A Developmental Guide to the Organisation of Close Relationships

International Journal of Behavioral Development http://jbd.sagepub.com/ A Developmental Guide to the Organisation of Close Relationships Brett Laursen and William M. Bukowski International Journal of Behavioral Development 1997 21: 747 DOI: 10.1080/016502597384659 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jbd.sagepub.com/content/21/4/747 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development Additional services and information for International Journal of Behavioral Development can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jbd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jbd.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 Citations: http://jbd.sagepub.com/content/21/4/747.refs.html INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 1997 , 21 (4), 747–770 A Developmental Guide to the Organisation of Close Relationships Brett Laursen Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, USA William M. Bukowski Concordia University, USA A developmental guide to close relationships is presented. Parent-child, sibling, friend, and romantic relationships are described along dimensions that address permanence, power, and gender. These dimensions describe relationship differences in organisational principles that encompass internal representations, social understanding, and interpersonal experiences. The concept of domain speciŽcity is borrowed from cognitive development to address the shifting developmental dynamics of close relationships. Distinct relationships are organised around distinct socialisation tasks, so each relationship requires its own organisational system. As a consequence, different principles guide different relationships, and these organisational principles change with development. Across the lifespan, close relationships provide a signiŽcant context for development and adaptation. It is clear that competence is a product of interpersonal interactions, but the inuence of family, friends, and romantic partners on individual outcomes extends beyond success or failure in the social world. Close relationships are the primary setting for the acquisition of language and motor skills, the establishment and maintenance of mental health and self-efŽcacy, and the expansion and augmentation of cognitive abilities (Hartup & Laursen, 1991). The effects run deep as well as wide: Close relationships are one of the fundamental building blocks of human culture, transmitting lessons on survival and adaptation from one generation Requests for reprints should be sent to Brett Laursen, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, 2912 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33314-7714, USA; e-mail (either author): laursen 6 acc.fau.edu; bukowsk 6 vax2.concordia,ca Brett Laursen received support for the preparation of this manuscript from the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R29 HD33006) . q 1997 The International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 748 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI to the next (Brewer, in press). Development is bound to experience in close relationships. Relationships differ in their speciŽc contributions to individual development. Family and peer relationships proffer unique and complementary social experiences (Hartup, 1979). Parents promote individuality by providing a secure base from which to explore the social world, yet it is experience with age-mates that prompts the development of autonomy. Differences in form contribute to relationship differences in functioning (Collins & Repinski, 1994). Peer relationships are temporary; friends and romantic partners devote a great deal of time to the establishment and maintenanc e of interpersonal ties. Family relationships are durable; participants tend not to dwell on the details of relationship processes. Social competence builds on success in both interpersonal arenas; each is a critical development al context. Developmental tasks change with age and maturity, and so do the contributions of parents and peers to adaptation. Early childhood tends to be dominated by parent-child relationships but the importance of peer relationships increases such that the inuence of friends and romantic partners is equal to or greater than that of family members by late adolescence (Furman, 1989). These changes coincide with a rapid expansion of the nonfamilial social world; across childhood and adolescence, family members represent a diminishing proportion of social experiences (Larson & Richards, 1991). Developmental changes are linked to changes in manifestations of close relationships; one rarely proceeds without the other. What accounts for developmental shifts in close relationships? Participants tend to construct relationships consistent with their psychological goals, cognitive abilities, and social demands. This suggests that relationship alterations are a product of psychological, cognitive, and social development. Some theorists emphasise changes associated with the emerging self-system; relationships reect the psychological needs of participants, with early relationships serving as prototypes for later relationships (Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Other theorists emphasise changes that accompany cognitive advances; social understanding improves as intellectual skills and perspective-taking abilities develop which, in turn, prompt a greater appreciation of relationship dynamics (Dunn, 1993; Selman, 1980; Youniss, 1980). Still other theorists emphasise changes linked to expanding social experiences and social opportunities; greater individual control over interpersonal relationships increases concerns over the quality and distribution of social exchange s (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Laursen, 1996). In sum, close relationship processes are driven by the development al agendas of participants. Relationships change as environments change. Different environments present different challenges to individuals. For example, the maintenance of Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 749 friendships may be less difŽcult in the well-structured environments of elementary school than in the expansive environment of secondary schools (Hirsch & Dubois, 1989). In so far as different environments present different challenges, relationship functions should vary along with the principles that guide them. By the same token, different environments present different relationship opportunities. Certainly, the peer-intense environment of child care offers more opportunities for friendship than the home-based care environment (Clarke-Stewart, 1984). It follows that links between development, relationships, and context are multidirectional. Relationships change as a function of development and relationships provide development al contexts. Within relationships, norms, goals, and standards are established. These concepts shape the subsequent force and direction of the relationship and of the individuals who comprise it. This paper is based on three suppositions. First, different principles guide the organisation of different relationships. Second, organisationa l principles change with development. Third, the organisation al principles that guide close relationships vary across individuals and relationships. Four sections follow. First, close relationships are deŽned and described. Discrete dimensions are introduced that distinguish among different types of relationships: permanence (i.e. voluntary and obligatory relationships); power (i.e. hierarchical and egalitarian relationships); and gender (i.e. same-sex and cross-sex relationships). Second, speciŽc close relationships are discussed in terms of these dimensions. Parent-child, sibling, friend, and romantic relationships may be identiŽed by their unique attributes. Third, principles that prompt relationship change and that organise behaviou r within relationships are reviewed. No single developmental perspective best accounts for alterations in close relationships across the lifespan. Instead, interpersonal behaviour appears to be guided by domain speciŽcity: Distinct relationship rules apply to different relationships, and the principles that organise each relationship change with development . Fourth, family and peer relationship processes are considered to determine how the formation and maintenanc e of a relationship contributes to individual development. The discussion concludes with a research agenda and a developmental guide addressing principles that organise close relationships during infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood . IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS “The Žrst stage in the scientiŽc study of interpersonal