Odyssey of the Heart: Close Relationships in the 21st Century

01-070 FM pp3 9/13/01 1:38 PM Page i

Od

he Heart t f yssey o CLOSE R E L AT I O N S H I P S IN THE 21ST CENTURY S ECOND E DITION

01-070 FM pp3 9/13/01 1:38 PM Page iii

Od

he Heart t f yssey o CLOSE R E L AT I O N S H I P S IN THE 21ST CENTURY S ECOND E DITION

JOHN H. HARVEY University of Iowa

ANN L. WEBER University of North Carolina at Asheville

III

01-070 FM pp3 9/13/01 1:38 PM Page iv

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Copyright © 2002 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microfilm, retrieval system, or any other means, without prior written permission of the publisher. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers 10 Industrial Avenue Mahwah, NJ 07430 Senior Acquisitions Editor: Textbook Marketing Manager: Editorial Assistant: Cover Design: Production Editor: Full-Service & Composition: Text and Cover Printer:

Debra Riegert Marisol L. Kozlovski Jason Planer Kathryn Houghtaling Lacey Sarah P. Wahlert Pre-Press Company, Inc. Hamilton Printing Company

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Harvey, John H., 1943– Odyssey of the heart : close relationships in the twenty-first century / John H. Harvey, Ann L. Weber.— 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8058-3898-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Intimacy (Psychology) 2. Love. 3. Interpersonal relations. I. Weber, Ann L. II. Title. BF575.I5 H37 2001 158.2—dc 21 2001023614 ISBN 1-4106-0405-5 Master e-book ISBN

01-070 FM pp3 9/13/01 1:38 PM Page v

This book is dedicated to all of our loves, in the broadest sense of that term. They have educated us in what we know about closeness, intimacy, and love to depths of understanding that research and books could not possibly achieve.

01-070 FM pp3 9/13/01 1:38 PM Page vii

C

N T S E O N T

PREFACE

1

IX

The Study of Close Relationships in the Early 21st Century

1

2

Gender Dialogue

17

3

Physical Attraction and Early Dating Dynamics

37

4

Sexuality in Close Relationships

55

5

Love and Commitment

77

6

Maintenance and Enhancement

95

7

The Family

115

8

Same-Sex Close Relationships

133

9

Relationship Violence and the “Dark Side” of Close Relationships

145

10

Dissolution of Close Relationships

169

11

Grief and Recovery

189

12

Passages: Lifespan Relationship Challenges

209

13

Relationship Enhancement Through Personal Adjustment and Some Future Directions

233

REFERENCES AUTHOR INDEX SUBJECT INDEX

245 261 267

VII

01-070 FM pp3 9/13/01 1:38 PM Page ix

PREFACE The 1995 edition of Odyssey of the Heart was intended to highlight topics and issues in close relationships in the 1990s. This substantially updated and expanded version of Odyssey is designed to review and reflect on the same material almost a decade later. We join as a team for this version. For the 1995 publication, the second author was an invaluable commentator and reviewer of practically all of the material in the book. She brings her own perspective to bear in this version. We believe that this new version is warranted because of the positive reaction to the 1995 book and because of the flood of new work that has been done in the relationship field in the last decade. For example, the topics of attachment and maintenance of close relationships, while being pursued in the early 1990s, have become well-worked topics in the early 21st century, and are reviewed at length in this version. Since the first edition of this book was published in 1995, close relationships have figured prominently in news and media. President Clinton was impeached but not removed from office over the issue of his sexual relationship with a White House intern. A highlyrated television program tested a small group of contestants’ ability to “survive” on an island, despite the requirement that they criticize and vote each other down to the last competitor. This in turn spawned similar television series, including one that involved tempting contestants’ ability to remain committed to their partners despite the accessibility of “alternatives.” Close relationships seem to be less private, more part of political and media commerce, than ever before—and they are as much in flux as possibly has ever been true. Despite our fascination with personal interactions, we find personal commitment, happiness, and security elusive. Relationship skills have never come naturally, and even relationships experts are not immune to conflict, disappointment, betrayal, and grief. Indeed, the only true antidote to bereavement or rejection is not to love at all—an “option” that is rarely chosen and never normal. This book, too, has come back, ideally to add to that mix of experience and luck some of the bounty offered to us by psychological theory and research on close relationships. Knowing can only make us stronger, and better inform our efforts. In our own lifetimes we have seen that science and data do not destroy the mystery of great aspirations— whether the nature of the moon, or the dynamics of intimacy. Collectively, humanity seeks answers to our questions about the delights and dismay of our closeness with others. Individually, our journeys may be so divergent as to have different goals. Our odysseys are complex, varied, and surprising—but not ineffable. We can discuss our needs and goals, share our lessons and memories, and learn from each other’s victories and errors. It is our hope that this book will prove helpful in ways we ourselves cannot foresee, to people we will likely never meet, but whose hearts understand the same journey that has inspired our own work. Together, we as authors represent over three decades of teaching and research on close relationships. As social psychologists, we were among the few college teachers who, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, created undergraduate courses on this topic (that involved a look at more in-depth relating as compared to courses on attraction and love that started to appear in the 1970s). We would stress at the outset that while our experience gives us good insight about college students and their relationship quests, the field is too broad for any scholars to be fully comprehensive in their treatment. The reader will see our bias toward social psychological ideas and literature in this version, just as was true in the original Odyssey.

IX

01-070 FM pp3 9/13/01 1:38 PM Page x

This book is aimed at the beginning undergraduate close relationships course. We also believe that the educated general public may find the book of value and that it might be used in advanced seminars that involve graduate students who have not had previous coursework on close relationships. For the 1995 Odyssey, many parents and friends of students have contacted the first author with their views of various ideas presented. We hope for and encourage the same feedback from the present book. This book again reflects the theme of Homer’s writing about Odysseus in his 10-year journey home after the Trojan War. We believe that the path of close relationships often resembles an odyssey of the heart, a long, wandering course marked by missteps, and filled with hope, disappointment, agony, and ecstasy. We are often dismayed by the dashing of our expectations in this journey. Yet, it is a journey that most of us will continue to embark on for all of our living days. The heart is a metaphor in this work for our most intense and influential emotions. In close relationships, we follow our hearts, often in deference to our minds or best judgments. That is just the way we are constructed, for better or worse. This book attempts to give us some better perspective on our wanderings. It also is intended to make the case for greater encouragement, stronger work to understand, and greater hope for the development of constructive close relationships among young people, who will follow in our steps and for whom we may model a more compassionate approach to close relationships. The authors wish to express their deepest appreciation to Debra Riegert, Psychology Editor at Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, for her encouragement and support of this project, to Jason Planer, Editorial Assistant at Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, for his help with many details in producing the work, and to the reviewers of earlier drafts of this version of Odyssey. John Harvey thanks young Patrick Harvey for teaching him many insights about the spontaneous aspects of love and hope, as well as his continued support from the late, but still influential, Red Dukes and also influential, but somewhat senile, Precious Memory. Ann Weber thanks her husband John Quigley for his unbending support, her friends for their faith, and her cats and dog for their warmth and affection. She also thanks her students for teaching her how never to stop learning and finding delight in the very process of discovering ideas. We thank the readers, too, and the adopters of this book for classes. We hope that what matters most in your close relationships is addressed herein, and that you will benefit from a greater understanding of these most human endeavors from the contributions of ourselves and other colleagues’ writings. John H. Harvey and Ann L. Weber January, 2001

X

01-070 FM pp3 9/13/01 1:38 PM Page xi

Od

he Heart t f yssey o CLOSE R E L AT I O N S H I P S IN THE 21ST CENTURY S ECOND E DITION

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 1

1 THE STUDY OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE EARLY 21 S T CENTURY Relationship is a pervading and changing mystery . . . brutal or lovely, the mystery waits for people wherever they go, whatever extreme they run to. —Eudora Welty in The Quotable Woman (1991, p. 44)

I T I S T H E E A R LY 2 1 S T C E N T U R Y A N D THE DIVORCE DILEMMA CONTINUES As the 2000 U.S. Presidential election neared, a dialogue was occurring among candidates and the general public about the unabated high divorce rate in this country and how the divorce rate affects the American family. For over 3 decades, the divorce rate has been between 40% and 50% of all new marriages. All parts of the United States appear to have experienced significant divorce rates during this period. Even areas with major religious affiliations among the general populace have been affected. A UP headline in 1999 (November 13, 1999, reported in Iowa City Press-Citizen) said, “Bible Belt States Struggle with Divorce.” This article noted that although the overall rate per 1,000 people was 4.2 divorces, the rate was 6.4 in Tennessee, 6.1 in Arkansas, and 6.0 in Alabama and Oklahoma. In contrast, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York had rates of less than 3.0. Why might these differential rates be occurring at the start of the 21st century? One ironical answer is that the so-called Bible Belt states are dominated by protestant churches that are not as active as states dominated by the Catholic Church, which has had a significant premarital counseling program for some time. It is possible that “fundamentalist” churchgoers are more exposed to what the AP article suggested was a “fairytale conception of marriage,” that is not altered by any of the preparations done by the couple in getting ready for marriage. As we see later in this chapter, the idea of premarital counseling has taken hold, especially among young couples and among politicians in state capitols, as a possible way of redressing the high divorce rate. In thinking about the complexities of human close relationships, the divorce dilemma is similar to other riddles in that many factors very likely are involved. Simple answers should be mistrusted. The divorce rate in these Bible Belt states may be influenced by the people’s adopting the biblical view that the man is head of the household (e.g., the Southern Baptist Church asserted this position in its constitution in 1998). Yet, the close relationship literature suggests that egalitarian relationships in which both partners are treated

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 2

1 .

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

as equals yields much more satisfying, and most likely long-lasting, relationships. Further, as the Associated Press article noted, cohabiting before marriage is more criticized in Bible Belt states. If, as many people suggest, such a step before marriage provides a good trial-run for marriage, this factor may mitigate against couples surviving for long when they plunge into marriage without enough experience with one another. Even these explanations are highly speculative. Perhaps all we can do with such complex phenomena is be open to careful consideration of the multiple explanations that may be advanced.

HISTORICAL NOTES The teaching of classes on close relationships did not begin on a widespread basis until the late 1970s. The reason that close relationships were not a part of psychology curriculum before that period was that the area of work, in psychology, did not develop in earnest until the late 1970s and early 1980s. It had not developed prior to that point because the discipline of psychology, ironically enough, demurred in viewing this topic as sufficiently scientific; that all changed in the late 1970s with work designed to make the case for a science of close relationships (CRs) and to develop scholarly organizations and journals specifically focusing on relationships. Now, there are several specialized journals and two large international, interdisciplinary organizations that hold annual relationship conferences. In a very selective way, Table 1.1 documents some of the developments in this interdisciplinary field.

