Sociology 597C
The Social Psychology of
Close Relationships
Spring, 2004
Thursday,
Instructor: Mike Johnson
415 Oswald Tower
mpj@psu.edu, 865-1937
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.
*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.
Max Weber. (1947).
"The concept of social relationship."
Pp. 118-120 in The Theory of Social and Economic Organization
(Talcott Parsons, ed.).
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.).
George J. McCall and J.
L. Simmons' (1978) (mis)interpretation of Weber. Page
167 in Identities and Interactions.
Georg Simmel. (1950).
"The isolated individual and the dyad." Pp. 118-138 in The Sociology of Georg
Simmel. (Kurt Wolff, ed.).
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.
*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 &
Philip Blumstein &
Peter Kollock. (1989). "Personal relationships." Pp. 467-490in W. Richard Scott (Ed.), Annual
Review of Sociology, Volume 14.
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.
Ted L. Huston &
George Levinger. (1978). "Interpersonal attraction and
relationships." Pp. 115-156 in Annual
Review of Psychology, Volume 39.
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.
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.
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.
*John Scanzoni, Karen
Polonko, Jay Teachman, and Linda Thompson. (1989). Framing the problem. A fresh
construct. Pp. 12-50 in The Sexual Bond.
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.
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).
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.
*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).
Murray A. Straus &
Christine Smith. (1990). "Family patterns and primary prevention of family
violence." Pp. 507-526 in
R. Emerson Dobash and
Russell P. Dobash. (1992). Women, Violence and Social Change.
Claire M. Renzetti.
(1992). Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships.
Catherine Kirkwood. (1993).
Leaving Abusive Partners.
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).
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.
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).
Michael P. Johnson.
(1995). “Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of
violence against women in
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.
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,
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,
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,
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,
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.
*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.
*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., &
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.
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.
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.
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.
Elaine Walster, G.
William Walster & Ellen Berscheid. (1978). "Equity theory and intimate
relationships." Pp. 143-200 in Equity:
Theory & Research.
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.
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).
*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.