relationships should be one of description and classiŽcation” (Hinde, 1976, p. 1). Adhering to this injunction, we describe relationships in terms of interdependent interaction sequences. Quantitative and qualitative variations in social interactions Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 750 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI signal relationship differences. Close relationships are marked by extensive and inuential interconnections; many afŽliations qualify as relationships but few are close. Social interactions also reveal fundamental differences among close relationships, differences that lend themselves to classiŽcation along several distinct relationship dimensions. How to Recognise a Close Relationship Relationships are essentially dyadic entities. That is, a relationship requires and is limited to two participants (Berscheid & Reis, in press). These dyads are embedded in a larger social network made up of a shifting constellation of individuals and groups. Dyadic interchange—intermittent social interaction over an extended period of time—is one of the deŽning features of a relationship (Hinde, 1979). A single interaction, however, doth not a relationship make: Repeated interchanges are required. Yet even an extended series of interactions does not necessarily herald a relationship, particularly if participants are cast in routinised roles (Hinde, in press). One may not develop a relationship with a restaurant employee despite frequent exchanges involving money and tacos. By the same token, a relationship may persist in the absence of social interaction. Family members do not act like strangers during reunions, even after a prolonged separation. Thus, the presence of social interaction is an important clue to identifying a relationship but it cannot serve as the sole criterion for deŽning one. For interactions to serve as the basis of a relationship they must be assigned a meaning (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1985). That is, participants need to interpret and internalise interchanges to form a representation or understanding of the relationship. Properties of social interaction set relationships apart from casual afŽliations. Interdepend ent, enduring, and reciprocal interactions are assumed to be necessary components of all relationships (Laursen, Hartup, & Koplas, 1996). Interdepend ence reects causal dyadic inuences, a state in which changes in one partner effect changes in the other (Kelley et al., 1983). Social interactions form the basis of interdepende nce, for it is through interactions that individuals exert inuence. Enduring interconnections are internalised by participants as cognitive representations. Typically, social interactions are organised into mental schema consisting of memories and affects, which shape expectations concerning future interactions (Fletcher & Fincham, 1991). Participants in a relationship engage in mutually inuential interchanges and share the perception that their interconnections are interdepende nt and enduring (Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1995). Simply put, relationships require a modicum of reciprocity in social interactions and cognitive representations. Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 751 History suggests that close relationships are difŽcult to deŽne. “The words used to explain the phrase close relationship often carry clouds of ambiguity, and so people are not infrequently driven to concrete single-case illustrations or to highly abstract analogies and metaphors to try to communicate what they mean by the term, often with little success” (Berscheid & Peplau, 1983, p. 12). In response to this problem, scholars have taken to deŽning closeness in the objective language of social interaction. A widely accepted deŽnition describes close relationships in terms of dyadic interactions that reect a high degree of interdepend ence, manifest in frequent, strong, and diverse interconnections maintained over an extended period of time (Kelley et al., 1983). Consistent with an emphasis on objectivity, indices of interdepende nce are usually limited to readily measured and observable relationship features (Clark & Reis, 1988). Subjective participant states may be an important aspect of relationship satisfaction, but they are not good markers of closeness: Happy partners are not necessarily involved in the most interdepende nt relationships and vice versa. Extensive relationships networks are common. These networks typically include kin and neighbours, peers, and work associates (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Developmenta l research has yet to identify systematically changes in the size or composition of these networks across the lifespan, nor has the exact proportion of relationships that qualify as close during each developmental period been made clear. In a North American study of middle childhood, social networks that encompassed all relationships included an average of 39 different participants (Feiring & Lewis, 1989). In a comparable study of adolescence, social networks limited to important relationships included an average of 15 different participants (Blyth, Hill, & Thiel, 1982). Taken together, these studies suggest that something less than half of all relationships during childhood and adolescence qualify as close. This limited set usually consists of some combination of parent-child, sibling, friend, and romantic relationships (Argyle & Furnham, 1983; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). The size and diversity of the total relationship network appear to have little impact on the composition of the close relationship network. How do you recognise a close relationship? Objective assessments of social interaction are the best indices of closeness, providing greater validity and reliability than subjective reports of affective experience (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989). Measured in these terms, a close relationship displays interdepende nt interconnections in the form of frequent, diverse, and enduring interactions. A degree of differential responsivene ss must be evident, such that the actions of one participant are contingent upon those of the other. Any relationship may qualify as close, although the term is usually reserved for kin and companions. Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 752 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI How to Distinguish Among Different Types of Close Relationships Relationship taxonomies abound and multiple dimensions have been used to characterise relationships. Not all relationships differ along the same set of underlying dimensions. Accordingly, the challenge to the development of a model of relationships is to identify structural dimensions that avoid constructs speciŽc to a single relationship or development al period. Differences between relationships may be qualitative as well as quantitative, so some dimensions may be more relevant than others. Contextual diversity poses another challenge; relationship manifestations may vary across and within settings. In this section, we describe classiŽcation schemes that avoid these difŽculties, grouping them into three global relationship dimensions: (1) permanence; (2) power; and (3) gender. Each offers a universal metric for comparing relationships that is independent of variation ascribed to setting or ontogeny . The Žrst relationship dimension, permanence, describes the degree to which a relationship is stable. Permanence encompasses several related constructs: voluntariness, kinship, and commitment. Individuals freely enter into voluntary relationships; open Želd exchanges continue so long as participants perceive them to be beneŽcial (Murstein, 1970). Obligatory relationships, in contrast, are difŽcult or impossible to dissolve, closed Želd exchanges continue regardless of perceived inequities. Relationships involving kin are governed by rules that are unrelated to interdepende nce, and that may supersede it (Blumstein & Kollock, 1988). Relationships involving nonkin, in contrast, tend to be built around interdepende nt interconnections. Commitment describes one’s desire or intent to continue in a relationship (Rusbult, 1980). Participants in committed relationships tend to focus on maximising dyadic outcomes, whereas the uncommitted tend to focus on maximising self beneŽts. Interactions in stable relationships differ from those that are potentially unstable. Principles of social exchange are more apt to govern tenuous relationships than those in which continuity is assured (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). In permanent relationships, participants need not worry about the ramiŽcations of each social interaction. It follows that equitable outcomes are not a priority in obligatory, kin, and committed relationships because the ties that bind participants together are unrelated to interaction outcomes. In impermanent relationships, the threat of relationship dissolution alters the dynamics of social interaction. Equitable outcomes are particularly important in voluntary, nonkin, and uncommitted relationships because individuals tend to participate only so long as interactions remain mutually advantageous . Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 753 The second relationship dimension, power, describes the degree to which dominance shapes the relationship. Power structures may be hierarchical or egalitarian, vertical or horizontal, authoritative or mutual. Hierarchical relationship interconnections are prescribed by rank; customs dictate whether interchanges between the unequal favour the socially advantage d or disadvantaged (Fiske, 1992). Egalitarian relationships differ in that communality is prescribed; interconnections must reect equality and respect for one another’s needs (Clark & Mills, 1979). Vertical relationship interconnections build on acknowledged complementarities; the less capable depend on the more able (Hartup & Laursen, 1991). Horizontal relationships differ in that reciprocity guides participants; equivalen t contributions from each partner are assumed. Authoritative relationships assume discrepancies in the relative inuence of participants; the strong tend to dominate the weak (Youniss, 1980). Mutual relationships differ in that they are premised on collaboration; partners co-construct rules and responsibilities. Social interaction in relationships with a power differential are fundamentally different from those involving participants with similar power (Piaget, 1932/1965). Unequal power leads to unidirectional interactions; most exchanges consist of one partner doing something for or requesting something of the other. Collaboration is difŽcult, if not impossible, because participants cannot behave as equals. Equivalent power prompts bidirectional interactions. Both participants share the responsibility for outcomes because neither can unilaterally dictate the terms of interdepende nce. Horizontal, vertical, and authoritative relationships are predicated on a lack of equivalence. Participants expect unequal outcomes from interactions and attribute them to the power differential. In contrast, participants in egalitarian, horizontal, and mutual relationships share power and expect equitable interactions. Similarity, it seems, breeds concent. The third relationship dimension, gender, describes the degree to which the organisation of a relationship reects sexual dimorphism. Three distinctions fall under this rubric: differences based on participant sex, differences based on gender roles, and differences based on sexual attraction. The sexual composition of a dyad establishes the parameters of a relationship (Maccoby, 1990). Men demand similar interconnections in same-sex and cross-sex relationships, forcing women to modify interconnections that prevail in female-female relationships to conform to men’s preferences in male-female relationships. Participant gender roles deŽne a relationship as masculine, feminine, or traditional (Hendrick, 1988). Masculine relationships tend to be hierarchical and inclusive, feminine relationships are often communal and exclusive, and traditional Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 754 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI relationships may adhere to sex-segregate d stereotypes. Sexuality lends a Žnal dimension to relationships (Laursen & Jensen-Campbell, in press). Sexual attraction between participants affords a set of interconnections that are unavailable to other dyads. Gender exercises a pervasive inuence over social interaction (Berscheid, 1994). Relationships between men and relationships characterised by masculine gender roles tend to emphasise participation in activities, many of which require the establishment of a dominance hierarchy. Relationships between women and relationships involving feminine gender roles tend to emphasise mutual need satisfaction, which entails the expression of intimacy and affection. Relationships between men and women and relationships characterised by traditional gender roles are unique in that interactions may be masculine in style but feminine in content. Sexuality adds yet another dimension to dyadic behaviour. Social interaction patterns attributed to gender roles and sexual composition may be augmented by sexual attraction. Interactions between those who are sexually attracted to one another are the product of a unique set of behavioural contingencies that may be traced to societal expectations and evolved mechanisms designed to encourage procreation and pair bonding. How do you distinguish among different types of close relationships? Taxonomies that confound a speciŽc relationship with a typological distinction create unhelpful tautologies (Berscheid & Reis, in press). The three descriptive dimensions previously identiŽed circumnavigate this problem; each applies to all relationships and is unique to none. Permanence describes the extent to which social interactions are premised on stability. Power describes whether social interactions are a manifestation of dominance. Gender describes how social interactions are shaped by sex-based attributes. In the section that follows, these dimensions are applied to different close relationships, delineating distinctions among relationship categories. DISTINCTIONS AMONG FAMILY AND PEER RELATIONSHIPS “The nature, structure, dynamics, demands, and rewards of children’s relationships with parents, siblings, and friends are different in important respects, and the quality of each depends on both individuals involved in the particular relationship” (Dunn, 1993, p. 115). Setting individual variation aside for the moment, we begin with an examination of group characteristics. Consistent differences among parent-child, sibling, friend, and romantic partner relationships may be identiŽed. We consider each in turn, describing interconnections within close relationships as a function of permanence, power, and gender. Taken together, the portraits reveal aspects of Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 755 dimensions that are shared across relationships. Taken separately, each portrait reveals a unique combination of relationship attributes. How Parent-Child Relationships are Organised Stability and power dominate the landscape occupied by parents and offspring. Social interactions reect the inuence of each on the organisation of parent-child relationships: Interconnections between participants persist in the face of unequal, unilateral interchanges. Gender alters the speciŽc manifestations of these features, but not the overall pattern. Parent-child relationships are obligatory (Maccoby, in press). Kinship creates a closed-Želd for social interactions. Continued transactions are assured because participants are not free to leave the relationship. Social and biological imperatives require commitment to obligatory kin relationships, forcing parents and children to accept dyadic beneŽts in lieu of personal ones. Parent-child relationships are also hierarchical and authoritative (Barker & Wright, 1955). Their interconnections are complementary. Parents dominate interactions with children by virtue of greater power and wisdom, and children depend on the control and guidance of parents. This vertical structure rests on the paradox of inequitabl e exchange: Resources ow from the powerful to the weak. Children may be involved in same-sex and opposite-sex parent-child relationships, but the speciŽc gender role patterns in these relationships differ for daughters and sons (Scanzoni, Polonko, Teachman, & Thompson, 1989). Cross-sex parentchild relationships tend to be based on traditional gender roles, especially those between fathers and daughters. Father-son relationships are invariably masculine, whereas there is more latitude in the degree to which mother-daught er relationships are feminine. Overt sexual attraction is not normative in these relationships, although sexuality may play an important role in social interactions. How Sibling Relationships are Organised Stability is inherent in sibling relationships but dominance varies according to the age and gender of participants. Same-sex siblings who are similar in age are more apt to treat one another as equals than cross-sex siblings who are substantially different in age. Social interactions reect the permanent, quasi-symmetrical nature of the sibling relationship: The equitable outcomes expected of interchanges between those who share power are often incongruous with the realities of a relationship based on permanent