TABLE 1.1 General Sketch of Important Developments in The Interdisciplinary Study of Close Relationships • Family Sociology, developing in 1930s, emphasizing demographic variables (e.g., study of success of marriage and divorce trends, Burgess & Cottrell, 1939) • Early researchers and contributions in social psychology and sociology in 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s in studying close relationships phenomena: • Leon Festinger, study of attraction to others (e.g., Festinger, 1953) • Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills study of liking for others (e.g., Aronson & Mills, 1959) • Carl Backman and Paul Secord, study of interpersonal attraction (e.g., Backman & Secord, 1959) • Donn Byrne, study of attitudes, personality, and attraction (e.g., Byrne, 1961) • George Levinger, study of marriage via archival records (e.g., Levinger, 1964) • Bernard Murstein, study of marital choice (1970) • Keith Davis, study of romantic love (e.g., Kerckhoff & Davis, 1962) • Elaine (Walster) Hatfield, study of romantic love and determinants of interpersonal attraction (e.g., Hatfield & Rapson, 1993; Walster, 1965) • Clyde Hendrick, study of attitude similarity and attraction (e.g., Hendrick & Page, 1970) • Irwin Altman and Dalmus Taylor, study of self-disclosure (e.g., Altman & Taylor, 1973) (Continued)

2

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 3

H I S T O R I C A L

N O T E S

TABLE 1.1 (Continued)

• Zick Rubin, Letitia Anne Peplau, and Charles Hill, study of liking and loving (e.g., Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976; Rubin, 1973) • Harold Raush, study of communication in marriage (e.g., Raush, Barry, Hertel, & Swain, 1974) • Jessie Bernard, study of marriage (e.g., 1972, 1982) • Robert Weiss study of marital separtion (e.g., Weiss, 1975) • Ellen Berscheid, study of interpersonal attraction (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1978) • Steve Duck, study of acquaintance and friendship (e.g., Duck, 1973) and organizational efforts in developing an association of scholars for studying close relationships (e.g., Gilmour & Duck, 1986) • Ted Huston, study of social exchange in developing relationships and of transitions in relationships (e.g., Burgess & Huston, 1979) • Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, study of relationship processes in different types of couples (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983) • Harold Kelley and colleagues, study of interdependence in close relationships (Kelley, 1979, Kelley, Berscheid, Christensen, Harvey et al., 1983) • Early organizational developments • Madison, Wisconsin Conference in 1982 organized by Robin Gilmour and Steve Duck • Subsequent conferences every year, many with locations outside the United States • Development of Journal of Personal and Social Relationships (by Steve Duck in 1983), later became official journal of International Network on Personal Relationships (approximately 500 members at beginning of the 21st century) • Development in 1994 of Personal Relationships, as official journal of International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships (also with approximately 500 members at beginning of the 21st century) • 2001 beginning of merger between the two international organizations for the study of close, personal relationships and merged meetings of the organizations (with merged meeting in Prescott, Arizona) • Other major developments • Development of interpersonal relations component of the discipline of communication studies in the 1980s, with close relationships a principal research focus • Continued development of field of family studies, often in university departments entitled “human development and family studies,” also with close relationships as a main line of work; related development in this field of accredited programs to train therapists in marriage and family therapy • Continuing development of close relationships as a primary research topic in social and clinical psychology (and to a lesser degree in developmental and counseling psychology); social psychology’s commitment is reflected in probably 500–1,000 social psychologists currently pursuing this topic and the topic’s currency at conventions (including special sessions at the prestigious Society of Experimental Social Psychology meetings) • 1978, approximate first date undergraduate course explicitly focusing on close relationships taught at a North American university (Berscheid, 1997) 3

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 4

1 .

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

Table 1.1 reflects only a smattering of the people and events leading to the burgeoning interdisciplinary field of close relationships. It can be seen from this table that many people (including many who were not listed) contributed to this development. The field was quite embryonic through the mid-1970s, but it took off with considerable vigor by the early to mid-1980s. We have taught a relationship course (both at the undergraduate and graduate levels) since the late 1970s (JH) and early 1980s (AW). The course has had a large following at a number of universities where we have taught. We are convinced that this relationship course has had such a strong following over the years because relationships dynamics are so vital a part of the lives of people in their 20s—not to say they are not vital in all of our lives.

T H E T O W E R I N G I M P O R TA N C E O F C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P S According to a recent Gallup survey (USA Today “snapshot” 4-14-98) of young adults’ (ages 18–34) priorities, 83% rated a close-knit family as their highest priority—even more so than a career (rated highest by 68%). Also, for all adults, 64% say that “relationships with loved ones always are on their minds” (with “stability/security” rated second at 51%—USA Today “snapshot,” 1-6-98). A recent poll of the 16 to 21 age group in the United Kingdom revealed that “to be happily married with children” was the most popular aspiration, coming out ahead of a successful business career (The Economist, January, 1999, p. 15). Further evidence about the impact of close relationships on health is rapidly accumulating. Myers and Diener (1995) report that people look to family and close relationships for the main sources of their happiness. Berkman, Leo-Summers, and Horwitz (1992) showed that the chances of survival for more than 1 year after a heart attack are more than twice as high among men and women at mid-life and beyond when the men and women are emotionally supported by two or more people. Kiecolt-Glaser and associates (1987) found that the immune systems of happily married persons fend off infections more readily than do the immune systems of unhappily married persons. More generally, Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers (1976) reported that people’s feelings about their relationships have a larger impact on their overall satisfaction with their lives than do their job, income, community, or even physical health. As we will see in the dissolution chapter (chapter 10), the end of a close relationship can be quite destructive to a person’s psychological and physical health.

D E F I N I N G A C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P How do we define a CR? One definition of close relationship that will be invaluable to our attempt to have a working definition was provided by a team of psychologists led by Harold Kelley who wrote one of the first textbooks on close relationships that emphasized a scientific orientation to the study of relationships. Kelley et al. (1983) defined a close relationship as: “. . . one of strong, frequent, and diverse interdependence [between two people] that lasts over a considerable period of time” (p. 38). Kelley et al. conceived interde-

4

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 5

D E F I N I N G

A

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P

pendence as the extent to which two people’s lives are closely intertwined, in terms of their behavior toward one another and thoughts and feelings about one another (see also Berscheid, Snyder, and Omoto, 1989). They also viewed the time factor as involving months or years rather than days. Interdependence is represented in Figure 1.1 from Kelley et al. (1983). The recursive, feedback loop of forces thought to be most important in an interdependent bonding are evident in this figure. It can be seen that in the middle box, Person P and Person O are involved in a series of interactions over time (arrows going back and forth reflect behavior such as verbal statements and nonverbal smiles and frowns; arrows going down reflect time). Outward arrows from the P 3 O box show how the couple affects the external environment (E soc) and how their interactions form a unit P,O that is different from each of them. This latter effect is quite interesting. The couple becomes the third part of the relationship (P, O, and the P–O unit). It is often said that each love relationship involves a particular type of coupling. This figure suggests that coupling derives from the particular interactions of the two people. Further, this figure shows an arrow going from the P,O unit back to the box of P times O interaction, (P 3 O) reflecting the influence of the particular nature of the couple on interactions. Finally, it should be noted from Figure 1.1 that outside events in the environment affect the P 3 O coupling. There are many examples of this phenomenon. During World War II, many marriages between American male soldiers and English women occurred when the soldiers spent sometimes up to a year in England in preparation for the Normandy invasion in 1944. Similarly, after hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida in the early 1990s, social service officials noted a 75% jump in divorces in the area most affected. Presumably, the hurricane introduced great stresses to couples’ relationships that already were troubled; the added stresses proved to be too much. The psychotherapist John Welwood (1990) defines a close relationship as “. . . rather than being just a form of togetherness, a ceaseless flowing back and forth between joining and separating” (p. 117). The “pulling” part frequently is one or both partner’s work at autonomy. Baxter and Montgomery (1996) more explicitly address the dialectic nature of relationships (e.g., our co-occurring needs for autonomy and dependency). The yin and yang of a close relationship is how to achieve balance between the couple’s need for being united on many critical dimensions and the need of the individual member of the couple to achieve autonomy. A simpler approach to defining a close relationship is a relationship that has extended over some period of time and involves a mutual understanding of closeness and mutual behavior that is seen by the couple as indicative of closeness. According to this definition, a number of deductions about what CRs are and are not may be made. For example, socalled “empty shell” and “convenience marriages” in which neither party may define the relationship as close do not constitute CR. What are some other major implications of this definition? Although the couple may use the term “love” or some other term for “closeness,” the key is that they each believe it exists to some degree between them and that they each believe that behavior consistent with that sentiment occurs. A close relationship is a process. It flows along, not unlike a river, with varying degrees of intensity and various bends and

5

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 6

Exx

SOCIETY

P–O Interaction Person P

Person O

CLOSE RELATIONSHIP

INDIVIDUALS

P,O

FIG. 1.1 Interdependence model. From Close Relationships by Harold H. Kelley, et. al. © 1983 by W. H. Freeman and Company.

6

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 7

D E F I N I N G

A

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P

crooks in its path. Although it may run dry, or terminate, the path that the relationship forged likely will continue, indefinitely, to have consequence in the minds and actions of its participants. Does it matter if the members of a couple feel different degrees of closeness or exhibit different degrees of behavior consistent with closeness? No. Most couples likely will show variability within the relationship and over time in their feelings and behavior. They need to be satisfied with the differences, or as is described in chapter 6 on maintenance, work toward resolutions to differences that are problematic. Will a close relationship exist if one party feels close and behaves as if he or she is close, while the second party does neither? No. The feeling and behavior must be mutual. Many people have imaginary lovers who never reciprocate. If there is no reciprocation, there is no close relationship. What about biological/blood relationships? Are they always close? No. Only if the feeling and behavior mutually support closeness. What about friendships? The same. Some may be close relationships; some are not. What about the length factor? Is it not possible that some “less extensive” periods of time will be propitious for the formation of a close relationship? Yes. But the average period for such a development will be “more extended,” or in the time frame of months or years as Kelley et al. (1983) contend. Certainly, a sexual relationship may be started on the average in a shorter period, but a sexual relationship does not necessarily make a close relationship. One may live only a short period after starting what clearly involves mutual closeness with a partner. We must say that such a person did indeed have a close relationship and that it unfortunately could not be extensive in nature. As we all age and sometimes take on new partners in older ages, there may be only a few weeks or months duration to some relationships. Our definition must entertain enough flexibility to consider the context of relating, and in such cases, close relationships clearly do exist. What about change over time? Is it not possible that mutuality in feeling and behavior may ebb and flow over a long relationship such that at some points, one or both parties may be essentially acting as if no close relationship exists. Yes. That is a common occurrence. They may or may not come back together, and how fatal the downward spiral is may be determined by many factors including perceived betrayal (as when one is involved in an affair that is found out about by the other, who perceives such an act as fatal in nature). What if one party vacillates greatly between feeling and expressions of closeness and feelings and messages that paint a picture of ambivalence (“I love you, but I don’t know if I want you in my life.”); while the other party generally is consistent in his or her feelings and behaviors, suggesting closeness? Some degree of ambivalence and vacillation exists in most close relationships [cf. Welwood’s (1990) argument]. However, the relationship in question was, at least at one time, a close one. As it moves toward a high degree of ambivalence because of the double-bind acts of one or both members, it may move away from a close relationship—indeed if this type of activity continues, one or both parties likely will “un declare” closeness. This type of relationship also may be a good candidate for therapy, especially if the party bringing the greatest degree of ambivalent behavior into the union honestly wants to try to see if the relationship can be restored. These considerations deal with only a few of the many issues people and scholars confront when they try to define the cherished state of a close relationship. Because we are such complex and changing creatures living in changing times, our definitional approach must be able to deal with a host of nuances and be flexible to context factors.

7

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 8

TABLE 1.2 Characteristics of Relationships 1. The content of the interactions. What do the people do together? What is their usual interaction pattern like? 2. The diversity of types of interaction within the relationship. The more types of activity the people do together, the more experiences are shared. 3. The qualities of the interactions. Did the people communicate constructively, competitively, loudly, softly, lovingly? Both content analysis of speech and nonverbal behavior will be relevant data. As important is what the people think about the merits and qualities of their relationship. 4. The relative frequency and patterning of relationships. This category includes the extent to which interactions of different types are jointly present. This characteristic pertains to the structure of the relationship (e.g., controlling or permissive interactions). 5. The reciprocity versus complementarity nature of the interactions. This distinction refers to the need for which satisfaction is sought in a relationship. Do the people reciprocate behaviors or complement one another (e.g., one is introverted and one extroverted)? Most close relationships involve a complex and idiosyncratic mix of reciprocal and complentarity interactive patterns. 6. Power and autonomy. Issues of power and autonomy are part of the complementarity pattern. One partner can be said to have power over the other if he or she can influence the quality of the consequences of other’s behavior. How power is exerted may be assessed by the quality of the interactions (e.g., persuasion vs. command). If one person in a relationship exercises power, that reduces the other’s autonomy. What is critical is how the power differential is perceived by the other. Lack of agreement about the exercise of power can lead to conflict. 7. Intimacy—the extent to which the people reveal themselves (emotionally, cognitively, and physically) to each other. Intimacy requires the person making the disclosure to feel understood, validated, and cared for and is thus related to trust (see discussion of “minding theory in chapter 6 on maintenance and enhancement of close relationships). 8. Interpersonal perception. Does one partner see the other as the other really is? Does one partner see the other as the other sees self? Does one partner feel understood by how the other partner sees him or her? Does the couple see the world outside the relationship in similar ways? These are critical questions for closeness. 9. Commitment. Do the partners strive to ensure the continuation of the relationship or improve its quality? Does each see the other as committed? 10. Satisfaction. Do the people perceive the relationship as close to their ideal, or preferable to other relationships they could be in? Adapted from Hinde, 1995.

