RELATIONSHIPS

This page intentionally left blank

 Relationships:
A Dialectical Perspective

Robert A. H inde

St. John's College, Cambridge, CB2 1TP, UK

Behaviour Department, Madlngley, Cambridge, CB3 8AA, UK

V p Psychology Press
A Taylor &. Francis Group
HOVE AND NEW YORK
First published 1997 by Psychology Press

This edition published 2014 by Psychology Press

27 Church Road, Hove East Sussex BN3 2FA
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Psychology Press is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 1997 by Psychology Press

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced

in any form, by photostat, microfilm, retrieval system, or
any other means without the prior writtten permission of
the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 0-86377-706-6 (Hbk)

ISBN 0-86377-707-4 (Pbk)

Typeset by Lucy M orton & Robin Gable, London, SE12

 Contents

Acknowledgements

Frontispiece

Preface

PARTA PROLEGOMENA

1. From Everyday Behaviour towards a Science of Relationships

Individual behaviour 3
Interactions 6
Relationships 9
The social group 10

2. Obstacles to a Science of Interpersonal Relationships

Prejudices from outside science 14
Problems from within science 15
General issues 15
Methodological problems 16
Summary 22

3. The Self, Interactions, and Relationships

The self-system 23
Storage o f information 24
Concepts o f the self and other 25
vi CONTENTS

Age changes and differences in the self-concept 26

Gender differences 26
Situational effects 27
Stability o f the self-concept 28
The self-concept and relationships 30
Theories o f the self-system 31
Interactions 36
Relationships 37
Definitional issues—behavioural aspects 37
Communication in relationships 38
Relationships as accounts or narratives 39
Generalising about relationships 40
Social behaviour versus social relationships 40
The social context 42
Dialectical relations between levels 42
Two models of relationships 44
Summary 48

PART B CHARACTERISTICS OF RELATIONSHIPS

Bl. DESCRIBING RELATIONSHIPS

4. Problems of Description
The need for description 51
Description is necessarily incomplete 52
Description and explanation 54
Particular relationships or generalisations? 54
Guidelines for selection 55
Dimensions and levels of analysis 55
The concepts o f “Closeness” and “Intimacy ” 57
Categories o f dimensions 61
Classifying relationships 62
Summary 65

B2. THE CONSTITUENT INTERACTIONS

5. Content and Diversity of Interactions

The content of interactions 69
The diversity of interactions 73
Summary 74

6. Qualities of Interactions and Communication

Verbal and non-verbal communication 77
The problem of assessment: the communication of quality
Intensity 81
Content and presentation o f verbal material 81
 CONTENTS VÜ

Non-vocal communication and emotion 86

Relations between the behaviour o f the two participants 90
Tensions in communication: deception 91
Qualities of interactions and of relationships 93
Communication in long-term relationships 94
Quality of communication and of the relationship 94
Summary 97

7. Relative Frequency and Patterning of Interactions 99

Clusters of co-varying properties 99
Ratio and derived measures 100
Relations between heterologous interactions 100
Patterning of interactions 103
Summary 107

B3. GIVE AND TAKE IN RELATIONSHIPS

8. Similarity versus Difference: Similarity/Reciprocity 111

Reciprocity versus complementarity 111
Similarity/reciprocity 115
Similarity as a factor in close relationships 115
Methodology: two important techniques 117
Why is similarity attractive? 123
Is similarity always attractive? 134
Summary 135

9. Similarity versus Difference: Difference/Complementarity 137

Complementarity in close relationships 137
Some aspects of social support 143
Complexity in the balance between reciprocity and
complementarity 147
Acceptance of the pattern of complementarity by
the partners 149
Summary 151

10. Conflict and Power: Conflict 153

Nature and assessment 153
The ubiquity o f conflict 153
Constructive and destructive conflict 154
The assessment o f conflict 156
Some sources of conflict 156
Predisposing factors 160
Situational and personality factors 160
Jealousy 163
Conflict tactics 168
Attitudes to conflict 168
viii CONTENTS

Attributional processes 169

Behaviour in conflict situations 171
Conflict and the stage o f the relationship 185
Conflict and closeness 187
Violence 188
Summary 189

11. Conflict and Power: Power 191

Power and control 191
Types of power 192
Power and the resources exchanged 195
Power in close relationships 196
Power tactics 198
Non-verbal concomitants of power 199
The usefulness of the concept of power 199
Summary 200

B4. CLOSENESS

12. Self-Disclosure and Privacy 203

Self-disclosure as an individual or relationship characteristic 204
Assessment of self-disclosure 204
Benefits and costs: privacy 207
Disclosure, vulnerability, and trust 211
Characteristics of self-disclosers 212
The nature of the relationship 216
Third parties 217
Physical self-disclosure 217
Summary 218

13. Interpersonal Perception, Accounts, and the Perception

of Relationships 219
Interpersonal perception and its assessment 219
Assessing interpersonal perception 220
Factors affecting interpersonal perception 224
On acquaintance 224
Differences in behaviour by the person perceived 225
Differences between and influences on judges 227
Congruency o f dimensions 221
Cultural stereotypes 228
Self-perception and other-perception 228
Relevance to self 228
Similarity 229
Relevance to significant others 229
Pragmatic implications 229
Influence o f first encounter: polarisation 229
 CONTENTS

Context 230
Judges’ sensitivity: masculinity!femininity 231
Mood 232
Simultaneous cognitive operations 232
Mutuality 232
Length of acquaintance 233
Misperception 233
Interpersonal perception in on-going relationships 234
Perceived similarity and understanding 234
Interpersonal perception and empathy 235
Misperception 236
Accounts 236
Personal construct analysis and the perception of
relationships 238
Summary 241

14. Satisfaction
Measurement and related problems 244
Consistency 247
Factors affecting satisfaction 249
Introduction 249
Personal characteristics 250
Properties of the relationship 255
Extra-relationship factors 265
Conceptual models of the bases of satisfaction 265
Summary 266

15. Commitment
Definition 269
Commitment and autonomy 273
Determinants of commitment 273
Commitment in unsatisfying relationships 273
Belief in the partner’s commitment 274
Individual characteristics and commitment 276
Summary 276

PART C FURTHER PRINCIPLES FOR UNDERSTANDING

RELATIONSHIP PROGRESS

16. Individual Characteristics

Introduction 281
Personality and traits 282
The influence of relationships on individual characteristics 283
The influence of individual characteristics on relationships 285
Adaptability 288
Summary 288
X CONTENTS

17. Social and Other Extra-Dyadic Influences 291

Influences from the physical environment 291
Relationships affect relationships 292
The dyad as a unit within a group 298
The social network 298
Socio-cultural influences 301
Cultural influences on emotion and psychological
functioning 301
Roles 303
Roles and rules: non-obligatory rights and duties 306
Temporal changes in roles and rules 310
Overlapping categories 311
Cultural and social influences in the development o f particular
relationships 312
Norms of behaviour in the development o f relationships 314
General 314
Role conflict 315
How do social forces affect the individual? 315
Summary 316

18. Dissonance, Balance, and Attribution 319

Dissonance and balance 319
Attribution 324
Factors influencing attribution 325
Attributions in relationships 327
Beyond attribution 328
Summary 331

19. Exchange, Interdependence, Equity, and Investment Theories 333

Definitions 334
Homans 335
Thibaut and Kelley: interdependence theory 337
Equity theory 344
The investment model 348
General issues 351
The problem o f measurement 351
Justice, or what is fair? 353
Why does fairness matter? 360
Nature o f distress 361
Interpersonal perception and exchange theories 362
Interdependence and the content o f interactions 362
Altruism and intimate relationships 363
Exchange theories of the dyad and the surrounding group 365
Conclusion 365
Summary 366
 CONTENTS Xi

20. The Categorisation of Resources 369

Reinforcement in learning theory and real-life rewards 369
The classification of resources 371
Commentary 380
Summary 384

21. Attachment Theory 385

Attachment in childhood 385
Adult attachment 388
Summary 395

22. Negative and Positive Feedback 397

Introduction 397
Negative feedback 398
Positive feedback 400
When liking leads to liking 401
Self-disclosure, reciprocity; and liking 403
Summary 406

PART D FRIENDSHIP AND LOVE

23. Friends (and Enemies) 409

What is friendship? 409
Assessment of friendship quality 412
Gender differences in friendship 414
Cross-sex friendships 416
Cultural variations 418
Factors conducive to friendship 418
Age changes 420
Friendship at work 421
Friends and the social group 421
The fragility of friendship 421
The persistence of friendship 422
Enemies 423
Summary 424

24. Love and Romantic Relationships 427

What is love? 428
Assessment of love 431
Trait or state? 435
Individual characteristics and beliefs about love 435
Cultural differences 439
Passionate love in young children 441
The Romeo and Juliet effect 441
Is there a negative side to love? 442
Summary 443
xii CONTENTS

PARTE RELATIONSHIP CHANGE

25. Aquaintance
Introduction 447
Physical attractiveness 448
Selection 449
Non-conscious processes in selection 453
First judgements 454
Acquaintanceship 455
Interactional skills 457
Summary 459

26. The Development of Relationships

The growth of unconscious commitment 461
Cognitive exploration 462
Physical signals 463
Identification with the partner 464
Trust 466
Comparison with outsiders 466
Early stages predict later ones 467
Creating an account 467
Taboo topics 468
The miniculture 469
Monogamous commitment 470
The social network 470
The public pledge 471
Conflict in developing relationships 473
Rate of development 475
Summary 476

27. Maintenance
Stability and change 477
Maintenance processes inherent in a positive relationship
Attribution 481
Maintenance strategies and behaviours 482
Continuity of unhappy relationships 485
Summary 485

28. The Decline and Dissolution of Relationships

Phases of decline 487
Aspects of breakdown 491
Attribution and accounts 491
Communication 492
The social context o f dissolution 493
Cultural determinants in dissolution 494
Factors making for a decline 495
 CONTENTS Xiii

Predisposing personal factors 495

External factors 495
Change in a participant 496
Changes in the relationship 496
Cultural norms 496
Internal factors 496
The decline of friendship 497
The decline of romantic relationships 497
Unrequited love 500
The breakdown o f marital relationships 501
Predictors of breakdown 501
A model of breakdown 504
Distress 505
Accounts 506
Social factors 507
Summary 507

29. A Programme for Integration 509

The current state 509
Agreement over variables 511
Integration of explanations 512
Models o f processes 513
Integration through dialectics 514

References 521

Author Index 569

Subject Index 581

 Acknowledgements

An earlier book, Towards understanding relationships (Hinde, 1979, ISBN

0123492505) was written just as the study of personal relationships was
becoming established as a recognised sub-discipline in the social sciences.
Since then enormous progress has been made, and the present volume
focuses on the new developments and attempts to present current perspec­
tives. For permission to re-use passages from the earlier book (primarily
in Chapters 2, 4, 5 and 8 of the present one) I am indebted to the present
copyright holders, Harcourt Brace and Company Ltd.
I am also very grateful to Joan Stevenson-Hinde, who read a draft
manuscript and made detailed and helpful comments. I profited also from
discussion of a number of issues with Minucha Lisboa and Jessica Rawson,
and from detailed comments on an earlier draft by Ann Elisabeth Auhagen
and Ellen Berscheid.

xiv
 SOCIETY w

XI \
X Jf GROUP -• N

^ I\
SOCIO-CULTURAL A
STRUCTURE ^ f RELATIONSHIP

INTERACTION
y
PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT

\ 1 ✓ INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR

\ 1 /
PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES

FRONTISPIECE A simplified view of the levels of social complexity. Relationships

continually influence, and are influenced by, their component interactions and thus by the
individual participants and by diverse psychological processes within those individuals; the
groups and society in which they are embedded; the socio-cultural structure of beliefs, values,
institutions and so on; and the h sical environment. The influences involve behavioural,
affective and cognitive processes in the individuals concerned, mediated by the meanings
attributed to events and situations. Each level, including that of the individual, is thus to be
seen not as an entity but as involving processes of continuous creation, change, or degradation
through the dialectical relations within and between levels. (Modified from Hinde, 1975, 1991.)

XV
This page intentionally left blank
 Preface

People have always been interested in relationships, and novelists,

biographers and clinicians have provided a wealth of case histories. In the
early decades of this century psychologists provided some important hints
as to how an ordered body of knowledge about relationships might grow,
but the seeds that they sowed showed little signs of germination for
several decades. The material brought together in an earlier book (Hinde,
1979) was embryonic: the systematic study of relationships was just
beginning. But in the last 30 years considerable progress has been made.
Research workers have probed more deeply into the complexities of
personal relationships; theories current then have been elaborated to take
better account of real-life relationships; a wider range of relationships and
of individuals are being studied. Furthermore, the study of personal
relationships now merges with a number of other disciplines—anthropol­
ogy, child development, cognitive science, communications, psychiatry,
social psychology, and sociology, to mention only some. We now have
journals specifically devoted to personal relationships, others that also
publish important material on the topic, and many edited and authored
volumes. As a result the field is moving fast and the styety of relation­
ships is now in a very exciting phase—exciting not jqstiis an intellectual
enterprise, but because of its potential impact on human happiness. How­
ever the data still lack coherence: the field hardly qualifies as a science,
using that term to mean an ordered body of knowledge. And the field is
growing so fast, it is now hard to keep pace. But perhaps, just for those

xvii
xviii PREFACE

reasons, an attempt at an overview of at least some of the central issues

may be timely.
My aim has been to survey the new material in a way that could indicate
a possible route for integrating the knowledge that we are acquiring.
Chemistry has its Periodic Table of Elements, Biology its Theory of
Evolution by Natural Selection, Physics its Theory of Relativity, Genetics
its Double Helix, but the study of relationships has as yet no overarching
theory. Although we can be pleased with the progress that the study of
personal relationships is making, it is still a very long way from achieving
coherence. This is not only because the discipline has not yet reached
maturity: the phenomena are of extraordinary complexity, and we cannot
(yet?) hope for a simplifying theory that will suddenly bring total insight.
The question at the moment is, can we perceive, even if only dimly, the
shape that an integrated science of relationships might have? In this book
I have tried to survey the data in a manner that indicates a possible route
towards finding the integration that we need. I do not suppose that this
route will prove to be a final answer, but if we follow it we may stumble
across a shorter-cut to our goal.
An initially basic issue is shown in the Frontispiece (for fuller explana­
tion, see Chapter 3). As a background we need to recognise a series of
levels of complexity, which include processes within individuals, individu­
als, interactions, relationships, groups and societies, and also the context
of culture and physical environment that permeates them. (This, it will be
observed will involve drawing from several social science disciplines.) Each
of these levels affects and is affected by the others. This means that each
level, including that of the individual, is to be seen not as an entity but as
a complex of dialectical processes—dialectical in the sense that tendencies
or processes which may appear to be in opposition become integrated into
a new reality or truth. Thus no one level can be studied independently of
the others—though our own shortcomings make it necessary to focus
primarily on one level at a time.
In this book, of course, the focus is on the relationship level, but it will
be necessary to keep more than an eye on the others. At the individual
level, in so far as the formation of a close relationship is often described
as the partial merging of two selves, we need a picture of the nature of the
self. A relationship cannot exist without interaction, so this level also is
crucial. What the participants do together in their interactions, and what
they say to each other (and to third parties) about a relationship, and what
they think and feel, influences its future course. Duck, who has done so
much to foster the development of the study of personal relationships, has
repeatedly emphasised that how the participants communicate with each
other, and also what goes on between interactions—reflecting, explaining,
reformulating, discussing with third parties—may have a crucial influence
 PREFACE XiX

