Advertisement

Paradoxical Effects of Closeness in Relationships on Perceptions of Justice

An Interdependence-Theory Perspective
  • John G. Holmes
  • George Levinger
Part of the Critical Issues in Social Justice book series (CISJ)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on an apparent paradox—that closeness has contradictory implications for perceiving justice in pair relationships. The proposition that pair interdependence is associated with partners’ expectations for mutual justice and fairness is not novel, although recent theories of relationships can provide better insight into the mechanisms responsible for this connection. Less obvious is the opposing proposition that closeness also heightens the chance of experiencing a sense of injustice. Taken together, these two propositions suggest that closeness amplifies both the positive and the negative consequences of events that occur in a relationship. Thus, the contingencies that promote either sort of consequence are important to identify.

Keywords

Procedural Justice Marital Satisfaction Close Couple Fair Exchange Pair Relationship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson, J., & Huston, T. L. (1984). Sex role orientation and the division of labor early in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. New York: World.Google Scholar
  3. Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. 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. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Berscheid, E., & Campbell, B. (1981). The changing longevity of close relationships: A commentary and forecast. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  5. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). Issues in studying close relationships: Conceptualizing and measuring closeness. In C. Hendrick (Ed), Review of personality and social psychology: Close relationships (Vol. 10). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Borden, V. M. & Levinger, G. (1991). Interpersonal transformations in intimate relationships. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2). London: Kingsley.Google Scholar
  7. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braiker, H. G., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brehm, S. S. (1992). Intimate relationships (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication in marriage. New-bury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 57, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1986). Assessing the role of emotion in marriage. Behavioral Assessment, 8, 31–48.Google Scholar
  17. Hackel, L. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1992). Changes in the marital relationship after the first baby is born: Predicting the impact of expectancy disconfirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 944–957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holmberg, D., & Holmes, J. G. (1992). Reconstruction of relationship memories: A mental models approach. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Holmes, J. G. (1981). The exchange process in close relationships: Micro-behavior and macromotives. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  20. Holmes, J. G. (1991). Trust and the appraisal process in close relationships. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2). London: Kingsley.Google Scholar
  21. Holmes, J. G. & Boon, S. D. (1990). Developments in the field of close relationships: Creating foundations for intervention strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Close relationships (Vol. 10). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  24. Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Kelley, H. H. (1984). The theoretical description of interdependence by means of transition lists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 956–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Knudson, R. M., Sommers, A. A., & Golding, S. L. (1980). Interpersonal perception and mode of resolution in marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 751–763.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levinger, G. (1966). Sources of marital satisfaction among applicants for divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 36, 803–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levinger, G. (1979). A social exchange view on the dissolution of pair relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Levinger, G. (1983). Development and change. 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. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  32. Levinger, G., & Snoek, J. D. (1972). Attraction in relationships: A new look at interpersonal attraction. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Process.Google Scholar
  33. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mikula, G., & Heimgartner, A. (1990). Experiences of injustice in intimate relationships. Paper presented at the International Conference on Personal Relationships, Oxford.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, P. C., Lefcourt, H. M., Holmes, J. G., Ware, E. E., & Saleh, W. E. (1986). Marital locus of control and marital problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 297–311.Google Scholar
  36. Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 3). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1992). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Unpublished manuscript, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.Google Scholar
  38. Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  39. Rausch, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M. A. (1974). Communication, conflict, and marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  40. Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Ross, M. A. (1989). The relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rusbult, C. E. (1987). Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The exit-voice-loyalty-neglect model. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Utne, M.K., & Kidd, R. F. (1980). Equity and attribution. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction: Experimental and theoretical contributions from psychological research. Vienna: Huber.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • John G. Holmes
    • 1
  • George Levinger
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations