, 1, 59-87.

April 1a: Cognitive Theories: Narratives, schemas, and discourses (62pp)

*Holmberg, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Veroff, J. (2004). Chapter 2: A narrative approach to relationships. Chapter 11: What have we learned about narratives? In D. Holmberg, T. L. Orbuch, & J. Veroff. Thrice-told tales: Married couples tell their stories (pp. 4-20, 161-172). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Blair-Loy, M. (2001). Cultural constructions of family schemas: The case of women finance executives. Gender & Society, 15(5), 687-709.

*Blume, L. B., & Blume, T. W. (2003). Toward a dialectical model of family gender discourse: Body, identity, and sexuality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(4), 785-794.

April 1b: Gottman—I guess he’s a social learning theorist (57pp)

*Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5-22.

*Holman, T. B., & Jarvis, M. O. (2003). Hostile, volatile, avoiding, and validating couple-conflict types: An investigation of Gottman’s couple-conflict types. Personal Relationships, 10(2), 267-282.

*Pasley, K., Kerpelman, J., & Guilbert, D. E. (2001). Gendered conflict, identity disruption, and marital instability: Expanding Gottman's model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(1), 5-27.

John M. Gottman. (1994). “Toward a comprehensive theory of marital stability.” Pp. 330-381 in Gottman, What Predicts Divorce?: The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

John M. Gottman. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6-15.

John Gottman, Howard Markman & Cliff Notarius. (1977). "The topography of marital conflict: A sequential analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 461-477.

John M. Gottman and Robert W. Levenson. (1992). "Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 No. 2), 221-233.

Neil S. Jacobson and Gayla Margolin. (1979). "Marriage and marital distress from a social learning perspective." Pp. 3-29 in Marital Therapy: Strategies Based on Social Learning and Behavior Exchange Principles. New York: Brunner-Mazel.

April 8a: Huston—even he doesn’t know what he is (39pp)

*Huston, T. L. (2000). The social ecology of marriage and other intimate unions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(2), 298-320.

*Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 237-252.

April 8b: Marxist-Feminist Theory: Zaretsky (56pp)

*Eli Zaretsky. (1986/1976). “The family and the economy,” “Capitalism and the family,” “Proletarianization and the rise of subjectivity,” and “Politics and personal life.” Pp. 9-64 in Zaretsky, Capitalism, the Family & Personal Life. NY: Harper and Row.

Eli Zaretsky. (1982). "The place of the family in the origins of the welfare state." Pp. 188-224 in Barrie Thorne with Marilyn Yalom (eds.), Rethinking the Family: Some Feminist Questions. New York: Longman.

April 15a: Materialist-Feminist Theory: Delphy (34pp)

*Christine Delphy and Diana Leonard. (1992). The family as an economic system: Theoretical outline. Pp. 129-162 in Delphy and Leonard, Familiar Exploitation. Oxford: Blackwell (Polity)

Christine Delphy. (1984). Close to Home: A Materialist Analysis of Women's Oppression. Amherst: U. of Massachusetts Press.

April 15b: Feminist Theory: General (48pp)

*Barrie Thorne. (1992). Feminism and the family: Two decades of thought. Pp. 3-30 in Barrie Thorne with Marilyn Yalom (eds.), Rethinking the Family: Some Feminist Questions. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

*Linda Thompson and Alexis J. Walker. (1995). The place of feminism in family studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 847-865.

Linda Thompson and Alexis J. Walker. (1989). "Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 845-871.

Marie Withers Osmond and Barrie Thorne. (1993). "Feminist theories: The social construction of gender in families and society." Pp. 591-622 in Pauline G. Boss, William J. Doherty, Ralph LaRossa, Walter R. Schumm, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz (eds.), Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. New York: Plenum.

Donna L. Sollie and Leigh A. Leslie (eds.). (1994). Gender, Families, and Close Relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kristine M. Baber and Katherine R. Allen. (1992). Women and Families: Feminist Reconstructions. New York: Guilford.

April 22a: Feminist Theory: Power (45pp)

*Komter, Aafke. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender & Society, 3, 187-216.

*Kranichfeld, Marion L. (1987). Rethinking family power. Journal of Family Issues, 8 (#1), 42-56.

Walker, Alexis J. (1996). “Couples watching television: Gender, power, and the remote control.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 813-824.

Peplau, Letitia Anne and Susan Miller Campbell. (1989). "The balance of power in dating and marriage." Pp. 121-137 in Jo Freeman (ed.), Women: A Feminist Perspective (Fourth Edition). Palo Alto: Mayfield.

DeFrancisco, Victoria Lets. (1991). "The sounds of silence: How men silence women in marital relations." Discourse & Society, 2, 413-423.

Bell, Colin and Howard Newby. (1976). "Husbands and wives: The dynamics of the deferential dialectic." Pp. 152-168 in Diana Leonard Barker and Sheila Allen (eds.), Dependence and Exploitation in Work and Marriage. New York: Longman.

April 22b: Feminist Theory: Division of Labor (35pp)

*Myra Marx Ferree. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 866-884.

*Linda Thompson. (1991). Family work: Women's sense of fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 181-196.

Sampson Blair and Michael P. Johnson. (1991). "Wives' perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor: The intersection of housework and ideology." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54 (August), 570-581.

Hawkins, Alan J., Christina M. Marshall, and Kathryn M. Meiners. (1995). "Exploring wives' sense of fairness about family work: An initial test of the distributive justice framework." Journal of Family Issues, 16, 693-721.