on the relationship. And, moving up the levels, every relationship is affected

by the other relationships of the participants, and also by cultural factors.
The group level and the socio-cultural structure must therefore also come
within our orbit.
In attempting to find a route towards integration of our knowledge
about relationships, I have not followed the usual sequence of questions
(data or theory initiated) through methods to answers,; but have started
with a section on description. To attempt to be clear aboikt the phenomena
is an essential first step: the history of psychology shows how easy it is to
enter blind alleys if this is not done. It is thus useful to recognise three
analytical stages: the description of relationships, the specification of
principles involved in their dynamics, and the recognition of the limitations
of applicability of those principles. But understanding requires re-synthesis
of the products of our analysis to give comprehension of the whole, and
this involves a fourth stage (Tinbergen, 1951). The potion of stages is, of
course, only an heuristic device. Because relationships are not entities but
dynamic processes, they cannot be described without reference to process,
and indeed the characteristics by which a relationship can be described
(by participant or by outside observer) may themselves be part of the
process. And it would be folly to refer to principles underlying their
dynamics without referring immediately to the limitations of those prin­
ciples. Thinking of research on relationships as involving a series of stages
is useful, however, as a way of orienting ourselves in our task and helping
us not to confuse description and explanation.
Integrating knowledge about relationships also involves an issue of
another kind: we must place new findings alongside what we know already.
Over the last two decades studies of personal relationships have progressed
from an emphasis on what people do to what people think and feel. The
new findings are exciting, and open new perspectives on personal relation­
ships. But if we are to build a body of knowledge about relationships we
must not forget the earlier findings: rather we must strive to adapt the old
wine-skins to the heady new wine. We must also attempt to see into the
future, when further intra-psychic processes, such as defence mechanisms,
or the emotional and motivational aspects of relationships, may well
become the foci of attention.
Given the continuously interacting processes illustrated in the Frontis­
piece, full understanding requires yet a further step. Teasing those processes
apart, and understanding their interactions, would be facilitated if we could
identify relatively stable characteristics of individuals which, in interaction
with each other through the successive levels, give rise to the complexity
to be seen in those levels. This is merely hinted at in the last chapter.
Discussion in this book is biased in favour of so-called “close” relation­
ships—that is, relationships for whose dynamics such issues as self­
XX PREFACE

disclosure, interpersonal perception, satisfaction, and commitment have

considerable importance. It is with such relationships that most of the work
has been done—perhaps because they matter most to most people. Indeed,
much of the work concerns the heterosexual relationships of young adults
in Europe and North America, and even there the conclusions drawn from
the data tend to refer to common properties of relationships, and not to
their diversity. We need to know much more about the diversity of relation­
ships in the real world. But although we need a wider data base, perhaps
for the moment we can search for principles of dynamics in the relation­
ships that have been studied, assessing their applicability to a wider range
of phenomena as we become able to do so. An important survey of other
types of adult relationships is available elsewhere (Auhagen & von Salisch,
1993, 1996): they are mentioned here only incidentally. Children’s relation­
ships involve special problems which arise through their need for care-
giving and their developing cognitive competence: coming to terms with
these problems will be essential if we are to reach our goal of an inte­
grated body of knowledge about relationships, but children’s relationships
are mentioned here only to illustrate general principles. Again, a number
of recent surveys exist (e.g. Duck, 1993a; Dunn, 1993; Greenberg, Cicchetti,
& Cummings, 1990; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, in press).
An overview has proved a harder task than I anticipated and, faced by
an embarras de richesse, selection has been a major problem. Inevitably,
the survey is incomplete but, by selecting primarily the more recent and
accessible literature, I hope that, while keeping the bibliography within lim­
its, I have made it possible for the reader to find the way back to the earlier
literature without too much difficulty. As understanding involves not only
examination of the different aspects of complex phenomena, but also
examination of how those aspects affect each other, comprehensible pres­
entation has required a good deal of cross-referencing. I have endeavoured,
so far as seemed reasonably possible, to make each chapter stand on its
own, so I have allowed some repetition. Finally, I hope that it may be
understood that “he”, “she”, “him”, and “her” may refer to persons of
either sex unless the context indicates otherwise.
The book is divided into six sections. The first three chapters are
concerned with the nature of relationships and some of the problems that
a science of relationships must confront. Section B provides a framework
for describing relationships. It is not, however, purely descriptive, as refer­
ences to process help put flesh on the bones of description. The reader
may therefore find it useful to cross-refer to Section C, where further
processes involved in (and theories about) the dynamics of relationships,
and their limitations, are reviewed. So far the material has involved
analysis. The remaining sections make a start on the necessary process of
re-synthesising the products of analysis. Section D presents some material
 PREFACE XXÎ