8

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 9

I S S U E S

F A C I N G

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F R E L AT I O N S H I P S Complementing the question of what is a close relationship is the question of what are the characteristics of a relationship. Hinde (1995) provided an analysis of relationship characteristics. Similar to the Kelley et al. (1983) book, Hinde’s statement was aimed at enhancing the scientific and testable qualities of the field of close relationships. Table 1.2 presents Hinde’s (1995) characteristics of relationships. Unfortunately, too much research on relationships only studies the final satisfaction characteristic that Hinde (1995) delineated. Also, as Hinde acknowledges, the meaning or significance of a characteristic may depend on other aspects of the relationship. Conflict, for example, often is harmful, but it can be constructive if carried out in the context of commitment and strong signs of intimacy.

T H E O R Y I S S U E S FA C I N G T H E F I E L D O F C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P S What are some of the major theoretical issues facing the relationships field? As part of a presentation to a meeting of the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships, Kelley (1995) presented a challenge to the field. He contended that the field lacks a framework or a broad theory. He suggested that the root of the problem was the absence of a clear concept of “relationship.” After listening to the diverse presentations about relationships at this conference, Kelley (1995) said that two images of “relationship” emerged in his interpretation: One visualizes a fly in the spider’s web. “It exists as a smallish, undifferentiated entity at the center of a converging pattern of causal factors—a sort of victim of a network of external factors” (p. 1). Kelley said that the second image he derived for “relationship” from the various papers was no explicit representation because it exists “. . . as an invisible wraith in the background—a sort of ‘ghost in the machine’” (p. 1). Kelley saw this machine as some representation of a flow chart of psychological events, typically for one person. If the relationship had any existence at all, it was in the head of one person or possibly a shared schema with another. Kelley went on to define a relationship consistent with Kelley et al. (1983) and Kelley (1978) as a state of interaction process among two or more persons. It does not, according to Kelley, reside in its members’ minds. It is a state of interaction, that exhibits some pattern. Kelley used the term “interpersonologist” for the scholar of relationships who studies these interaction patterns. Such patterns will manifest themselves in the microphenomena of the field: giving affection and attention, quarreling, blaming, interrupting, praising, showing hurt, and so on. Kelley believes that his view of relationship is fairly radical and offers a different image of relationships compared to terms such as “marriage,” “dating,” “friendship,” “gay,” and co-worker. His definition speaks to the interaction patterns that fairly clearly define such terms. Kelley also argued that at present the field is too reliant on self-reports of behavior (see discussion of different methods later in this chapter). He believes that we need to do more observing, coding, and quantifying actual behavior. He believes that our main job is do more observation of relationship patterns that epitomize events such as loving behavior. Finally, he believes that this approach will allow the field to better establish reference points for the phenomena that are uniquely interpersonal. 9

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 10

1 .

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

Kelley’s points continue to have merit. As we will see, one of the most difficult enterprises we have, however, is the ethical observation of people’s private moments— which are the ones in which “relationship” may be actualized more than in public (or research participation) moments. Further, as suggested in the earlier emphasis on mutual definition and behavior as defining acts of a “close relationship,” we need to combine the study of interaction with the study of what people tell us is in their minds about their interactions (which may comport to “mutuality” both in thinking and doing). Without the evidence about their thinking about their interaction, we will not be able to know the meaning of the interaction in its fullest. Nor will we be able to predict future interaction patterns readily unless we know how people interpret their interactions with others and whether those interactions constitute “closeness” to them. In the end, how we can have a full science of close relationships unless we are both interpersonologists and phenomenologists? Berscheid (1999) also has provided an interesting commentary on the development of the close relationships field. She, too, argued that the individualistic orientation traditionally found in psychological studies needed to be replaced by an interpersonal focus for a more telling inquiry into close relationships. Attitudes, traits, skills, genes, and such are located in individuals, and the study of them does not give us information about interaction patterns. She notes that studies of human behavior conducted in relationless contexts cannot be expected to transfer to behavior in the relationship context typical of naturalistic contexts. Berscheid suggests that the rhythm of a relationship is revealed over time and situation; relationships are temporal, not static. Thus, we need to emphasize research that takes into account the time and situation (and to extrapolate from Berscheid, “culture” too), as we plan research. Berscheid contends that the development of relationship science will contribute to the amelioration of human problems (see also Berscheid, 1994; Berscheid & Reis, 1997), from violence to psychopathology. Further, she believes that an objective for the burgeoning field of the study of close relationships is to better inform public policy (cf. later discussion of the covenant marriage law). She suggests that the images people in the real world have of relationships is that they are impervious to the events of the world and their environments, when in truth such events and environmental conditions have enormous impacts on close relationships. Berscheid notes the finding of South and Lloyd (1995) that the risk of marital dissolution in the United States is highest in geographical areas where there is an abundance of potential alternatives to a present spouse. Truisms such as “love conquers all” are more illusory than accurate depictions of reality. Berscheid and her colleagues (see Berscheid, Ammazzalorso, Langenfeld, & Lopes, in press) have obtained data suggesting that people are better able to understand the causes of relationship events in retrospect, after some time has passed—in their “rearview mirror” so to speak. This type of evidence coheres with the argument divorced people make about learning a great deal from relationship breakdown. The essence of Berscheid’s comments, though, is that relationship scholars need to pay more attention to the environments influencing relationships and less to what the relationship participants think and feel at the time of the events in question. Berscheid (1999) concludes her provocative essay by asserting, “The emergence of relationship science represents the flag of a higher truth that has now been planted in the individualistic soul of our discipline” (p. 265).

10

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 11

D E M O G R A P H I C

T R E N D S

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS Flux is the name of the game in the content of close relationships, and that has been true for over 3 decades in the United States and much of the Western world. Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) summarize much of their evidence from a large-scale study of American couples conducted in the late 1970s with this prophetic statement: “Families are in a significant state of flux, and the uncertainty reverberates throughout society. One consequence is that people are apprehensive about the future—the future of personal relationships in general, and the future of the specific relationships that nourish them. They do not know how to design what they want or protect what they have. They are unsure about the future of marriage.” (pp. 35–36) Designing our family and relationship worlds still is a topic of high priority in the part of the early 21st century. Some Census data (Amato & Booth, 1997) regarding the considerable flux in the family and close romantic relationships over the last 3 decades include the developments presented in Table 1.3.

TABLE 1.3 Demographic Trends for Divorce 1. Since 1960, the number of divorces has tripled. It is estimated that there will be 1 million divorces in 1998, involving more than 1 million children. There are 70 million people in the United States (out of a total population of 260 million) who have been divorced at least once. 2. Today the average marriage lasts 7 years, and 10 million children live with a parent who is separated or divorced. 3. At least 150,000 divorces, or 1 in 7, will involve custody battles. 4. The number of single-parent families has more than quadrupled since 1960. There are approximately 27 million children under 18 living with only their mothers, up from 8 million in 1960. 5. Several million grandparents in the United States now are recycling as parents due to their children’s divorces (and need to have childcare while working) or their children being in prison, or because of other reasons. 6. Seven million children live with an alcoholic parent, and almost 1.2 million children run away from home each year. Not surprisingly, in this context of changing structure and meaning, suicide is the leading cause of death among American teenagers. In addition to these trends, Census Bureau data for 1998 indicate that in the United States, there were 42 million never-married adults in 1991 (twice the number that existed in 1971). According to Census Bureau figures, the number of men and women 30 to 44 who have never married more than doubled during the last 30 years. The Census Bureau reported that the number of U.S. adults married and living with their spouse declined to an all-time low in 1998 due increasing levels of divorced and never-married adults. The median age for first marriage has risen 4 years since the 1970s to about 24 years of age for

11

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 12

1 .

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

women and 26 for men in 1998. Other reasons for this delaying or foregoing of marriage is women’s greater financial independence, and the growing acceptance of alternative lifestyle choices (including staying single, homosexual, and cohabitation without marriage). Despite these trends, 1998 Census Bureau statistics suggest that Americans are a marrying people. Fifty-six percent of U.S. adults were married and living with their spouses. However, there continues to be a long-term trend toward a less-married population, with 59% married adults in the United States in 1990 versus 68% in 1970. Family sociologists have given us the term “starter marriage” for all the beginning marriages that end in divorce after a few years and in which no children are involved—the idea being that a first marriage is somewhat like a first home, from which one moves on. The quality of many marriages that remain intact over time also represents a topic of interest to marriage and family analysts. At the 1992 meeting of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, it was reported by Don-David Lusterman, a marital therapist in New York, that 10% to 12% of married people have had an affair lasting at least 1 month, which, in turn, when discovered by one of the uninvolved spouses leads that spouse to experience a type of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD—a term coined initially to refer to the suffering experienced by soldiers trying to recover from the psychological effects of participating in combat). Lusterman suggested that this reaction is a “disease” caused by being ripped apart by the deceit of the involved partner’s lying and loss of trust in him or her. He estimated that 50% of those who suddenly find out about such a protracted infidelity show some PTSD symptoms, which include: recurrent dreams of the event (e.g., it has been reported often by men that they had trouble avoiding imagery of their partner involved in sexual embrace with the outside person); difficulty concentrating; trouble sleeping; obsessive ruminations, and outbursts of anger. These details provide only a beginning sketch of the many developments in society in which the nature of the close relationship is a central concern. Viagra has been introduced as a drug that restores the libido of men (and may do so for women too, with expected introduction of the drug for women in the next few years). Especially for older persons, this introduction has provided a new dimension of sexual closeness that had not existed for years in their relationships. In the late 1990s, people were conceiving children in a variety of ways beyond the conventional biological approach. It has become an era of “high-tech” fertility, when babies are produced using sperm banks, egg donors, and frozen embryos. Fertility drugs have led to amazing situations in which mothers gave birth to up to eight children. In one lawsuit in 1998, a man sued his former girlfriend for fraud because she had become pregnant, even though they had agreed that she would use a foolproof birth control method. He argued in court that he had been robbed by her of his sperm. This case raised a number of questions including: Does a man have a right not to become a parent? Who is responsible for contraception? Indeed, why did he not wear a condom if he was so much against her becoming pregnant? Why can a woman abort an unwanted child, but a man in the same situation can be required to pay years of child support? As we will see in chapter 2 on gender, the previous questions represent some of the many gender questions now confronting women and men at all points along the continuum of relating. For some people, this debate is strident. For others, it is a naturally challenging discourse in light of the complexities of who we are as social and biological creatures. We could not expect anything less, nor are the questions and fervor of gender dialogue likely to abate in the first decade of the 21st century. 12

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 13

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

A N D

T H E

F A M I L Y

T H E E C O N O M Y A N D FA M I LY L I F E The relationship between the economy and close relationships increasingly is receiving attention among scholars and general analysts in this country today. In 1992, the economist Gary Becker of the University of Chicago won a Nobel Prize in economics, partially for his analysis of the relations among marriage and the economy. He argued that love, marriage, and family life respond more quickly to economics than to any manipulations politicians attempt in the sphere of public policy. In describing his position, Becker said, “People marry when the utility expected from marriage exceeds the utility expected from remaining single. . . . They expect to maximize the amount of household-produced commodities such as the quality of meals, the quality and quantity of children, prestige, recreation, companionship, love and health status” (quoted in Clarence Page’s column in the October 25, 1992, Chicago Tribune, Section 2, p. 7). Similarly, Becker suggested that couples divorce when the utility of staying married falls below the utility expected from getting divorced. Accordingly, good marriages are based on good business decisions. Becker’s position definitely sounds a bit simplistic. Such a conclusion readily could be developed based on the many other perspectives and factors involved in close relationships, some of which are discussed in this book. Nonetheless, making a living and relating are undoubtedly vitally related and must be addressed before many other issues with relationships can be tackled. We all know that part of the burden on contemporary families is the frequent necessity of all adult family members holding jobs—just to make ends meet. This burden may be particularly daunting for the single-parent family, because the one parent has to make a living, care for and nurture the children, and try to take care of self. All of these activities simply do not fit into the average week, not to mention the fact that the parent is totally “wiped out” in energy before the typical week is done. In the two-parent family, this scenario leads to both parents often coming home well after children arrive home from school. Or various day-care options—that are too commonly marginal in care—are pursued while the parents work long days.

C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P S A N D T H E FA M I LY: A N AT I O N A L D I S C O U R S E As we move into the 21st century, a national discourse on close relationships and the family is in full bloom. Many elements are driving this discourse, including demographic data such as the foregoing that have led to calls for national attention to the high, consistent divorce rate and its negative impacts on families and children. President Clinton’s involvement with Monica Lewinsky from 1995 to 1997, the ensuing national debate about his suitability to be President, and the continued revelations that long-married politicians had engaged in extramarital affairs were topics that fueled intense scrutiny of the workings of marriage. It was claimed by some commentators, for example, that Hillary Clinton stayed with her husband even after he acknowledged his involvement with Lewinsky because it was a “corporate marriage” or “convenience marriage.” These terms have been around for some time and signify a marriage carried out strictly for business or economic reasons, with little, if any, love and closeness involved. For the Clintons, some pundits defined their marriage as one in which she had power to carry out many programs and ambitions as the nation’s First Lady, but that involved little 13

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 14

1 .