interconnections. Relationships between siblings are obligatory (Berscheid, 1994); some participants describe them as involuntary. The relationship and the setting in which the relationship is embedded are closed-Želds; kinship assures Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 756 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI continued close quarters and social interaction, regardless of the consequences. Commitment is expected of siblings, but it may not be displayed in a manner consistent with the goal of maximising dyadic beneŽts. Sibling relationships contain vertical and horizontal properties (Dunn, 1983). Complementarity and reciprocity coexist. Measured in real terms, the power difference between most siblings is slight, and relationships contain more elements of a horizontal structure than a vertical one. An older child may assume authority over a younger child, but this usually arises during a temporary power vacuum. Once the authority Žgure returns, egalitarianis m and mutuality are expected. Gender alters patterns of sibling interaction (Buhrmester, 1992). Daughters are more apt to be given authority over siblings than sons, yet this does not translate into a hierarchy among brothers and sisters that favours the latter; if anything, the reverse is true. Some sibling competition is tolerated, but after a certain point a communal norm consistent with feminine gender roles is apt to be enforced, especially when the rivalry involves sisters. Sexual attraction among siblings is atypical. How Friendships are Organised Friendships are noteworthy because they are not obligatory, therefore they are potentially impermanent. Most friendships are based on equality; dominance is not normative. Interactions are predicated on sharing power and averting instability. Faced with the potential threat of relationship dissolution, interchanges are carefully monitored to keep outcomes mutually satisfying. Friendships usually involve same-sex partners, with males and females differing in the speciŽcs of their interconnections. Friendships are voluntary (Palsi & Ransford, 1987) in the sense that the setting and the relationship are an open-Želd; interconnections owe no allegiance to kin or environment, leaving participants free to disconnect at any time. Friends initially focus on the distribution of personal beneŽts because they lack commitment to one another, but dyadic concerns grow as commitment to the relationship increases. Friendships are prototypic horizontal relationships (Hartup, 1979). Participants expect reciprocity, which implies a mutual system for sharing the rewards and costs of interactions. Interconnections are jointly constructed; working together, friends establish, monitor, and revise the rules of exchange. Egalitarianism is the norm, but friendship can thrive within a hierarchical structure. Friendship is an overwhelmingly same-sex phenomenon (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, in press). The better adapted may also have opposite-sex friends, but those whose friends are exclusively of the opposite-sex tend to be poorly adjusted. Males typically have more friends than females, perhaps because the masculine form of the relationship is limited to participation in common pastimes, whereas the feminine form also demands intimate expression. By Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 757 deŽnition, platonic friendship lacks a sexual component but, in practice, the two are difŽcult to disentangle when the participants are a male and a female. How Romantic Relationships are Organised Romantic relationships are unique in that participants may attempt to increase the stability of their impermanent interconnections. Social interactions reect alterations in the organisation of the relationship, as individual goals give way to dyadic concerns. Gender and the distribution of power within romantic relationships are closely linked, which typically results in some form of dominance based on traditional gender roles. Most romantic relationships begin voluntarily (Berscheid & Walster, 1969). Participants approach the relationship intent on maximising personal outcomes, and open-Želd conditions permit them to withdraw should interactions prove dissatisfactory. Mutually beneŽcial exchanges promote interconnections. To ensure a stable source of beneŽts, participants may resort to increasingly public vows of commitment intended to transform a voluntary nonkin relationship into a nonvoluntar y kin relationship. The establishment of a closed-Želd hinders relationship dissolution, diminishing the importance of equitable outcomes. There are vast cultural differences in romantic relationships, differences predicated on the relative power of participants. Contemporary Western romantic relationships tend to be more horizontal than vertical; most contain some elements of reciprocity and complementarity (Huston, 1983). Although partners usually hold egalitarianis m as a goal, status differences make hierarchical arrangements difŽcult to avoid. Romantic relationships are customarily authoritative; the presence of mutual inuence does not preclude differences in absolute inuence. Power and sex, however, are a tangled skein (Peplau, 1983). Dominance in heterosexual romantic relationships has origins in traditional gender roles. Status and authority differences spawn hierarchical interactions. By minimising these differences, feminine and masculine relationships encourage mutual and egalitarian interactions. Interconnections based on sexual attraction may have origins in evolved complementarities; the extent to which distal mechanisms inuence samesex and opposite-sex romantic relationships is not fully understood. How are close relationships organised? Parent-child and sibling relationships are permanent, friendships are not, and romantic relationships run the gamut of transient to indissoluble. Parents dominate children, friends behave as equals, and siblings and romantic partners distribute power in a manner that falls somewhere in between these extremes. Same-sex and cross-sex relationships are common among parents and children, and both may be present among siblings. In contrast, cross-sex Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 758 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI relationships prevail among romantic partners and same-sex relationships typify friendships. Although gender roles may transcend sexual composition, relationships between men tend to be masculine, those between women tend to be feminine, and cross-sex relationships tend to reect traditional gender roles. In most cases, the inuence of sexual attraction is limited to romantic relationships. FACTORS THAT SHAPE THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS “The development al capabilities and concerns of the child must have bearing on the dimensions of a relationship that are most important, on how a relationship is experienced, and on what its course will be” (RadkeYarrow, Richters, & Wilson, 1988, p. 65). The search for organisationa l principles leads us to examine variation within and between relationships. Individuals and dyads differ in terms of their orientation toward speciŽc relationship dimensions, differences that ow from the traits and ontogenetic timetables of participants. This systematic variability suggests that domain speciŽcity offers the most parsimonious account of relationship organisation . We conclude that different relationships are structured according to different principles during different development al periods. How Individual Differences Inuence Close Relationships Participant characteristics help to deŽne salient relationship attributes. Discrete populations present different schemas and relationship orientations (Berscheid, 1994). Individuals may be distinguished by perceptions of security and trust (Bowlby, 1969). The secure express conŽdence in the responsive care proffered by relationships, whereas the insecure fear disappointm ent. Individual exchange orientations also differ (Murstein, Cerreto, & MacDonald, 1977). Maintaining a strict balance of interaction rewards and costs is important to some, whereas others make little attempt to account for relationship transactions. When individual differences in organisation al preferences are extended to dyads, the relationship may be described as secure or insecure, communal or exchange. Linkages between individual preferences and dyadic characteristics are intuitively obvious, but the lack of a direct correspondence between the two suggests a complicated interplay of inuences (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). As a consequence, insecure individuals may have secure relationships and secure individuals may be involved in insecure relationships. Parents and children, friends, siblings, and