on relationships of special importance to most people—friendship and

loving relationships. As relationships are dynamic and constantly changing,
it is necessary to pay special attention to the processes involved in their
initiation, growth, maintenance, and dissolution: this is the subject-matter
of Section E. The last chapter describes, very tentatively, the ways in which
integration may eventually be achieved. Although the ordering of the
chapters is thus intended to have a certain logic, I have tried to present the
material in such a way that they can be read selectively, or in an order
suited to the reader.
Before getting down to the meat of the matter, I shall try to illustrate
the complexity of the problem by four vignettes, each concerned with
successive levels of social complexity.
This page intentionally left blank
 A Prolegomena

The first three chapters are intended to link those that follow to real life, or
at least to real-life situations. Vignettes in Chapter 1 indicate some of the
increasingly complex issues involved in individual behaviour, short-term
interactions, relationships and groups, and hint at how they can be related
to theory. Some of the obstacles to building up an ordered body of knowl­
edge about relationships are discussed in Chapter 2. Understanding a
relationship requires some prior understanding of the individual partici­
pants and of how they interact, so Chapter 3 presents a brief introduction
to some theories of the self-system, and indicates the nature of interactions
and relationships. This chapter stresses also the importance of coming to
terms with the dialectical relations between successive levels of complex­
ity, as illustrated in the Frontispiece.
This page intentionally left blank
 From Everyday Behaviour
I towards a Science of
Relationships

This is a book about the nature of relationships. Before plunging in, it may
be helpful to consider four vignettes which link the analytical approach to
situations in real life.

INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR
Suppose that at this moment you are sitting in a chair (behaviour),
thinking about what you are reading (cognitive activity), and feeling
comfortable (affect). But after a while your mind wanders: you are
distracted by thoughts of the wonderful time you had with your friend
yesterday (cognition) and you feel a little elated (affect). At the same
time you wonder whether you really want to read this book (cog­
nition). You get up and make some coffee (behaviour). Coming back,
you nearly trip on the carpet, exclaim loudly with irritation (behaviour,
affect), settle back into your chair (behaviour) with relief (affect) and
feel content (affect) as you go on reading (cognitive activity).

All the time we are awake we are behaving, and thinking, and feeling,
and each of these may influence the others. What we feel is influenced by
what we think; and what we think is influenced by what we feel; what we
think and feel influences what we do; and what we do influences what we
feel and think. Even an apparently simple activity, sitting reading a book,
is actually very complicated.
You may ask why you are reading the book anyway. One answer is that
you are curious. That, you will say, is a circular answer: we explain your

3
4 1. TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF RELATIONSHIPS

reading by saying you are curious and we believe you are curious because
you read. But in general it is far from circular, and almost a truism: it is
part of our nature to seek to understand, to be able to predict, to exercise
some control over the world we live in and to steer our own way through
it. G.A. Kelly (1955) pictured this by saying that we operate as “personal
scientists”, developing implicit “theories” about our experience in the world
so that we can cope with it better. That world is to a very large extent a
social world, and it has been convincingly argued that that is why monkeys,
apes, and humans have such relatively large cortical areas—we need to cope
with a complicated social world (Humphrey, 1976). In practice, the theories
that we elaborate about ourselves and about others are only moderately
accurate, though we often convince ourselves that they are better than they
really are.
To say we act as “personal scientists” is of course a metaphor. It is a
way of referring to processes that underlie much of our behaviour, processes
that are largely unconscious: the metaphor suggests that they are like the
conscious processes of someone investigating an aspect of the world. As a
metaphor, it is flexible, and we must be careful to remain aware that it is
only a metaphor. Nevertheless it is a useful way of thinking, in part because
description in terms of constituent processes at a fine level of analysis might
miss properties relevant to a higher level, and in part because, if used with
discipline, it gives us interesting insights into our behaviour. Furthermore,
it ceases to be circular in so far as it “explains” diverse aspects of our
behaviour.
Kelly suggested that, as a consequence of experience, we accumulate a
series of constructs by which we construe the world. These constructs are
often, but not necessarily, bi-polar—living/inanimate, human/nonhuman,
and so on. Each individual construes the world in a different way in
accordance with his or her nature and past experience. Because you are
reading this book you are probably the sort of person who distinguishes
between books and magazines, and between magazines and journals, but
to many they would all be just books.
The constructs are interrelated in innumerable but personally idio­
syncratic ways, in part by interlocking hierarchies. Thus “chicken” may be
subordinated to “bird” and then to “animal” in one person’s hierarchy,
and to “food” in another’s. Although we use labels to discuss constructs,
they are not themselves necessarily verbal or dependent on verbal labels.
We use these constructs for ordering past experience, making sense of
current events, and for predicting the future. Each person’s construct system
is seen as continually under test by experience, in the light of which the
construct system is adjusted, new material is assimilated and the whole
accommodated. It is a bit like making a map of unexplored country,
 INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR 5