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

closeness. Not so, according to Bill and Hillary. They affirmed often that they loved one another and were in their marriage for the long run. They also stressed the importance of forgiveness. Their supporters pointed out that all people commit degrees of wrong doing toward their partner in marriage, and that people should be wary in “casting the first stone.” The Clinton–Lewinsky affair also presented the general question of the nature of relationships that unfold when people engage in affairs. Many affairs may involve love and devotion. Apparently Bill and Monica, however, diverged in their perceptions of their relationship. Monica reported in one of her taped conversations with Linda Tripp, “I just knew he was in love with me” (Chicago Tribune, p. 10, September 22, 1998, story by Stephen J. Hedges). Clinton, though, testified that he was more of a friend and counselor to Lewinsky. This divergent situation takes us back to the definition of a close relationship that stresses mutual definition and behavior. Bill and Monica were involved in a complex relationship, but it cannot be called a close relationship. Whatever one’s position on the Clinton–Lewinsky affair or the Clintons’ marriage (and there was no shortage of opinions!), this situation played into a national discourse about family values and what the government should do to preserve the institution of marriage. This discussion has been picking up steam since Vice President Dan Quayle criticized the television show “Murphy Brown” in 1992, because the lead character gave birth to a child while she was single. Quayle argued that this plot did not represent a good family model to show on television. His criticism inspired a wealth of commentary, much of which argued that “good” and “bad” family examples can be found in all types of living and relationship or marital arrangements. In Brave New Families, Judith Stacy (1990) argued that, for the children involved, single-parent families are often improvements over two-parent families in which there is an extended period of marital conflict or strife. This position, however, was challenged by Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee (2000) in a book entitled The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce. In this book, Wallerstein et al. reported on following over 100 children of divorce over a 3 to 4 decade period and discovering that these people (now in mid-life) generally reported more unstable close relationship careers and other difficulties (such as in holding jobs) than did people from a nondivorced family comparison group. These results are discussed in more detail in chapter 10. Ahrons (1994) in The Good Divorce presents a similar argument that marriage, per se, is not the answer to health in a family. She goes on to advocate how to go about engaging in a civil divorce that protects any children involved, since she believes that divorce is here to stay and that we should adapt in a thoughtful way to its harmful impacts. One answer to the concern about marriage and divorce in the late 1990s was the advent of the Covenant Marriage Law that as of 1999 has been enacted into law in Louisiana and Arizona. This law requires premarital counseling (that can be done via a couple’s religious organization). Most significantly, it involves a more rigorous set of conditions for divorce than is present under the so-called “no fault” type of divorce that has been the law since the early 1970s in the United States. Grounds for divorce such as adultery need to be established. After a couple has filed for divorce, there is a 2-year waiting period for the divorce to be final under the Covenant Marriage Law. As of 1999, only a few hundred couples out of thousands getting married in Louisiana had elected to be married under this law. Critics had thought that many couples would feel pressured to marry under this law, because it implies greater faith in the relationship and its continuity. 14

01-070 C01 pp4 9/13/01 1:47 PM Page 15

C O N C L U S I O N S :

M O V I N G

I N T O

T H E

2 1

S T

C E N T U R Y

Strongly involved in the establishment of the Covenant Marriage Law have been certain conservative religious organizations, including evangelical protestant churches. These organizations and their spokespersons often suggest that marriage is being rendered less effective by the mores of an overly secular culture in the United States. Finally, the national discourse on relationships intense interest in sexual relationships, whether affairs during marriage, premarital relationships, teenage sex, or whatever. Some of this interest coincides with the media onslaught regarding the Clinton–Lewinsky affair. For example, in 1998 Hustler magazine Publisher Larry Flynt offered a million dollar reward for information regarding congressmen’s and high profile politicians’ sexual indiscretions. He apparently received many reports. Who knows about their truth, though Congressman Robert Livingston of Louisiana admitted to his affairs when confronted and indicated he planned to resign as well as not continue with his expected role as Speaker of the House in 1999. What should be of major interest to relationship scholars and thoughtful analysts of sexuality is that many of these media frenzies about people’s sex lives are horribly unfair and stigmatizing, often to totally innocent people such as uninvolved family members. Further, we can never know all of the details and clear-cut truths of other people’s most intimate relationships.

CONCLUSIONS: MOVING INTO THE 21ST CENTURY A vibrant field of work on close relationships exists as we move into the 21st century. The field is broad in representation among different disciplines, including: psychology, sociology, family studies, communication studies, and social work. It encompasses both experimental and nonexperimental, scientific and humanistic directions. The nuances and issues of relationship phenomena have inspired hundreds of enthusiastic young scholars to orient their work toward this field. This trend likely will continue to be pronounced as humans continue to embark on new relationship and family patterns and search for answers to relationships problems that have pervasive impacts on all aspects of their lives. As we will see in coming chapters, there are many areas needing work on theory and research in the close relationships field. We will come back to these issues in the final chapter. At this point, a listing of some of these issues facing the field as we enter the 21st century includes: 1. The need for more research that follows couples and family units across time and different situations and observes change processes. 2. The need for stronger theory and research on the deterioration of close relationships. 3. The need for comparison study of different types of close relationships (including friendships, homosexual and bisexual relationships). 4. The need for further work on how couples succeed in maintaining and enhancing their close relationships. 5. The need for more research on cross-cultural similarities and differences in close relationships. 6. The need for a stronger understanding of links among biological, psychophysiological, cognitive, emotional, social–environmental, and cultural forces as they affect close relationships. 7. The need for more research on close relationships at different developmental points, including especially at mid-life and beyond. 15

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 17

2 GENDER DIALOGUE Power is anathema to intimacy, as it is to love, because when you have power, you have fear . . . A lot of men borrowed me to massage themselves and I have borrowed some, but rarely did I find a man who really cared to find out who it is I am. “Man is in love and love what vanishes” is what Yeats said, but I say, that’s not the case, loves goes nowhere. It is there. It’s just we confuse it with our needs and put false gods in its place. —Merle Shain (1989, pp. 43, 53)

As we will see in this chapter, a dialogue about possible gender differences has been raging for over 30 years. That is why, in this book, we treat gender as a key idea in the whole relationships field and as one underlying many other concepts and evidence in the field. In early 2000, an evolutionary biologist named Thornhill ignited this dialogue further by arguing that rape had a genetic basis, the idea in brief being that rapists are spreading their seeds and hence perpetuating their species. Such an argument may seem quite odd. Yet, later in this chapter we review contemporary work on the application of evolutionary psychology to close relationships phenomena. The evolutionary psychology position about male’s presumed tendencies to seek paternity at almost any costs as part of their genetic disposition, bears some similarity to Thornhill’s thesis. By the way, all of this work is viewed as arguable to particularly offensive to various schools of thought in the relationship field. For example, it might be asked even at this point in our discussion how Thornhill would account for the fact that much rape is male on male or directed at children too young to conceive? We may think that gender is an artificial, social construction that is subject to great variation over time and place. Nonetheless, in the real world, people think that female– male differences exist and that they have major impacts, especially in the domain of close relationships. This theme of the power of gender pervades all of the other topics of this book. It was a thematic point in chapter 1, with many demographic trends reflecting gender differences (e.g., preponderance of heads in single-parent families; greater reduction in income associated with divorces, with females lower than males). Gender will be a thematic point in later discussions of physical attraction, sexuality, love and commitment, maintenance and enhancement, same-sex relationships, relationship violence, and dissolution.

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 18

2 .

G E N D E R

D I A L O G U E

TWO VERY DIFFERENT MARRIAGES Are women much more adept at relating, and close relationships in particular, than are men? Is the number of “good available women far greater than the number of “good available men”? These questions were posed by the sociologist Jessie Bernard, in her acclaimed The Future of Marriage, (1972, first edition; 1982, second edition). For the era from the 1970s into the early 1980s, she argued that especially for individuals in the high “20-something” and “30-something” age brackets, there was an overabundance of women with superb credentials in all areas, but a considerably lesser number of highly qualified men in the marriage pool. Bernard argued and presented a modicum of evidence to support the view that men and women had such disparate experiences of marriages, that there really were two marriages, “his” and “hers.” Bernard introduced the shock theory of marriage as applicable to the female. This idea was that traditional marriage—with its domestic, child-raising, and emotional caretaker obligations falling mostly on the female—constituted an emotional health hazard for the female. Bernard (writing in 1982) said, “Until yesterday, and for most women even today, every wife becomes a housewife” (p. 43). Bernard asserted that in this context, marriage made the woman sick, both figuratively and literally. Bernard also discussed how marriage even led to a lower status for women, in terms of losing certain legal rights. Bernard argued that to be happy in a relationship which imposes so many impediments on her, as traditional marriage does, a woman must be slightly ill mentally. She believed that women accustomed to expressing themselves freely could not be happy in such a relationship; it would be too confining and too punitive. She said that our culture, therefore, deformed the minds of girls, as traditional Chinese used to deform their feet, in order to shape them into happiness in marriage. Thus, it was possible that married women said they are happy because they are sick rather than sick because they are married. Bernard went on to say that because “yesterday’s wife” has put so many eggs into one basket, to the exclusion of almost every other pursuit, she has more at stake in making a go of it. When marriage fails, therefore, the woman has more to lose—everything in too many instances—and has nothing to fall back on (such as a good career that was uninterrupted by marriage). It is clear from long-term marriage endings in the 1980s and 1990s that there was much truth to Bernard’s assertions about the vulnerabilities of women in traditional marriages. For many of these women who put their careers on hold to raise families, they indeed had little to fall back on when divorce occurred. That reality began to be apparent to many women beginning marriages in the last 2 decades, who often followed different courses in their marriages as compared to the passages of their mothers. Although many of these younger women (who are in their late 20s through their early 40s at the turn of the 21st century) have been the primary caretakers in their families, they also have kept their careers going. The following is an excerpt from a 1995 account by a woman, then age 46, who was married 31 years, in what she described as a traditional relationship, and who felt that she had outgrown her husband. It reflects a script that is common among women in recent years leaving relationships after such long periods: Over the last 30 years, I have grown, and moved on to become a much broader person. I have finished my college education, developed a profession, new friends, and a strong sense of self-confidence. My husband has not grown. He has not changed 18

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 19

T W O

V E R Y

D I F F E R E N T

M A R R I A G E S

or moved forward in our relationship. He continues to live in the past. He was short to condemn me for going forward, telling me I was not totally committed to our relationship. He lived in jealousy, mistrust, denial, and wanted to be central in all that I did and thought about. The relationship was strained for the last 20 years and had begun to drain my energy. . . . (from an unpublished study by the author entitled “The aftermath of long-term marriage”) Bernard certainly was not timid in pointing to the pernicious nature of traditional marriage for women. What was the effect of such a conclusion offered by a prominent sociologist in a well-regarded and widely read book? Her position likely contributed positively to the evolution of women’s rights and more equity with men, and that contribution extended to more equitable relations when men and women established close relationships. At the same time, however, it is likely that there are many shadings of traditional women engaged in traditional marriages. Probably not all of these women are (or were) deluded in thinking that this was their only role in life. There are many women in the early 21st century who believe that changes have gone too far toward equality between the sexes. The 1956 Miss Universe, Carol Morris McCann, was quoted in 1992 as saying: “I almost think they’re overdoing it because I like the way men are. I like them to be men and I like for men to be in charge. I’m glad I grew up when I did” (Cedar Rapids Gazette, November 30, 1992, story by John Kirsch, p. 1). Despite these sentiments, all indicators point toward a massive change toward more equal close relationships among a great percentage of American couples, a development spurred along by analysts such as Bernard. In more recent times, there also has been a trend on the part of many women to leave successful careers to raise children or concentrate on careers that would readily fit with child-rearing (e.g., various cottage industries, made possible by computers, email, and FAX machines, carried out in the home). So-called “mommy wars” occurred in the 1990s among women who left outside jobs to stay home and care for their young children versus women who continued full-time work and employed day-care or other such alternative child-care approaches. One 36-year-old mother, a former political campaign consultant, who had returned to the home to raise her child was quoted in the Chicago Tribune in February, 1993, as saying that she encountered discrimination from mothers who had not made such a choice. She said that she felt she was a disappointment for the women who have worked so hard to broaden opportunities for other women. She indicated that she would wake up in the morning and look at her daughter, and she would look at the list of phone calls she was supposed to make and they didn’t seem that important. This woman went on to say that one of the rewards of motherhood is the look on her child’s face when she is baking cookies (p. 4, Feb. 7, 1993, “Womanews”, article by Lynda Richardson entitled “Mommy wars”). Thus, Bernard’s traditional marriage-poor mental health linkage for “her marriage” may be unfair to many women who were not deluded, did have options, and yet elected some form of traditional marriage. A final thought, though, is that the condition of too many traditional wives not more than 2 decades ago simply was dissatisfactory for their long-term emotional well-being. Many have since divorced and presented their stories of staying quiet and feeling too afraid for too long. What about “his marriage”? Bernard contended that there is no question but that marriage is good for men. She argued that there are few findings more consistent, less equivocal, and more convincing than the sometimes spectacular and always impressive superiority on 19

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 20

2 .