romantic partners tend not to place the same value on organisationa l attributes. Instead, the features Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 759 prominent within each reect the interconnections that typify the relationship (Hinde, 1979). Power may be more important than permanence in social interactions between parents and children; the reverse may be the case for friends. Yet beneath what appear to be consistent organisationa l rules, differences within relationships may be lurking in the extent to which participants adhere to these principles (Hartup, 1993). Interactions between friends usually reect a concern with permanence because most individual s value balanced exchanges. Friends with a low exchange orientation, however, may place a premium on an equal distribution of power. Development further complicates the picture in that organisationa l tendencies of individuals and their relationships change over time (Laursen, 1996). Young children have little appreciation for the nuances involved in maintaining outcome equality. In contrast, dominance is an attribute that they readily grasp. Thus, power rather than permanence may be the prevailing theme in early relationships. With age, comes the social experience and cognitive maturity required to understand principles of exchange. As a consequence, permanence may be of greater concern than power in the relationships of adolescents and adults. Changes in individual s are accompanied by developmental alterations in relationships (Youniss & Smollar, 1985). For example, parent-child relationships are premised initially on power differentials, but increasing autonomy brings about a need to recast interactions in terms of beneŽt outcomes. Finally, relationships themselves have development al histories, and interactions are organised differently during the beginning, middle, and end of a relationship (Berscheid & Reis, in press). For example, sexual attraction waxes and wanes over the course of a romantic relationship, as does the importance of the construct to participants. How Domain SpeciŽcity Accounts for Individual Differences Confronted with a bewildering array of individual and dyadic inuences, one might be tempted to invoke a chaos theory interpretation of the organisation of close relationships. But other attractive alternatives beckon. Domain speciŽcity—originally applied to performance distinctions in cognitive development (Piaget, 1972)—may be adapted to Žt the challenges of interpersonal behaviour (Bugental & Goodnow, in press). The domainspeciŽc approach argues that no single socialisation principle directs relationships. Instead, interactions are guided by a varied set of socialisation rules. Different relationships are organised around distinct socialisation tasks, so each relationship requires its own unique canon (Maccoby, in press). In other words, there are no universal organisation al principles, only relative ones. To suggest a domain-speciŽc structure within close Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 760 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI relationships is to imply that rules of engagement differ within the spheres circumscribed by parent-child, sibling, friend, and romantic relationships. Each of these relationships occupies a speciŽc niche in the lives of participants; maturation and experience independentl y alter their interactions and functions. It follows that the rules governing these distinct spheres must inevitably change to accommodate the needs of the participants and the relationship. Beyond describing differences between relationships, domain speciŽcity provides an account of variation within relationships. The ability to change behavioural guidelines provides participants with the exibility to adapt the relationship to situational demands, development al timetables, and relationship histories (Bugental & Goodnow, in press). As a consequence, parents may invoke outcome equality when it suits their needs without threatening their dominant position with children. Similarly, friends may resort to coercion now and then without threatening the equivalent distribution of power. The important point is that organisationa l principles are constructed within each relationship; individual differences arise as dyads adapt general relationship rules to their speciŽc needs. What factors shape the organisation of close relationships? Inspection reveals that relationships are more variable than static. When it comes to organisation al principles, one size does not Žt all. Systematic differences between relationships are augmented by individual differences predicated on participant characteristics and dyadic attributes. Although anarchy might seem the logical result, what evolves instead is a sophisticated system of rules catered to individuals and relationships. These organisationa l principles are understood to be speciŽc to each relationship domain. At this point, a traditional conceptual paper would conclude with an explicit typology of the topic at hand, but we are forced to deviate from the prescribed Žnale because domain speciŽcity is incompatible with taxonomic inexibility (Maccoby, in press). So instead we close with a discussion of issues concerning the creation of a development al model that accounts for age-related differences in the establishment, maintenanc e, functions, and contributions of parent-child, sibling, friend, and romantic partner relationships across the lifespan. CONSTRUCTING A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF RELATIONSHIPS: A RESEARCH AGENDA Unique challenges await those constructing a developmental model of close relationships. Developmenta l models are often guided by the concept of a developmental goal or end-point. According to this view, the model should account for changes in an individual from a relatively immature state to a Žnal state recognised as maturity. This approach offers clear advantages in Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 761 that it provides a relatively unambiguous end-point for the model. Unfortunately, development al end-points in the study of relationships tend to be ambiguous and elusive. Certainly, humans move from a state in which relationships are simple and lack organisation to a state in which relationships are complex and structured. This richness is manifest in so many different ways, however, that development al end-points are usually cast in either elementary or abstract terms. Relationships typically have multidimensional development al goals. Individuals engage in different types of relationships with different participants, so a development al model of relationships must necessarily account for experiences in multiple relationship domains. This multidimensionality is compounded by age-related variations in the types of relationships in which individuals participate and in the skills and developmental histories that each brings to the relationship. Different domains of relationship experiences are linked together, concurrently and over time. Multidimensionality presents three challenges to the construction of a development al model of relationships. First, a developmental model must describe properties of different relationships that are constant as well as those that vary as a function of age and maturation. Second, a developmental model must be sensitive to the fact that individual abilities and needs vary with age and maturation, as do the requirements participants place on relationships. These requirements determine the types of interactions that occur between participants and deŽne the developmental functions of the relationship. Third, a development al model must account for patterns of inuence among relationships. Experiences in one type of relationship inuence experiences in others, each with mutually compensatory potential. As a consequenc e, one relationship may be pressed into the service of another. Our research agenda, adapting Hinde’s (1979) framework for understanding relationships, begins with a descriptive goal: The comprehensive developmental depiction of characteristics of different relationships. To this end, age-related changes in interactions must be identiŽed in a manner that describes how partners create a relationship and how they maintain it (e.g. Collins & Russell, 1991; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, in press). In addition, age-related variations in the meanings that participants ascribe to relationships must be identiŽed in a manner that describes conscious and unconscious constructs concerning interconnections and interactions (e.g. Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986; Youniss, 1980). Finally, age-related changes in the basic dimensions of relationships must be identiŽed. Different relationship dimensions are appropriate for a developmental model of close relationships. We have suggested three that appear to be particularly salient: permanence, power, and gender. Their developmental patterns are discussed in the Žnal section. Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 762 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI A development al model of relationships must describe changes in the signiŽcance of each relationship system. It has been argued, for example, that peer relationships gradually supplant family relationships (Sullivan, 1953), and evidence supports this assertion (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992, Laursen & Williams, in press). A development al model must reect the complicated interplay of person and setting, for ontogenetic variation is likely across domains. For example, although adolescents increasingly look to friends for guidance, there are speciŽc topics over which they still turn to parents for advice (Youniss & Smollar, 1985). A developmental model must distinguish between differences in the salience of a relationship that are due to age-related variations in behaviour, and those that are a product of internal representations. For instance, at the onset of dating, heterosexua l behaviour designed to enhance reproductive Žtness coincide with the internalisation of a romantic attachment Žgure (Furman, in press). These challenges illustrate the importance of a research agenda that integrates interactions, relationship trajectories, and features that moderate their interplay. Relationship systems are interconnected and these interconnections are sensitive to developmental variations. Evidence suggests that interactions in one domain inuence those in other domains. For example, greater levels of rough and tumble play with fathers at home are associated with greater levels of popularity with peers at school (MacDonald, 1987). Evidence also suggests that experiences in one relationship may compensate for those in another. For example, positive interactions with friends buffer against the developmental difŽculties of nonoptimal families (Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan-Assee, & Sippola, 1996). These interconnections and their compensatory effects are the product of relationship features and the developmental demands each is supposed to meet. To summarise, we propose a research agenda for the construction of a developmental model of relationships that emphasises three interrelated themes. (1) A description of the characteristics that deŽne relationships, the interactions within relationships, and the meaning derived from relationships. (2) An account of changes in the developmental salience or signiŽcance of different types of relationships. (3) An assessment of relationship interconnections, concurrent and across time. In so far as relationship experiences reect participant attributes, this research agenda cannot be considered independent of broader development al considerations of relationship change. We close with a discussion of developmental principles that underlie relationship change and their potential impact on the organisation of the social world. Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 763 A DEVELOPMENTAL GUIDE TO PRINCIPLES THAT ORGANISE FAMILY AND PEER RELATIONSHIPS Development is an ongoing series of interactions between a changing organism and a changing environment. Individuals and environments are inextricably bound; individuals gravitate toward environmental niches as a function of needs (real or perceived) and environments are shaped by the individuals who occupy them. This interplay may involve deliberate steps by individuals who actively choose from among available social environments, or it may involve passively submitting to a prescribed environment constructed for the individual (Scarr & McCartney, 1983). To put it another way, some relationships are constructed by participants and others are constructed for participants. As the needs and skills of individuals change with development , relationships are revised accordingly. Once formed, however, all relationships must balance changes in participants with changes in the social world that encompass the relationship. Although it is difŽcult to argue that there is a normal developmental trajectory, human development across cultures adheres to a basic set of continuities and discontinuities (Benedict, 1949). Essentially, individual s move from a state of being dependent, passive, and relatively asexual to a state of being responsible, assertive, and capable of sexuality. Changes in these states occur within the context of relationships and they motivate changes in relationships. Development in at least three arenas prompts relationship alterations: changes in internal representations, changes in social understanding; and changes in interdependence. Internal representations encompass conscious and unconscious psychological processes that shape the individual ’s view of the world and his/her place within it (Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Social understanding encompasses cognitive advances that prompt an awareness of relationships and an appreciation of the unique features of participants (Dunn, 1993; Selman, 1980; Youniss, 1980). Interdepend ence encompasses experience s that promote social exchange and afford opportunities to explore the mechanics of interpersonal transactions (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Laursen, 1996). The form and function of relationships are guided by developmental changes in these arenas. The parent-child relationship is initially involuntary, with the child dependent on the parent. Interactions entail the regulation and satisfaction of the child’s basic needs so as to establish physical and emotional security. Once regulation is internalised, the relationship becomes less organised around dependency and caretaking (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). Greater levels of social understanding on the part of the child prompt changes in relationships with parents that diminish the role of internal representations (Dunn, 1993). Vertical interactions give way to an increasingly horizontal Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 764 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI power structure (Lollis, Ross, & Tate, 1992). The parent-child relationship is further transformed by the emergence of adolescent autonomy (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). Yet it is not the case that detachment severs parent-child attachment. Instead, autonomy introduces a new element into the parentchild relationship, namely that of interdepende nce. As children move through adolescence and into adulthood, social exchange grows in prominence because family exchanges are increasingly voluntary (Laursen & Williams, in press). That is, parents and children choose when and how often to interact, so outcomes are apt have a powerful inuence on future exchanges. The transformation of parent-child relationships is linked to an increase in the salience of peer relationships. As friendships grow closer, the intensity and exclusivity of parent-child relationships decrease. Interactions between young children are often based on simple forms of initiation and responsiveness to gestures and expressions. As social understanding develops, interactions become more complex and co-ordinated (Dunn, 1993). Although primarily organised around play and common activities, early friendships build on internal representations, setting the stage for the development of new interpersonal skills (Davies, 1984; Elicker, Englund, & Sroufe, 1992). Across middle childhood and adolescence, friendships grow to incorporate abstract concepts such as loyalty and intimacy (Hartup, 1993). It is for this reason that some have argued that adolescent friendships represent the Žrst true relationship experiences (Sullivan, 1953). Certainly friendships are the earliest voluntary relationship; children acquire social exchange rules in interactions with friends and apply them in other close relationships (Graziano, 1984). Autonomy promotes the relative importance of these principles, as exchanges in voluntary relationships increasingly take place in open-Želd settings apart from adult supervision (Laursen, 1996). Taken together, friendships resemble parent-child relationships in that internal representations form the basis of later advances in interdepende nce and social understanding. Sibling relationships appear to follow a distinct developmental trajectory. In contrast to age-related changes in parent-child and friend relationships, positive features of sibling relationships decrease across childhood and adolescence and negative features increase (Brody, Stoneman, & McCoy, 1994; Buhrmester & Furman, 1990). Little is known about how internal representations impact sibling relationships, although there is evidence that they shape qualitative features of the relationship (Teti & Ablard, 1989). Sibling relationships gradually shift from being involuntary to being voluntary; the more children control their own environment, the more say they have in the extent to which they socialise with siblings. Moreover, the asymmetries between siblings that derive from age differences diminish as the relationship grows more egalitarian with progressive advances in social Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 765 understanding (Dunn, 1983). It follows that the importance of interdepende nce in sibling relationships increases as a function of social and cognitive development. In their earliest phases, romantic relationships are predicated on principles of social exchange. Participants are attracted to one another by the promise of mutually beneŽcial interactions (Berscheid & Walster, 1969). Although the salience of particular beneŽts may change as a function of development, the importance of a favourable ratio of rewards to costs does not (Laursen & Jensen-Campbell, in press). Interdepend ence declines in importance as romantic relationships grow more committed and less voluntary. Internal relationship representations formed early in life may be recreated later in romantic relationships (Shaver & Hazan, 1988). That adolescents have a lower incidence of secure romantic attachments than adults has prompted some to speculate that advances in social understanding and social experience facilitate improved internal representations of romantic relationships (Furman & Wehner, 1994). This suggests a progressive decline in the importance of environmental and psychological processes, as cognitive processes increasingly guide the behaviour of romantic partners. Most close relationships respond to changes in other relationships. For instance, friends help adolescents renegotiate relationships with parents (Ryan & Lynch, 1989). The ascription of new meanings to friendship may be a critical aspect of the successful transformation of parent-adole scent relationships (Blos, 1962). As the quality of adolescent relationships with parents declines, some functions may be transferred to friends. Friendships, in turn, are eventually supplanted by romantic relationships. Just as supportive functions shift from parents to friends during early adolescence, they shift again from friends to romantic partners during late adolescence and early adulthood (Furman, 1989). On the surface, alterations in relationship interdepende nce appear to drive these changes, but there may also be deep structure revisions in attachment processes that contribute to relationship realignment. Variability in the principles that guide relationships demonstrates the need for a domain-speciŽc development al model. Domain speciŽcity was a messy and disruptive notion when introduced into the Želd of cognitive development and it is likely to prove likewise for the Želd of social development. Particularly challenging will be the task of disentanglin g normative individual development and normative relationship developmen t from differences between individuals in relationship preferences and experiences, and differences between relationships in patterns of social interaction. Yet it is clear that the most parsimonious formulation of close relationship processes is one that recognises different relationship principles during different development al periods. Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 766 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI CONCLUSION Relationships are the bread and the thread of life, they deŽne existence and provide it with meaning (Vandenberg, 1991). Developmental needs motivate individuals to engage in relationships and cultural prescriptions deŽne relationship responses to these needs. Thus, relationships are a context for development as well as a product of it. We have proposed a developmental guide to the organisation of family and close peer relationships. As with most guides, this one has limitations: It takes the intrepid traveller only so far down the well-trod trail before reaching uncharted territories. Yet, developmental scholars are uniquely suited to the challenge ahead. Our trademark emphasis on description and concern for the individual in context offers a compelling approach to the study of relationships. A basic descriptive account of relationships reveals a dynamism in relationship experiences and in their adaptive inuences, suggesting that the study of relationships and the study of development must necessarily be joined if either is to be properly understood. Manuscript received June 1997 REFERENCES Argyle, M., & Furnham, A. (1983). Sources of satisfaction and conict in long-term relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 45 , 481–493. Barker, R.G., & Wright, H.F. (1955). Midwest and its children. New York: Harper. Benedict, R. (1949). Continuities and discontinuities in cultural conditioning. In P. Mullahy (Ed.), A study of interpersonal relations. New York: Hermitage. Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45 , 79–129. Berscheid, E., & Peplau, L.A. (1983). The emerging science of relationships. In H.H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J.H. Harvey, T.L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L.A. Peplau, & D.R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 1–19). New York: Freeman. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H.T. (in press). Attraction and close relationships. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th edn.). New York: McGraw Hill. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A.M. (1989). The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 , 792–807. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E.H. (1969). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Blos, P. (1962). On adolescence: A psychoanalytic interpretation. New York: Free Press. Blumstein, P, & Kollock, P. (1988). Personal relationships. Annual Review of Sociology , 14, 467–490. Blyth, D.A., Hill, J.P., & Thiel, K.S. (1982). Early adolescents’ signiŽcant others: Grade and gender differences in perceived relationships with familial and nonfamilial adults and young people. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 425–450. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Brewer, M.B. (in press). On the social origins of human nature. In C. McGarty & A. Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind and society. London: Blackwell. Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 767 Brody, G., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J.K. (1994). Forecasting sibling relationships in early adolescence from childhood temperaments and family processes in middle childhood. Child Development , 65 , 771–784. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bugental, D.B., & Goodnow, J.J. (in press). Socialization processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), The handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development . New York: Wiley. Buhrmester, D. (1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer relationships. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 19–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1990). Perceptions of sibling relations during childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 61 , 1387–1398. Clark, M.S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 , 12–24. Clark, M.S., & Reis, H.T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 39 , 609–672. Clarke-Stewart, A. (1984). Day care: A new context for research and development. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology: Vol. 17. Parent-child interaction and parent-child relations in child development (pp. 61–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Collins, W.A., & Repinski, D.J. (1994). Relationships during adolescence: Continuity and change in interpersonal perspective. In R. Montemayor, G.R. Adams, & T.P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships during adolescence (pp. 7–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Collins, W.A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 11 , 99–136. Davies, B. (1984). Life in the classroom and playground . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child Development , 54, 787–811. Dunn, J. (1993). Young children’s close relationships: Beyond attachment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Elicker, J., Englund, M., & Sroufe, L.A. (1992). Predicting peer competence and peer relationships in childhood from early parent-child relationships. In R.D. Parke & G.W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkages (pp. 77–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Feiring, C., & Lewis, M. (1989). The social networks of girls and boys from early through middle childhood. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children’s social networks and social supports (pp. 51–172). New York: Wiley. Fiske, A.P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a uniŽed theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99 , 689–723. Fletcher, G.J.O., & Fincham, F.D. (Eds.) (1991). Cognition in close relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Furman, W. (1989). The development of children’s social networks. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children’s social networks and social supports (pp. 151–172). New York: Wiley. Furman, W. (in press). Friends and lovers: The role of peer relationships in adolescen t heterosexual romantic relationships. In W.A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology: Vol. 29. Relationships as developmental constructs. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63 , 103–115. Furman, W., & Wehner, E.A. (1994). Romantic views: Toward a theory of adolescen t romantic relationships. In R. Montemayor, G.R. Adams, & T.P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships during adolescence (pp. 168–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 768 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI Gauze, C., Bukowski, W.M., Aquan-Assee, J., & Sippola, L.K. (1996). Interactions between family environment and friendship and associations with self-perceived well-being during early adolescence. Child Development , 67, 2201–2216. Graziano, W.G. (1984). A developmental approach to social exchange processes. In J.C. Masters & K. Yarkin-Levin (Eds.), Boundary areas in social and developmental psychology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Hartup, W.W. (1979). The social worlds of childhood. American Psychologist , 34, 944–950. Hartup, W.W. (1993). Adolescents and their friends. In B. Laursen (Ed.), Close friendship in adolescence: New directions for child development (pp. 3–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hartup, W.W., & Laursen, B. (1991). Relationships as developmental contexts. In R. Cohen & A.W. Siegel (Eds.), Context and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P.R. (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 , 511–524. Hendrick, C. (1988). Roles and gender in relationships. In S.W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 429–448). New York: Wiley. Hinde, R.A. (1976). On describing relationships. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 1–19. Hinde, R.A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. New York: Academic Press. Hinde, R.A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Hirsch, B.J., & Dubois, D.L. (1989). The school–nonschool ecology of early adolescen t friendships. In D. Belle (Eds.), Children’s social networks and social supports (pp. 260–274). New York: Wiley. Huston, T.L. (1983). Power. In H.H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J.H. Harvey, T.L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L.A. Peplau, & D.R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 169–219). New York: Freeman . Kelley, H.H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J.H., Huston, T.L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L.A., & Peterson, D.R. (1983). Close relationships. New York: Freeman. Kelley, H.H., & Thibaut, J.W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley. Larson, R., & Richards, M.H. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development , 62, 284–300. Laursen, B. (1996). Closeness and conict in adolescent peer relationships: Interdependence with friends and romantic partners. In W.M. Bukowski, A.F. Newcomb, & W.W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence (pp. 186–212). New York: Cambridge University Press. Laursen, B., Hartup, W.W., & Koplas, A.L. (1996). Towards understanding peer conict. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 76–102. Laursen, B., & Jensen-Campbell, L.A. (in press). The nature and functions of social exchange in adolescent romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B.B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on romantic relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press. Laursen, B., & Williams, V. (in press). Perceptions of interdependence and closeness in family and peer relationships among adolescents with and without romantic partners. In S. Shulman & W.A. Collins (Eds.), Romantic relationships in adolescence: New directions for child development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lollis, S.P., Ross, H.S., & Tate, E. (1992). Parents’ regulation of children’s peer interactions: Direct inuences. In R.D. Parke & G.W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relations: Modes of linkage (pp. 255–281). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Maccoby, E.E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist , 45 , 513–520. Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 THE ORGANISATION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 769 Maccoby, E.E. (in press). In W.A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology: Vol. 29. Relationships as developmental contexts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. MacDonald, K. (1987). Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected, and popular boys. Developmental Psychology, 23 , 705–711. Murstein, B.I. (1970). Stimulus value role: A theory of marital choice. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 32 , 465–481. Murstein, B.I., Cerreto, M., & MacDonald, M.G. (1977). A theory and investigation of the effect of exchange-orientation on marriage and friendship. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 39, 543–548. Palsi, B.J., & Ransford, H.E. (1987). Friendship as a voluntary relationship: Evidence from national surveys. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4 , 234–259. Peplau, L.A. (1983). Roles and gender. In H.H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J.H. Harvey, T.L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L.A. Peplau, & D.R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 220–264). New York: Freeman. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. (Original work published in English 1932.) Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development , 15 , 1–12. Radke-Yarrow, M., Richters, J., & Wilson, W.E. (1988). Child developmen t in a network of relationships. In R.A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual inuences (pp. 48–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W.M., & Parker, J.G. (in press). Peer interactions, relationships and groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), The handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development . New York: Wiley. Rusbult, C.E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 16, 96–105. Ryan, R., & Lynch, J. (1989). Emotional autonomy versus detachment: Revisiting the vicissitudes of adolescence and young adulthood. Child Development, 60 , 340–356. Sarason, I.G., Sarason, B.R., & Pierce, G.R. (1995). Social and personal relationships: Current issues, future directions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12 , 613–619. Scanzoni, J., Polonko, K., Teachman, J., & Thompson, L. (1989). The sexual bond: Rethinking families and close relationships. Newbury Park: Sage. Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype environment correlations. Child Development, 54 , 424–435. Selman, R.L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Sroufe, L.A., & Fleeson, J. (1985). The coherence of family relationships. In R.A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual inuences (pp. 27–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sroufe, L.A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of relationships. In W.W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 51–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in adolescence. Child Development , 57 , 841–851. Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Teti, D.M., & Ablard, K.E. (1989). Security of attachment and infant-sibling relationships: A laboratory study. Child Development, 60 , 1519–1528. Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Vandenberg, B. (1991). Is epistemology enough? An existential consideration of development. American Psychologist, 46 , 1278–1286. Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011 770 LAURSEN AND BUKOWSKI Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development: A Sullivan–Piaget perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers and friends. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011