adjusting the details as we refine our survey or cover new ground. The
superordinated constructs carry more implications for the system as a whole,
and are therefore more resistant to invalidation—just as, if we found a
particular hill was a bit higher than we thought, we would not give up
colouring the high ground brown and the sea blue. Kelly supposed that we
use our construct systems to make “theories” with which we organise our
experience and with whose aid our behaviour is controlled. In so far as we
can understand the present and predict the future, we can control the
future—moving into situations where our needs can be satisfied, and
avoiding those that are disagreeable or dangerous. However constructs and
“theories” are in a dialectical relation to each other—we use our constructs
to make theories and adjust our constructs in relation to our theories. One
reason that adolescence can be traumatic is that earlier constructs and
theories are being challenged.
On this view, we ascribe properties to the self, perhaps partly on the
basis of observation of our own behaviour—seeing ourselves give money
to charity, we label ourselves as generous, and this affects our future
behaviour. The labels we apply to ourselves are based primarily on
similarities and differences between ourselves and others: thus the self can
be seen only in relation to the social context in which it is embedded. The
particular theory each individual has about his/her self enables and restricts
social behaviour, and affects both plans and expectations about the future
and the accounts of the past fabricated to maintain or change the self­
image. And, according to our understanding of ourselves, of the situation
we are in, and of those we are with, we select a role—a pattern of activity
that follows from that understanding. (Note there is a slight change in
metaphor here, the scientist has become an actor, playing the part he sees
himself as having been engaged to play.) Although there are a number of
roles we could play, we have a “core role structure” (a term which overlaps
with “self-concept” or “self-schema”), which provides the means whereby
we maintain our identity.
The philosophically minded reader will detect a problem in all this—
where is the I who observes the self and plays the role that has been selected?
This issue can be pursued in discussions of the nature of consciousness
(e.g. Dennett, 1991; Humphrey, 1992): for present purposes we need only
remind ourselves that we are speaking metaphorically. We treat the self as
someone to think about as if we were thinking about someone else.
Kelly’s account is one of a number that stress the social nature of the
self (see Chapter 3). We shall meet others in later chapters and find that
the metaphors they use overlap with those of Kelly. Bowlby’s (1969/1982)
Internal Working Model of self and other is one that has received
particular prominence lately.
6 1. TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF RELATIONSHIPS

INTERACTIONS
The behaviour of one person is complicated enough. Now imagine an
interaction between two.

Now suppose, while you are reading, someone knocks on the door.
You open it to find a little old lady almost entirely covered in a rather
ragged grey shawl. You presume that she has come for money, and
greet her with a rather hesitant and suspicious "Good morning". She
lowers the shawl a little and smiles kindly at you. "I'm your new
neighbour", she says, "and I have brought you some flowers from my
garden". She produces a bunch of violets from under the shawl. You
thank her politely, but now you are a little ill at ease— you want to be
on good terms with your neighbour, but not on too good terms: after
all, she might become intrusive. Yet again, she seems a kindly person,
and perhaps she is lonely: you should be kind to her. However, smiling
straight into your eyes, she then turns and walks off through the gate.
Did she detect your ambivalence? Did she feel rejected? No, surely
not—you took the flowers and thanked her, and you'll do something
for her tomorrow to make sure that she realises your gratitude. Yes,
you tell yourself that you need not worry.

When the doorbell rings, one usually has no idea who is standing out­
side. With the first glimpse one forms an impression which is immediately
compared with memories of comparable people encountered in the past,
or with people one has heard about or read about. The little old women
you have met before have usually wanted something, but was there not
one once who turned into a fairy godmother—or was it a wolf? So what
should one do when such a woman appears on the doorstep? This time
you muddled through, feeling apprehension, embarrassment, until she was
on her way. You were trying to find a way of behaving that would satisfy
both you and her, and you are not sure you succeeded. But after she had
gone you could construct a story that explained your behaviour to yourself.
The important issue here, which we shall meet repeatedly in later
chapters, is that people are continuously trying to make sense of their own
and others’ actions. They search for meaning. People need to feel that they
have some degree of control over what happens, and to that end need to
see the world as predictable—an issue crucial for many aspects of social
psychology (Berger, 1993).
There are a number of ways to describe the interaction in this vignette.
Duck (1977a, b, 1990, 1994a, b) emphasises that, in their interactions and
relationships, people try to create personal meanings for themselves and
mutual understanding with their partners. Here it was your uncertainty
about whether you had established mutual understanding that led to your
feeling uncomfortable.
 INTERACTIONS 7