G E N D E R

D I A L O G U E

almost every index—demographic, psychological, or social—of married over nevermarried men. She noted that despite all the jokes about marriage in which men indulge, and all the complaints they lodge against it, it is one of the greatest boons of their sex. Employers, bankers, and insurance companies have long since known this. And whether they know it or not, men need marriage more than women do. As Samuel Johnson said, marriage is, indeed the best state for man in general, and every man is a worse man in proportion as he is unfit for the married state. Bernard also pointed to the fact that men typically remarry much more quickly than do women—usually within 3 years of divorce. But what is the basis for this argument about the value of marriage for men? Bernard suggested that as of the 1990s, at least, if not in the future, there was no better guarantor of long life, health, and happiness for men than a wife well socialized to perform the “duties of a wife,” willing to devote her life to taking care of him, providing, even enforcing, the regularity and security of a well-ordered home. Bernard’s treatment of the “traditional husband” was overgeneralized, and even if true in the earlier part of the 20 th century, was much less true toward the end of the century. If women often were deluded in accepting traditional roles, why were not men also deluded? Why could they, as well as the wife, not have prospered even more, psychologically at least, if they had bought into an egalitarian form of marriage (where there is sharing in all areas from choices about careers to who does the laundry)? It surely would not be a viable position to argue that somehow, men, having the power, must also have had the clarity and perspective to know what was good and bad for women as well as themselves. Of course, it could be argued that men recognized but did not take steps to change the inequities in their marriages because the inequities were in their interests—they facilitated their comforts, day-to-day living, and careers. In any case, Bernard did not address issues such as the possibility that men, too, were deluded, and even enslaved, by the institutionalization of how traditional marriages and close relationships were carried out. The famous anthropologist Margaret Mead said, “Every time we liberate a woman, we liberate a man” (in The Quotable Woman, 1991, p. 109). On another major topic, Bernard also did not give men credit for the many instances of mentoring women along in their careers so that they could ultimately begin to achieve equity. Many women were involved in traditional marriages for years before starting careers that were stimulated by men who wanted them to succeed and in general have more diverse lives. These men may have been their husbands, but in many cases, they were mentors in the business or educational communities. Likewise, many men have been instrumentally involved in the expansion of women’s opportunities such that women in the 90s generally have the option of pursuing careers, while at the same time deciding how and when to get married and raise children along the way. Overall, though, Bernard provided a useful view of men and what marriage meant to them some time ago. Bernard also addressed gender differences in extramarital relationships. She contended that men are more likely than women to want such relations, and to make the first move toward them. As Bernard updated her book in the late 1970s, she could not have had any notion that an event soon would occur to turn the world of extramarital relations on its head, namely: the discovery of AIDS.

20

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 21

H E R

V E R S U S

H I S

M A R R I A G E

T H E S I S

U P D AT I N G B E R N A R D ’ S HER VERSUS HIS MARRIAGE THESIS Although there have been changes toward more equality and equity in “her and his marriage” since Bernard’s work appeared, significant aspects of the former patterns remain as we enter the 21st century. In a work that emphasizes the value of work and careers for women, Barnett and Rivers (1996) provide the following summary on continuing difficulties experienced by women in traditional wife–mother roles: • At age 43, homemakers had more chronic health difficulties than did working women and seemed more disillusioned and frustrated, as found in a 1995 study. • A 1990 survey of depression in 1,000 families found that among the most depressed women were those who did not work and stayed home with children. • A 1989 study on a national longitudinal study of women and health showed that women involved both in work and family roles reported better physical health and fewer emotional problems than did nonemployed women. Barnett and Rivers also note the frequently reported evidence that women who are juggling work, family, personal health needs, and their relationships report considerable strain. This latter evidence is consistent with Hochschild’s (1989) work that showed that working women still were carrying out the bulk of household duties, as well as child care and possibly attending to the needs of elderly parents living in the household or nearby. Pointing strongly to the value women place on men’s contribution to household duties is Ward’s (1993) evidence that perceived unfairness in household labor reduced marital happiness for wives, but not for husbands. Grote, Frieze, and Stone (1996) came to the conclusion of continuing gender inequity in a study of division of family labor and relationship satisfaction: A striking feature of our results is that married men and women . . . appear to be caught in a Catch-22 situation—the dilemma is that one spouse’s gain in love and marital satisfaction may be the other’s loss, unless perhaps a perceived balanced division of labor is achieved. Unfortunately, the married women in this sample do not experience the positive effects on love of the sharing of family tasks . . . they do the lion’s share of the family work. Conversely, this traditional domestic arrangement seems to have a beneficial effect on men’s marital quality. (p. 225) Barnett and Rivers (1996) called for greater attention to the needs of working women and dual career relationships. They made these recommendations to employers: create travel policies that keep families in mind; examine the costs of relocation, with stress on what moves cost families in emotional and psychological terms; develop a sick-leave policy that includes fatherhood in the equation; encourage parental leave; give adequate vacation time; end “meeting-macho” policies, such as holding meetings at 7 a.m. or on Saturday mornings; and get top management involved in creating a manager–worker dialogue and new polices on issues that affect families. Like Bernard (1982), Barnett and Rivers (1996) voiced an emphasis on the importance of equality and equity between women and men in the diverse work activities each must perform in job and domestic areas. They are joined by other contemporary writers such as Tavris and Wade (1984), Worrell (1988), Grote et al. (1996), Winstead, Derlega, and Rose (1997), and Schwartz (1994).

21

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 22

2 .

G E N D E R

D I A L O G U E

Division of Labor in Close Relationships Sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s (1989) The Second Shift was a ground-breaking study showing that women who are in dual-career marriages usually end up with the lion’s share of domestic chores, although they may be working just as long and hard as their male partners at a full-time job. Hochschild’s study that produced this conclusion was remarkable in that it was done after a point in time when women were beginning to enter careers and have professional positions on a par with men, and after considerable national discourse about the importance of equity in close relationship functioning, including domestic duties. Although these data and conclusions may have changed some by the 21st century (with more and more “house-husbands”), sociologists argue that the data have not changed that drastically from the mid-1980s when Hochschild’s work was done.

TABLE 2.1 Hochschild’s “Second Shift” Study (Adapted Table of Findings) When & Where Conducted: mid-1980s, Bay Area, Northern California Method: Short questionnaire, interview and in-depth observation of 12 families. Housework was defined as tasks such as taking out garbage, picking up, vacuuming, making beds, cleaning bathrooms, doing laundry, routine meal preparation, cleanup, grocery shopping, car repair, lawn work, care for houseplants, care for pets, banking. Child care included physical care of the child (e.g., feeding, bathing), and educating (which included discipline). Sample: 50 two-job couples with children, as well as 45 other people (persons in marriages but spouse was not interviewed) and 12 families who were observed for a period of time. The sample represented most socioeconomic groups from lower middle to upper class; 32% had graduate degrees; 47% had one child; 38% had two children; 15% had three children. Only 8% had outside help with domestic/child-rearing activities; 70% were White, 24% Black, 3% Latino, and 3% Asian. Main Findings: • For the question “Can you tell me about your typical day?” Wives were much more likely to spontaneously mention something to do with the house; 3% of wives but 46% of husbands didn’t mention the house at all in their spontaneous comments. • 3% of the women and 31% of the men made no spontaneous mention of doing something for a child-like brushing hair or fixing a meal. • Working mothers also more often mentioned caring for people within the larger family circle, including their parents, their husbands’ parents, relatives, neighbors, and friends. • Men more often spoke of chores they liked or disliked, or would or would not do. Women more often spoke of chores that needed doing. • 25% of husbands and 53% of wives answered the question about how much each contributes with, “the wife always anticipates household chores.” • Only 18% of the men shared fully tasks in the major categories of housework and child care. Only 21% did a moderate amount; 61% did little.

22

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 23

H E R

V E R S U S

H I S

M A R R I A G E

T H E S I S

Table 2.1 shows some of the features of the study on which Hochschild based her conclusions about working women’s greater involvement than working men in domestic duties. Thus, we see from Hochschild’s data that the home duties aspect Bernard’s arguments about the “wife’s marriage” continued to have merit well after Bernard originally described two-marriage conception. Hochschild’s evidence is supported by Wortman, Biernat, and Lang (1991) who studied the perceptions of work overload of over 300 male and female professors, middle managers, and physicians. They found that women are in fact burdened by conflicts between work and family and that their husbands are not fully aware of that burden. Although over one half of their sample felt that their spouse supported their career, women were more likely to report that they provided more support for their husband’s career than he provided for their career. Table 2.2 presents a list of activities that wives and husbands in this study divided in their contribution to the relationship, with the person doing the most indicated for each activity.

TABLE 2.2 Division of Marriage Responsibilities Household Grocery shopping Planning meals Laundry done House cleaning Household finances Repairs and maintenance

Wife more Wife more Wife more Wife more About equal Husband more

Child care Playing Teaching Responding to requests Driving Physical care Getting up Staying home when sick

About equal About equal Wife somewhat more Wife somewhat more Wife more Wife more Wife more

Adapted from Wortman, Biernat, and Lang, 1991.

What makes Wortman et al.’s (1991) data daunting is the fact that they were collected from well-educated people. They show a continuing pattern of the wife contributing more to the main work of the home than does the husband. Have relationships changed that much as we enter the 21st century? One idea that seems to have some currency is the “postgender marriage” discussed later in this chapter and that does show much greater patterns of equity.

23

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 24

2 .

G E N D E R

D I A L O G U E

A DIALECTIC OF INTIMACY A N D D I S TA N C E An analysis of male-female differences by psychologist Lillian Rubin (Intimate Strangers, 1983) provides a view of sex differences in close relationships into the 1980s that is complementary to Bernard’s treatment. Based on her research conducted via clinical-type interviews, Rubin derived the title of her book from what she perceived to be the vast distance that often existed emotionally between many people in marriages and other types of heterosexual close relationships—a thesis consistent with Bernard’s two-marriage proposition. Men and women in close relationships were “intimate” but paradoxically “strangers” at the same time. Rubin essentially pegged the traditional marriage as a failed dream. Why? According to Rubin, the traditional marriage involved a clearly defined, highly specific set of roles and responsibilities for men and women in relationships to fulfill. It was not, however, an adaptive type of union, and as times changed, the arrangement did not work for many couples. Rubin suggested that marriages staggered under the burden of rigid role definitions. Women became depressed. Men withdrew emotionally and sometimes physically as well. Both men and women became angry and increasingly felt helpless in these tradition-bound relationships. Rubin (1983) poignantly described her own first marriage as falling victim to this historical moment by noting that she was married at nineteen to an up-and-coming professional man. She then spent years trying to fit herself to the model of the times: happy suburban housewife, charming hostess, helpmate to a husband’s burgeoning career. She knew that she awakened most mornings wishing she could stay in bed. But she told herself she was just tired. She knew there was an uneasiness that lived inside her—nothing intense, nothing dramatic, just a low-level malaise. She told herself that she was just a chronic malcontent. Similar to Bernard, Rubin viewed women as the primary family caretakers, or enablers, in close relationships and men as more focused on career issues. As implied in her description of her first marriage, Rubin saw this dichotomy in focus as part of the problem with traditional marriages. Rubin argued that from the earliest days in childhood, a woman is socialized to derive her status from another—to know that she will grow up to marry a man through whom she will live vicariously. Rubin believed that even by the 1990s, if a woman was married, she was still generally “placed” in the world according to who her husband was. And, if she had children, their successes or failures were taken to be hers. Further, and again similar to Bernard, Rubin felt that this “second fiddle” status contributed greatly to the devastation of the intimacy component in close relationships. Rubin contended that traditional relationships were not necessarily intimate ones. When we look below the surface, a reality emerges that is more complex than we had heretofore understood. Then we find that women have their own problems in dealing with intimacy and build their own defenses against it—that, like the men, women also experience internal conflict about closeness which creates anxiety and ambivalence, if not outright fear. However, in relating to men, women rarely have to face the conflict inside themselves squarely, precisely because men take care of the problem for them by their own unmistakable difficulties with closeness and connection. Men tend to be self-contained and protected from intrusion, except in the matter of sex.