G.A. Kelly (1955) would say that you were searching for a suitable
“role”, where “role” is a way of behaving that follows from a particular
understanding of another person or of a situation. The role we adopt must
be compatible with, and indeed should confirm, the image we have of our­
selves—seeing yourself as charitable, you could not have shut the door in
her face. But you see yourself as charitable because of past experiences
with other people—every individual’s personal identity is formed by experi­
ence, and especially social experience. And it continues to be formed
throughout life—though in some respects resistant to change, it is in
dynamic flux. And because you are continually discerning similarities and
differences between yourself and others, and between those others, the way
in which you construe yourself is closely related to the way in which you
construe others, and vice versa.
An approach to the understanding of social behaviour has been worked
out in detail by Goffman (1959, 1961, 1963, 1967) and G.J. McCall (1970,
1974). Goffman distinguishes between the expressions an individual gives
and those he gives off. By “gives”, Goffman refers to communication in
the usual sense. When you opened the door, you said “Good morning” in
an entirely proper way. By “gives off”, Goffman is referring to the impres­
sion an individual creates or tries to create. You might have said “Good-
morning” haughtily, benevolently, distrustfully, ingratiatingly... In point of
fact, this time you fluffed it—you were not quite sure what impression you
wanted to create. But, Goffman would say, the little old lady was watching
the expressions you gave off in order to “define the situation”—so that she
would know what to expect of you.
In general, it is in the individual’s interest to influence this definition of
the situation which the others present come to formulate, and he (or she)
can do this most readily by expressing himself so as to give them an
impression that will lead them to accept his plan. To understand how the
individual achieves this, Goffman takes a “dramaturgical perspective”,
treating the speaker as though he was a performer attempting to create an
impression on an audience. In real life an individual may create an im­
pression deliberately; or he may act more or less unconsciously, perhaps
falling in with the conventions of the group, or his behaviour may be idio­
syncratic and more spontaneous. If the actor dissembles, the listeners may
or may not spot what he is up to. If the actor knows that he is likely to
be discovered, he may make a false revelation—Goffman emphasises the
potentially infinite cycle of concealment, discovery, false revelation, and re­
discovery.
Each party to an interaction will be actor and audience in turn, so each
will project their definition of the situation, which may or may not be
accepted by the other. In the course of interaction, each may shift ground
a little—or perhaps adopt a slightly different role. But for the interaction
8 1. TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF RELATIONSHIPS

to go smoothly, it is not necessary (or desirable?) that each should candidly

express what he feels and honestly agree with the other. Rather each
participant conveys a view of the situation that he feels the other will find
temporarily acceptable, perhaps concealing some of his feelings behind
asserted values to which everyone feels obliged to agree. Each, in other
words, must “fit in”. But at the same time each individual is allowed to
establish tentative rules regarding matters vital to him and allows the other
to do the same. Goffman describes such a situation as a “working
consensus”. As this working consensus is reached progressively, the initial
impression made by each party can have a crucial influence on the
progress of the interaction. In the same way, the early stages of a relation­
ship may set the tone of later ones: Goffman regards a relationship as
arising when an individual plays the same part to the same audience on
different occasions.
In this way Goffman analyses a wide range of interactions, ranging from
casual encounters to the interactions within intimate relationships, as if
the individual concerned were playing a part. This involves the individual
in projecting a definition of the situation (e.g. “This is my consulting
room”) and of his self (e.g. “And I am a knowledgeable and competent
doctor”). Those parts of the performance that contribute to these defini­
tions are called the “front”. The “front” is made up of the physical setting
and the personal front, the latter including “appearance”, conveying social
status, and “manner”, concerned with the particular interaction role the
performer is playing. There may also be a “back”, where the performance
is prepared—where, for instance, the doctor instructs his nurse on how to
present herself to patients. Disruption of the front may lead to a halt in
the sequence of interactions, embarrassment and so on.
Treating social behaviour “as if” it were a performance, liable to be
“seen through” by the audience, Goffman provides fascinating insights into
what goes on in ordinary social interactions. Of special interest here is his
discussion of the extent to which the interactions he describes are in fact
performances, and to what extent they are genuine. In the ordinary course
of events we treat people as though they were either genuine or dissembling.
But status or role in a social situation is not a material thing, to be possessed
and displayed; it is a pattern of appropriate conduct, which must be per­
formed to be realised. Goffman thus regards a performer, who is sincerely
convinced that the impression of reality that he is staging is the real re­
ality, as being taken in by his own act. Whilst being taken in by one’s own
act and being cynical about it sound like the extremes of a continuum,
Goffman points out that the extremes tend to be more stable than the
intermediate regions. In so far as a person is playing a part, that part
represents what he would like to be, and in so far as others confirm him
in it, he will come to believe that that part is really him.
 RELATIONSHIPS 9

RELATIONSHIPS
Now let us go a little further, and discuss behaviour between two people
who know each other well.

After the little old lady has left you settle back into your chair, com­
forted by the thought that you had thanked her warmly and by your
intention to repay the call tomorrow, and continue reading. But after
a few minutes the telephone rings. This time it is your closest friend,
someone you've known for years. You are very fond of him— it has
often been a relief to discuss problems with him in the sure knowl­
edge that he would not betray your trust. In fact you are a little
worried that you might become too fond of him: he sometimes seems
a bit assertive, and you don't want anyone else running your life for
you. But you greet him warmly, and you chat for a few minutes about
what you have both been doing. Then he suggests he should come
round and that you go for a walk along the cliffs, a few miles away.
There it is again— you'd been planning a quiet day at home with this
fascinating book and warm fire and plenty of coffee, and he wants you
to get yourself together, put on another coat, change your shoes and
go out. You really don't want to stir yourself up, but it is a wonderful
fine breezy day, a walk on the cliffs would be wonderful, and after all
it's ages since you did anything like that.
So you go. Do you enjoy yourself? Perhaps it really is wonderful
on the cliffs: the flowers are just coming out, broken clouds, just
enough wind to make little white horses on the sea. And he is very
considerate, taking care not to walk too fast— and he brought apples
and chocolate with him. Perhaps you were wrong to think him asser­
tive. Next time he rings you won't hesitate.
When you get back you reflect on how, when he rang, there was a
comfortable feeling of sinking back into an old routine, you always
knew where you were with him. It was not very sensible to have those
worries about your autonomy— really he's very considerate. And he is
always thinking of wonderful new things to do, so it's never boring to
be with him. And so you pick up the book and find you have got to
the place where it talks about relationships.

In a close relationship you don’t have to search for a new role identity,
but just pick up the one that is appropriate for the partner in question.
That echoes what you have been thinking and feeling today. In a close
relationship, the familiarity makes it unnecessary to think too much about
how you should behave—you automatically put on a coat (to use yet
another metaphor) suitable for the occasion. With a close friend it’s an old
coat, one that for nearly all the time you feel comfortable in and, despite
its age, keeps you warm. Of course there are times when you wonder if it
is the coat you really want to be wearing, whether it really fits you. You
10 1. TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF RELATIONSHIPS

have quite a number of other coats in your cupboard suitable for other
friends and other situations, and which one you choose depends on your
memories and feelings about past interactions with the person in question—
and perhaps on expectations and hopes for the future. But this is a friend
you are fond of, and you do really like the coat you wear with him—you
feel it’s “like you”. Perhaps that is why you are fond of him—because you
like the coat you wear with him. One cannot be happy in a relationship
unless one likes the sort of person one is in that relationship. We shall see
later that this means that you have to keep a number of balances rather
delicately poised. You want to be close to him but not (or not yet) so close
that you feel as though you’ve lost control over your life. You want to
share your thoughts and feelings with him, but there is a fear that by doing
so you make yourself vulnerable and might lose control that way. The
familiarity gives you security, but monotony can be boring. You want to
do things for him, and you want him to do things for you—but it must be
fair, because you’ll feel uncomfortable if you feel you are not getting what
you deserve, or if you feel you are getting more than you deserve.

THE SOCIAL GROUP

What goes on between two people is often affected by whom they are with.
Let us imagine that, instead of going for a walk with your friend, you
meet in a group.

The next day he rings you again and suggests that you and he should
join some friends of his for a drink in "The Three Horseshoes". You
are really enjoying the book now but, remembering the lovely walk
you had yesterday, you agree cheerfully and put on your coat. The
friends turn out to be two of his football buddies. They welcome you
warmly, buy you a pint, and you are glad you came. You settle down
in a corner of the bar. But as the conversation goes to and fro, you
begin to feel you are seeing a new side to your friend. With his foot­
ball buddies he has a certain heartiness which you have not come
across before. However you don't want to let him down, and you do
your best to fit in. Feeling a little chilly, you take a bright scarf out of
your bag and tie it round your neck to fit in over your coat. You try
hard but you feel torn— a little guilty because you don't want to let
down your friend, and again a little guilty because you are not quite
sure that this is a role that really fits you. A few drinks later, you'd
really rather leave and be with him alone, but it's your turn to buy a
round of drinks and you do not want him to feel that his friends think
that you don't know the proper conventions. This time you get your­
self some tonic water, but he is on his fourth drink and you begin to
wonder if he really is the person you thought you knew— he even
makes a remark which you feel is off-colour.
 THE SOCIAL GROUP 11

Fortunately his friends soon have to go. You walk back home
together, light the fire, and, as the house warms up, you take off your
scarf and sit talking. In this relaxed atmosphere you can tell him that
you weren't quite certain that you liked his friends. He tells you that
they are good chaps really, though perhaps they were showing off a
bit for your benefit, and that it's important for him to get on with them
because one of them is the boss's son. You know how important it is
that he should get on in the firm, and indeed you want him to, so you
decide that you needn't say anything about his behaviour in the pub—
it was not the real him, he was acting under constraint.

We all feel we are the same person all the time, and yet we adjust our
behaviour according to whom we are with. A relationship with one other
person is relatively simple compared with interactions with that other
person in a group. Somehow you must find a role that suits not only your
special friend as he is with you, but also his friends, and yet further the
sort of person he likes his friends to perceive you to be. And while when
you were with him alone you were to some extent constrained by norms
that you both considered appropriate, in a group you felt even more con­
strained because you felt that your friend might feel that his friends might
think less of him if you did not conform to their conventions. You were
not sure that you were in sympathy with the way he behaved in the pub,
but when you were alone with him he provided you with an account that
enabled you to construct your own story and so come to terms with his
behaviour.
Relationships are complicated.