24

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 25

I S

C O N T E M P O R A R Y

P S Y C H O L O G Y

F A I R

T O

M E N ?

One other line of reasoning sums up fairly well Rubin’s position on male–female connection. She argued that for men, the “logic of emotions” seems a contradiction in terms; but for women, it is not. Men who are traditionally socialized in this culture learn to repress emotions. They live by the logic of the mind, not the heart. Women, on the other hand, more readily move among emotional, cognitive, and intuitive states, but principally live by the logic of the heart—or emotions. Women are the ones, usually, who try to draw out the men, regarding that which they feel most deeply in life and that about which they have heartfelt feelings. For men, silence is more common, and it is a silence that isolates according to Rubin. Thus, Rubin’s thesis simply is that the logic of the mind versus the logic of the heart make for nonintimate bedmates. Like Bernard, Rubin was a trailblazer in analyzing traditional close relationships and suggesting that they often did a disservice to the dignity and well-being of women. Her work also helped pave the way for both sexes to begin a dialogue that led to more egalitarian forms of relating. There are a number of questions that can be raised about Rubin’s analysis. For example, what does Rubin mean by “intimate”? Is not her position as extreme as Bernard’s? Is it not open to the challenge that she has painted a picture that in no way applies to most males and females in close relationships at the time she was writing? Her conception of intimacy is vague. She wrote of sharing in practical and emotional areas on a regular basis, but she also indicated that such sharing alone was not enough. Intimacy also involves putting aside one’s public persona and believing “we can be loved for who we really are, that we can show our shadow side without fear, that our vulnerabilities will not be counted against us” (p. 68). Although Rubin may not give enough credit to traditional marriages that involve satisfactory understandings—whether or not the partners redefine roles and expectations—she did express considerable sympathy for males who often carry an oppressive responsibility in supporting a family. At one point when she had the role of supporting her family, she said to her husband, “‘I think you men are crazy to live your whole life this way. If I were a man, I wouldn’t have waited for women to call for a liberation movement: I’d have led it’” (p. 24).

IS CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOLOGY FA I R T O M E N ? One author has raised the question of whether the current literature of psychology is fair to men. Mackey (1997) argues that extant literature in psychology portrays the male as the villain of much that is wrong about relationships and the family. He contends that there is a political correctness to this writing, which paints breadwinning not as a parental role. Providing for one’s family is not given due as vital to the development of strong bonds in close relationships and the positive development of children nor is providing evaluated as a priority for the family. Mackey (1997) pointed to various discussions especially in the developmental psychology literature. For example, suggests that fathers “generally” are not nearly as involved in their children’s lives as mothers are. He contends that at the arrival of a first child, mothers much more than fathers usually adjust their lifestyles and work schedules to give priority to the child. Men, on the other hand, more often intensify their work efforts to become better or more stable providers.

25

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 26

2 .

G E N D E R

D I A L O G U E

Mackey’s thesis serves as a perspective that deserves attention both by psychologists and writers in analyzing contemporary families and gender relations. As is implied later in this chapter, the aura of antipathy toward men focusing on breadwinning likely has created confusion (and some anger) among men. When couples and families want a lot out of their intimate bonds, work, and lives in general, it is vital that women and men become adroit at juggling roles and respecting one another’s different talents and proclivities. Making money is no small part of the formula. If it is the “be-all-end-all” in a couple’s plan and behavior, it is very unlikely that any children who come into that relationship will prosper under such a rubric of meaning; even the couple themselves may be doomed. However, if money-making is rationally incorporated into the scheme of family planning and goals, this activity will play a positive role in the family’s meeting of its goals. It is the family’s responsibility to consciously giving attention to priorities of growing together and cherishing their time versus work and money-making.

GENDER AND WELL-BEING In light of Bernard’s thesis about “Her versus His Marriage,” an interesting contemporary question concerns whether women or men are most affected psychologically and physically by the quality of their marriage. Given Bernard’s argument, it might be deduced that men will be more adversely impacted if the marriage is not functioning well. Research in the 1980s and 1990s, however, would suggest that wives’ well-being is more on than line than is husbands’ health. Julien and Markman (1991) studied young and midlife couples and found that wives’ marital satisfaction was more influenced by social support from husbands than husbands’ marital satisfaction was influenced by social support from wives. Earlier work showed that the relations between work support and personal functioning are stronger among men than among women (Rubin, 1983). Such evidence may suggest that men are supported nowadays more by factors outside the marriage than by factors inside the marriage. Acitelli (1992) found that the more the husband attends to the marital relationship, the happier a wife is in terms of her marriage and overall life satisfaction. Murstein and Williams (1983) had interpreted a similar pattern of evidence as indicating that men have more power in the close relationship. Levenson, Cartensen, and Gottman (1993) argued that when a marriage is in trouble, a wife takes on more of the emotional work of repairing it, whereas husbands are more likely to withdraw. This reasoning is consistent with Acitelli’s (1992) finding that women think more about relationships once they are formed than do men and Holtzworth-Munroe and Jacobson’s (1985) evidence that, in general, women make more attributions about causality in a relationship than do men. As Gottman (1995) concluded, the male’s withdrawal behavior both may buffer the husband from unhealthy consequences, and also add to the wife’s emotional burden. On the other hand, a partner’s withdrawal will not be an effective strategy for relationship maintenance in the long run. If it is not, a long-term consequence for the person who withdrawals is to suffer the difficulties associated with relationship termination, and probably not to have learned much from the process.

26

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 27

T A L K :

A N

I N H E R E N T

S T U M B L I N G

B L O C K

TA L K : A N I N H E R E N T S T U M B L I N G BLOCK TO INTIMACY BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN? Linguist Deborah Tannen (1990) presented an influential argument that may help us understand some of the difficulties men and women encounter in trying to achieve intimacy. A major part of Tannen’s thesis pertained to gender differences. She argued that intimacy is critical in a world of connection “where individuals negotiate complex networks of friendship, minimize differences, try to reach consensus, and avoid the appearance of superiority, which would highlight differences” (p. 24). Tannen suggested that women are better at intimacy than are men. She argued that in general, men value independence more than intimacy. They value independence, Tannen contended, because it is a primary means of establishing status in the world. Tannen’s argument is not entirely coherent about why women in general emphasize intimacy and men emphasize independence. Conceivably, this situation emerged due to inequities in general in how men and women were treated in the home, school, and workplace. It may be changing, too, with more women represented in all areas of higher education (e.g., medicine, law, college teaching) and attaining professional positions comparable to those held by men. Tannen’s theme, however, suggests that such differences are not so readily changeable and may even have become part of the social evolution of the sexes (i.e., they are part of the way women and men are differentially socialized and almost genetic in their transmission from generation to generation). Tannen’s theory is that early in socialization, men and women grow up in psycholinguistically different worlds, where people talk to them differently. They, in turn, learn how to have conversations in ways that mirror their gender, region, and various sociocultural influences. It is in this early socialization, Tannen contends, that girls learn intimacy both from their mother (and to a lesser degree their father) and from their best friend—someone who is at the center of their identity. Boys, on the other hand, play in groups, compete, boast, and learn to take center stage through their competitive and often aggressive behavior. Boys also learn at an early age to “talk over” and interrupt girls; again, this behavior presumably is a mark of status-seeking. Of course, this conception is idealized, but Tannen made a persuasive case that differences in talking and conversational style begin to occur early and then pervade later adult close relationships. Tannen made a strong social psychological point in discussing the importance of the listener’s attributions to the talker. A significant school of thought in social psychology is that we perceive the world (and the talk we hear is part of that world) in terms of our own experience, needs, desires, motivations, and prejudices (Bartlett (1935). Tannen argued that most meaning in conversation did not reside in the words spoken at all, but was filled in by the person listening. Each person interpreted the meaning others were speaking in the spirit of differing status or symmetrical connection. She suggested that the likelihood that individuals tended to interpret someone else’s words as one or the other depended more on the hearer’s own focus, concerns, and habits than on the spirit in which the words were spoken. Tannen suggested that adult women are often unhappy with the reactions they get in daily interaction with men with whom they are close. Misunderstanding and resulting discontent are especially likely to occur when the women try to start what Tannen calls

27

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 28

2 .

G E N D E R

D I A L O G U E

“troubles talk,” which refers to working out interpersonal and other kinds of problems. Men do not readily engage in “troubles talk,” at least in the form that women do. Tannen pointed out that in these situations, men also are often unhappy because they are accused of responding in the wrong way when they are trying to be responsive. They may be trying to “fix” the problem, when women simply want to “air out” their concerns. Similarly, Tannen spotlighted the typical scenario in which a husband arrives home from work and immediately turns on the television and begins reading the newspaper, while his wife frustratingly tries to begin a conversation. The wife wants to talk not only about troubles, but also as a form of rapport-building. The husband feels tired and does not have anything to say, except a few grunts. He wonders why the wife cannot respect his desire to relax and do what he usually does when relaxing—which is not to talk to her! She, in turn, may nag or become angry about his silence. Over repeated instances of such miscommunication, a foundation is being developed for deep division in the relationship, division that may spawn other problems such as the woman taking a lover whom she believes will be more engaging in the communicative enterprise. The discerning reader may ask what do we know about gender differences in communication styles among married people? Research by Noller (1980, 1984) with married couples suggests a more complex picture than Tannen acknowledges in conceiving gender differences in communication styles. For example, Noller (1984) showed that inaccuracy in interpreting messages in conflicted couples may be due to partners’ misuse of nonverbal cues. Inaccurate, unhappy wives incorrectly used the vocal channel (e.g., tone of voice) in understanding the messages of their husbands, while accurate, happy wives correctly used the visual channel (e.g., facial expression). Similarly, Fitzpatrick (1988) reported that in happy marriages, couples are good at picking up emotional cues, whereas in unhappy marriages, couples do poorly in emotional translation. Fitzpatrick also showed that in unhappy marriages, couples may refuse to use the communication skills they do have. Interestingly, for unmarried and perhaps some married people too, Tannen suggested that men often go to women for rapport-building, or morale-upgrading as it were, under certain conditions. In particular, such an occasion is when the male has had his heart broken by a female. Why does he not take the matter to his male chums? Because they usually only talk about such topics as sports, business, politics, or perhaps women whom they would like to get to know. Again, Tannen’s thesis is that men use talk to preserve independence and negotiate and maintain status in some type of social order. Women are much more prone to discuss relationships, and in effect to be seen as relationship experts. Thus, a male’s going to a female friend (not a lover) with his romantic problems is only natural. To whom do women talk when they experience romantic breakups? Most of the time, they talk to other women. Tannen reported that one woman indicated she felt an obligation to tell most of her friends that she and her lover recently had brokenup. It was an important development in her life. Women tell their women friends about important life events and feel insulted often when their friends have withheld such information. Tannen contended that neither sex is wrong in their styles of communication. Both sexes, however, must be more aware of and address the almost inherent meaning gap in the way they usually communicate. If they do not address this gap, it likely will grow larger over time and eventually become one of the bases for dissolution of their relationship.

28

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 29

C H A N G I N G

T H E

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P

F O R M U L A

I M P R O V I N G C O M M U N I C AT I O N B E T W E E N MAN AND WOMAN Enhancement of sensitivity to typical male–female differences in communication patterns is at the heart of improving communication and intimacy between man and woman. This process is what Tannen called increasing understanding of “genderlect.” Of course, greater sensitivity does not mean that offensive behaviors such as interrupting other are necessarily changed. Yet, it is an essential first step. Taking interruption as an illustration, Tannen indicated that at its core, interruption concerns issues of dominance, control, and showing interest in and caring for one’s partner. Men are by far the biggest offenders. If they recognize that, and they care about their partner or women in general, they can learn to listen better. Listening will make them smarter because it will give them more information about what the woman is thinking and feeling. It will also greatly enhance the woman’s appreciation for the man’s respect for her views. Such is the seed for greater intimacy between them. Tannen’s final point in her 1990 book speaks to her belief that gender differences will not be eradicated however diligent we may try. She noted that if you understand gender differences in what she calls conversational style, you may not be able to prevent disagreements from arising. However, you stand a better chance of preventing them from spiraling out of control. She suggested that when sincere attempts to communicate end in stalemate, and a beloved partner seems irrational and obstinate, the different languages men and women speak can shake the foundation of our lives. And she asserted that understanding the other’s ways of talking is a giant leap across the communication gap between women and men, and a giant step toward opening lines of communication. What is most questionable about Tannen’s arguments? Not unlike the other theorists we have discussed in this chapter, she is painting broad strokes of the way people operate. We tend to believe her “truths,” in general. But the “in general” is critical. As has been suggested by many observers of men today, it appears that there is a significant number who are sensitive to how women communicate and how intimacy and communication go together. Many of these contemporary men were raised by single mothers.

CHANGING THE CLOSE R E L AT I O N S H I P F O R M U L A As we move into the 21st century, the dilemmas facing marriage and close relationships that Bernard, Rubin, Tannen and other pioneering analysts of gender relations analyzed have changed, sometimes rather dramatically. Couples in the mid to late 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s made choices about new arrangements. The so-called egalitarian close relationship is regarded as a “thoroughly modern” arrangement that attempts to permit two people to relate closely, while not abandoning the idea of raising a family and keeping going their careers. Bernard (1982) believed that such relationships would be prominent, and she was correct. According to its dictionary meaning, “egalitarian” refers to “belief in the equality of people.” As it gets translated into contemporary relationships, this term usually refers

29

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 30

2 .

G E N D E R

D I A L O G U E

to negotiated arrangements that hold as valid both the female’s and the male’s need and desire to work at a career, but also be equally involved in child-rearing and domestic activities. At the heart of this arrangement is a better forum of communication about needs and perceived problems than existed in previous decades of relating. Thus, the calls for change issued by theorists such as Bernard, Rubin, and Tannen have been well-received by modern couples. The changes have not been easy, and no doubt the form relationships take will continue to evolve. Nonetheless, this new arrangement is a lot better long-term nurturer of people’s self-esteem and need to be generative, or creative, in their accomplishments, as well as to be fair and thoughtful in how they relate to those closest to them. There are many dilemmas that two-career couples face. Some of the ones to be highlighted in this discussion include: two-career couples also trying to raise kids; day care; commuting to jobs; and how to preserve the quality of a relationship in the midst of carrying out other major responsibilities. Careers, marriages, and kids and how to intertwine contributions to all three (not to mention self-growth and time for oneself needs!) is imposing. An example comes from Rubin (1983). A woman, age 28, who in discussing choices she and her husband made said that before they were married they agreed they would share it all. She said that she was already on her way up in the agency she worked for. She was in advertising and about to be a big success; she had just landed her first account a couple of months before they got married. They had it all figured out. They would both work, have their careers, and at home, they would both take care of things there, too. She said that it was easy all right, until the kids came. Their biggest concern was child care. She noted that it was hard with one child, but with two it got to be such a constant pain and strain that she finally decided she had no choice but to leave work for the next few years. She thought she would be able to manage it if she could work part time, but that doesn’t work in advertising. Now she spends time doing freelance work at home. Day care for children of working parents (or one parent) is one of the most taxing issues facing families today. The economy often drives couples to have two-career arrangements, regardless of their leaning toward egalitarian or other philosophies of relating. According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, in 1998, more than 60% of working mothers, a record 65%, returned to work before their children’s first birthdays. In 1976, less than one third of the women returned to work by that time. An even larger proportion of working women, 65%, have no maternity leave. Among those who do, the average length is 10 weeks, a period that may or may not be paid. Given the divorce and separation rate, grandparents increasingly are shouldering part of the load of day care, and socialization of children in general. Commuting to jobs also is a problem facing many families in the 21st century. The commute may be in a heavily populated suburb and could last as long as 1 or even 2 hours each way. Or, there now are many couples who see one another on weekends and then live during the week near their job at some distant location. People often pursue such arrangements because better jobs are located elsewhere, but they also want to keep their kids in their present schools. The issue of maintaining intimacy in long-distance commuting situations is daunting for these couples. For example, in the 1983 “American Couples” study, Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) reported that a higher incidence of sexual affairs occurred among couples who lived apart

30

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 31

C H A N G I N G

T H E

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P

F O R M U L A

versus those who lived together. Gerstel and Gross (1984) wrote an interesting book entitled Commuting Marriage. They emphasized the commuting couple’s problem of being friends with members of the opposite sex in their hometowns and presented the following excerpt from a man who felt this type of social pressure: Um, I am married, so I am not in a position to go out with a woman just for a drink and spend the evening talking. I feel the inhibitions and the community is small enough so any time I go anyplace, I see somebody I know. (p. 95) Consider this comment Gerstel and Gross reported by a woman in a similar situation that also has implication for the ambiguity of availability for intimacy among those in commuting relationships: Here are these two single divorced men who I would like to say to: “Come over to supper,” and they would not have to think about it because I am married. But there is something in the situation that doesn’t allow that. They are really confused about how to relate to me. I’m not single, but my husband is not here. (p. 95) Going back to the original question of how couples are developing egalitarian close relationships, it is being done and it is cherished by both sexes—notwithstanding issues such as those mentioned previously. Social and public policy changes in many countries likely will continue this movement. We now are seeing family leave as a common practice in institutions and businesses. Child care will continue to be scrutinized. Good care now is available, especially to those with the money to afford it. Such care can contribute to the socialization process positively, even as good parents contribute to that process. The writer Aaron Latham (who wrote The Urban Cowboy) emphasized the male’s need to consider family above career in making decisions about work and schedules. In the following perceptive statement, he discussed the dilemma of juggling responsibilities in two-career marriages: Any marriage, especially the two-career marriage, is a juggling act. . . . And the important thing to know, as you’re juggling everything, is which of the balls are rubber and which are glass. And your family is a glass ball and your health is a glass ball, and your career is a rubber ball. When you are juggling, if you drop the glass ball, you’re not going to get it back. But the rubber ball, if you drop it, you’ll get it back. (quoted in The Dallas Morning News interview, with Diane Jennings, Aug. 21, 1988, Section E, “High Profile”) As seen in the chapter on family, one of the most fervent debates associated with how families socialize children today concerns whether or not the mother stays home with the children during their first few years of life. More traditional analysts suggest that it is essential for the mother to do so (see Hojat, 1990). Part of their argument is that the mother is the primary caretaker—always has been—and that the child must form an attachment with her or his mother early on in order for normal psychological functioning to occur. Otherwise, the child may feel abandoned. They relate this argument to Bowlby’s (1969) influential theorizing on the child’s sense of loss and bereavement when he or she loses a parent. On the other hand, other analysts argue that there are many sound ways to handle the children’s care during their early years that do not force the woman to give up her career,

31

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 32

2 .

G E N D E R

D I A L O G U E

or take a disadvantageous break, and stay at home. Writers such as Scarr (1984) have contended that those who want to maintain the more traditional arrangement pine for “the good old days,” when men were men and women were women. But what about the father? What about good day care? Each can also contribute strongly and positively to the child’s early care and socialization. These writers also argue that the woman’s ability to pursue her own self-actualization is essential to her psychological well-being, but also that of her children and husband. They assert that women have rights, too, and that with the cooperation of society and men, those rights can be honored at the same time that children are provided quality care.

POSTGENDER MARRIAGES Risman and Johnson-Sumerford (1998) developed the idea of “postgender marriage” to refer to marriages that involve conscious decisions by partners to divide family work equitably and to make gender as irrelevant as possible in decisions about duties and responsibilities. They refer to the more traditional relationships in which women do most of the household work as “. . . hegemonic conceptions of gender [that are] so taken for granted in our society that they are invisible in most families—the view of men as protectors, providers, and sexual aggressors, and women as naturally empathetic, nurturing, and sexually receptive . . .” (p. 24). The idea of postgender marriage is similar to Schwartz’s (1994) idea of peer marriage that will be discussed extensively in chapter 6. In peer marriages, couples strive for equity in all that they do together and make career decisions that allow them to coparent, decisions that may affect their advancement in their careers. Risman and Johnson-Sumerford (1998) conducted a study of these modern couples practicing postgender marriage. Their work was carried out in the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill area of North Carolina and involved interviewing 15 families, many of whom were professors and professionals at one of the local universities. In fact, 6 of the 15 wives made more money in their occupation than did their husbands, or worked in more prestigious positions. Most of the couples, however, held equally prestigious positions. Most of these families also had the income to hire child-care help when their children were infants. Most of the couples reported a deep friendship (similar to Schwartz’s, 1994, peer marriage couples). When power differentials existed, usually the wife had the greater power. Most of the couples had moved toward their type of relationship patterns out of their beliefs and practical facts such as who earned the most money. As for the division of household chores, Risman and Johnson-Sumerford (1998) noted that gender expectations seldom mentioned gender as a basis for division of labor by their respondents. As one wife said: We consciously divided up tasks. We didn’t tend to do the “you’ll do half of the time, I’ll do half of the time.” We tended to divide tasks up. . . . So Karl liked to cook. He cooked . . . He didn’t like to do laundry; I like to do laundry . . . He did talk about it, and we did consciously do it. (p. 30) Thus, the idea of postgender marriage certainly addresses some of the equity issues discussed in this chapter and delineated in research such as Hochschild’s (1989) work. Of course, the cynic might suggest that Risman and Johnson-Sumerford’s study mainly is a demonstration of the merit of income in allowing people to make more equitable decisions 32

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 33

F U T U R E

D I R E C T I O N S

A N D

C O N C L U S I O N S

and hire the help needed to allow both partners to pursue their careers, as well as put energy and time into their relationship, their children, their home, and other priorities in their lives.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS If it is assumed that men and women are different in many important psychological ways—and not just in terms of biological differences, why do these differences exist? One recent theory that attempts to explain such differences in mate preferences and mating practices is called evolutionary psychology (Buss, 1988, 1994). According to this position, men and women have developed different likes and patterns of mating behavior in an evolutionary way over time. Evolutionary psychology, which has little to offer to explain homosexuality, argues that men prefer women who are attractive, healthy, fertile, and who will bear them children. Their evolutionary mandate, as it were, is to spread their seeds among different women so as to enhance the odds of producing their own offspring. Women, on the other hand, invest more in the care of offspring than do men. Their charge is to acquire resources including those needed to care for their children and to raise them to be healthy and successful. Thus, according to this view, women desire most men who bring resources to the bonding. They also are less likely to engage in multiple sexual liaisons because their primary energy is directed toward nurturing children. It follows that the way to a person’s heart differs if you are a male or a female: If you are a female, be young, attractive, and healthy—the rest is history, as they say. If you are a male, be healthy enough to produce a fertile sperm, but most important have possessions or the capacity to obtain resources—simply, be wealthy! Evolutionary psychology will be discussed at some length in the sexuality chapter (chapter 4). At this point, it is important to emphasize that the evidence provided to date to support this position is indirect at best. Critics also have suggested that it tends to make apologies or excuses for male philandering, and contributes to gender stereotyping. The theory is interesting and no doubt evolution plays a role in our mating behavior. However, the theory is so gross that it does not attempt to explain the countless variations on male and female mating preferences, or the many strategies they develop to woo the opposite sex. It is, in effect, too simplistic to help much, even if it typically generates a good debate between men and women about how the system really works. Finally, the theory does not recognize further evolved patterns of similarity between the sexes. These patterns may have evolved because they get the job done—are adaptive—and cut across issues such as attractiveness, health, intelligence, child-rearing inclinations, and so on. Or, are men and women so different? This question appeals to me because it suggests that in some major spheres men and women are very similar. Or, to paraphrase the pioneering psychologist Harry Stack Sullivan, “They are more human than anything else.” Indeed, there likely are many universals of human psychology that are not qualified by gender differences. One of the most prominent human universals that we discuss later is that of our suffering and attempted recovery when we incur major losses. Females and males may grieve somewhat differently depending on their socialization experiences. Clearly, each hurts with great mental and emotional anguish when major close relationships end or death comes suddenly to a very close friend or lover. That is a universal truth. This line of analysis may help us break away from such an emphasis on gender differences. It may help in bringing about the truce that was discussed previously. It may help

33

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 34

2 .

G E N D E R

D I A L O G U E

heal. Too often, posited gender differences are rather arbitrary and subject to challenge because of their simplicity (e.g., “Women have no mechanical skills.” Men cannot ask for directions in finding a new city or road.”). One of the great realities of our lives is that our environmental and personal context so often overpower all other forces operating on our behavior. Men and women are similarly susceptible to such influences. Frequently, men show so-called feminine qualities in connection with their situational presses, just as women show so-called masculine traits in association with situational presses. We need to be cautious in seeing dichotomies in all areas between men and women. We need to pay more attention to women’s and men’s similar responses to their environments and inspire our children to do the same. The February, 1993 Chronicle of Higher Education listed 28 new and recent books on men and masculinity. The Chronicle (p. A6, article by Scott Heller) noted that the Marlboro Man, noted for strength and stoicism, was a fading image in the psyches of 1990s men and that these books reveal the diversity of qualities exhibited by the “new male.” Many of these men were raised in single-parent families by women, or in some cases by two women living together. They are much less hung up about trying to adhere to some standard of masculinity that dominated a couple of decades ago. They even readily embrace some feminine qualities, such as openness to emotions and greater expressiveness of emotions. The early part of the 21st century likely will signal with clarity a time in which many males carry out close relationships very differently than did males of other generations. As is implied by the discussion of egalitarian relationships, as well as the “postgender marriage,” these “new males” want their women colleagues to be fulfilled across the spectrum of major living dimensions—from family interests, to career aspirations, to selfgrowth, to sexuality. They believe that such fulfillment will be better for the relationship and them, too, than will conditions which involve significant deprivations along certain dimensions. To get the job of child-rearing done, they know that they have to be involved and are involved to a higher degree than ever before. They believe in and practice a higher degree of talking to and with their mates than did males coming of age in relationships in earlier generations. They balance commitment to intimacy with commitment to independence; and they are supportive both of intimacy and independence in females. They honor both differences and similarities between the sexes. At the same time, the “new male” recognizes that his own self-growth and -advancement must occur as well, if the relationship is to prosper. Thus, the issue of juggling and balancing sometimes incredibly disparate activities is omnipresent in this 21st century male depicted here as the “new male.” He may falter often under the load, but at least his heart is in the right place for major changes in behavior as well as attitude toward relating. In an analysis of male privilege based on interview evidence, Close (1995) suggested that contemporary men are not angry. Rather, they are confused. He argued that men are confused, and sometimes depressed, about sex roles at home, sexual harassment at work, the etiquette of dating, the etiquette of bread-winning, and about when to be sensitive and when to be macho. The reader might be quick to point out that for every “new male,” we likely will continue to encounter two “old males”; that is, there will be many (and maybe still a majority) males who simply do not change that much with the times and changing circumstances. They will cling to old ways because that is what they learned, or it simply seems

34

01-070 C02 pp3 9/13/01 1:46 PM Page 35

F U T U R E

D I R E C T I O N S

A N D

C O N C L U S I O N S

best for them personally and the woman and her needs be damned. Or, they may be principled traditionalists in the sense that they believe in traditional values and practices as the best way—not necessarily the best way for them personally. They, in fact, may strongly believe that older ways are best for women, even if they “keep women in their place” and continue to be rebelled against by many women. Most important, variation in approach among males is a characteristic of recent decades and probably will not change soon toward more uniformity. Adaptively, though, if women are happier with the so-called “new male,” in the long run that type of male’s approach to relating will make most men happier too and be more successful. Hence, from such a social evolutionary perspective, this “new male” position will become dominant. The men’s movement involves much more than has been described here. It may be here for some time to come, because the women’s movement continues today after beginning in earnest in the 1960s. A strong conclusion of this chapter is that each movement will be better off in the long run to the extent that it spawns and nurtures communication that crosses the gender divide. The men’s movement at present seems to involve a lot of work on male-to-male communication and empowerment. Conceivably, a maturing of the movement will ally with a tempered, 21st-century women’s movement that beckons conciliatory interaction.

35

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 37

3 PHYSICAL ATTRACTION AND EARLY DATING DYNAMICS The number of unmarried couples living together has skyrocketed. —Tian, USA TODAY (February 10, 2000, p. 15A)

1960 0.44 million total couples 0.20 million cohabiting couples 1980 1.6 million total couples 0.43 million cohabiting couples 1998 4.2 million total couples 1.5 million cohabiting couples

C H E C K I N G O U T R O M A N T I C PA R T N E R S The data in the opening excerpt give a glimpse of the large number of cohabiting couples in the United States by year 2000. This survey was of couples in the age range between 18 and 30. Thus, for total number of cohabiting couples, the number should be in the millions. Presumably, so many young couples are interested in cohabiting because such a step allows them to test out the possibilities of marriage. There are some scholars who believe that cohabitation before marriage is more likely to be associated with divorce when the couple eventually marries than if they did not cohabit before marriage (see later discussion of Popenoe’s work with the “Marriage Project” at Rutgers University). These scholars claim that cohabitation does not permit a good test of whether partners can test one another under difficult conditions. Rather, they say that cohabitation offers many of the privileges of marriage without the responsibilities, and thus is an inadequate test situation. They suggest that cohabitation may be especially damaging for the many young couples who have been in homes in which their parents have divorced. As we also will see in this chapter, other scholars are advocating a return to courtship. For example, in Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar, Amy and Leon Kass (2000) argue that young people want to return to passages in which they can find meaning and awe about the depth and breadth of marital love and the fragility of the human heart in matters of love before entering into marriage. A central question in this chapter is how physical attraction and early dating experiences are associated with close relationships. In the early 21st century, singles are more

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 38

3 .

E A R L Y

D A T I N G

D Y N A M I C S

cautious than they were 2 or 3 decades ago in searching for a partner. People are aware of the steady 40 to 50% divorce rate. Many have been in families in which there was a divorce by their parents or by their siblings. Love at first sight is rare and becoming rarer. Single persons, especially those in their 20s and 30s, are accustomed to a huge array of choices—from scores of channels on the TV to dozens of flavor of ice cream to every kind of music on the radio. This desire for many choices extends to the world of dating and mating. Some singles may be overwhelmed with too much choice. They have so much choice that they are excessively finicky about their choices; they may reject possibilities for the least sign of imperfection according to their system of analysis. They may even try to stitch together the perfect partner, via a Frankenstein operation, by taking bits and pieces from multiple persons whom they have dated and trying to find or project these parts all in the same person. Does this melding together process work? Probably no better than love at first sight. Nonetheless, it is probable that to be judiciously careful in the search for a partner is a wise tactic (see Cate & Lloyd, 1992). As was discussed in chapter 1, there also are interesting social movements afoot in dating behavior. One is “not to date!” Similar to the Kasses’ (2000) logic mentioned previously, author Joshua Harris, age 22, in 1997 published I Kissed Dating Goodbye. This book defined the nondating movement. Harris claims to speak for many young people. He argues that dating now is like shopping when you do not have money. He claims that he once had a vibrant dating life, but that because of his religious faith, he decided to give up dating. He and other young people are giving up dating until they find the person they want to marry. They feel that nondating will reduce the temptation to have sex before marriage. Other reasons to give up dating include: 1. it takes time and energy away from developing a career; 2. it does not necessarily lead to commitment, but rather just to recreational activity, including sex; 3. it isolates couples, leading to ruined friendships; 4. it leads to an artificial environment in which to evaluate other people; 5. it mistakes a physical relationship for love; and 6. it tends to skip the friendship stage of a relationship. Harris gives many workshops, with each attended by more than 1,000 youth who apparently believe in his message. Despite the interest of many young people in this nondating movement, the vast majority of young people will continue to date and court in the interests of intimacy. They will do so because they are strongly motivated to find closeness, this is the best route they know to pursue closeness, and they believe it is important to test out relationships (including sexual ones) prior to making commitments.

W H Y D O W E WA N T T O M E E T O T H E R S FOR CLOSENESS? Some may demur, but it is a truism of human life that all humans desire a degree of closeness with other humans. Although there are many specific reasons for wanting to meet others for closeness, we basically can group them into these general categories: 38

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 39

P H Y S I C A L

A T T R A C T I O N

1. for a close relationship in the fullest, including sex, possibly having and raising children; 2. for friendship and companionship, to share confidences, and to facilitate our emotional lives, without necessarily forming a full-blown close relationship; 3. for sex and erotic companionship, again without necessarily forming a complete close relationship. More generally, people usually say that they want to meet others in order to fall in love, and that will be the major phenomenological “why” that we discuss next. One may argue that the two categories involving friendship or sex are often blurred into the first, more encompassing category. That is true. People sometimes develop good friends with whom they later become lovers and develop full close relationships. Likewise, people, sometimes enter relationships mainly for sexual pleasure, but the relationship then turns into a close relationship. Now, what about people’s knowledge of their motivation to meet others for closeness? Are they usually aware of such motivation? We think that in extemporaneous actions (i.e., those taken on the spur of the moment), our awareness of what we are thinking and feeling may be dampened or distracted. On the other hand, for planned meetings such as those occurring during social occasions (e.g., “singles dances,” happy hour in clubs or social organizations, or encounters in a nightclub or bar), it seems likely that people often are quite strategic in how they conduct themselves. They put on fronts (Goffman, 1959), suggesting how important or desirable they are. In these settings, people also try to size up one another and make determinations about good prospects for them. Sometimes, they may even try to con others, especially regarding their own fine qualities or what they can do to make life easier for the other person. As people become more experienced in these types of encounters, they may be highly aware of their thoughts and motives, and they likely are pretty good judges of others’ thoughts and motives as well. An important theory about why we seek others for closeness was developed by Baumeister and Leary (1995), in a theory of the need to belong. They argue that an adequate level of social support buffers against physical and mental health problems. People who belong to a supportive, caring network of relationships are people with sound minds and bodies. Conversely, an insufficient level of social support renders the individual vulnerable to a plethora of ill effects. Individuals who do not engage in friendly, positive interactions on a frequent basis are also more likely to suffer from emotional distress, mental anguish, and physical illness. Baumeister and Leary (1995) also distinguish between the quantity and quality of contact between two individuals. They conclude that the need to belong is satisfied only when both aspects are present, such that (1) the individual has a relational bond with another that involves their frequent contact, and (2) interactions within the relationship are positive and relatively nonconflicted. Recent research by Joiner, Vohs, and Schmidt (2000) is supportive of this theory.

P H Y S I C A L AT T R A C T I O N My looks grease the palm of life, but I resent that they’re so important in our society. I resent that people are excluded . . . But I’m certainly not talking about myself, because it’s clear I’ve gotten the long end of the stick.—Candice Bergen interview in The Kansas City Times, April 14, 1984 (p. C-2) 39

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 40

3 .

E A R L Y

D A T I N G

D Y N A M I C S

Candice Bergen’s point about her looks reflects a potent truth for early relating and dating. Physical attraction is a factor that determines people’s choices, and on which people tend to match themselves when they settle into dating relationships. The physical attraction (PA) effect (Berscheid & Walster, 1978) is a powerful determinant of our quest for closeness. Initially, all we know about other is other’s exterior. In any culture, there are qualities that attract us to the physical selves of others. As we discussed in chapter 2, males and females may differ somewhat regarding what attracts them. However, both sexes usually have quite strong views about qualities that do attract them, even as individuals have their particular preferences. As the following illustration suggests, visual imagery can be a potent part of male sexual desire. The main character, Rusty, in Scott Turow’s (1987) acclaimed novel Presumed Innocent provides an illustration of a moment filled with possibility, or the sexually charged form of “chemistry,” as he contemplated beginning an affair with a woman associate, who later was killed—a murder for which he was charged. The visual scene in this prose is powerful to say the least: While I stood there, in that pose, she returned. “Rusty,” she said brightly. A chipper greeting. She pushed past me. I watched her bend to pull a file from her drawer. A parched arrow of sensation ran through me, at the way her tweed skirt pulled across her bottom, the smoothness of her calves flexing in her hose. . . . “I’d like to see you again, I said.” (p. 138) Such sexual attraction may occur at first meetings; it also may develop over time in a relationship. Whatever the case, it is a state of being that people generally value when they feel it in the presence of other—even if they know it may get them in trouble because it leads to impulsive behavior. As suggested in the Rusty story, a compelling idea among most people is that there is some hard-to-define interactive quality that sometimes emerges between people and that it is like a chemical reaction. As one student in my class said, “I think chemistry, that immediate sense of warmth that is somehow inexplicable, is very important.” There are some questions that must be asked about this so-called chemistry effect. Is the effect differentially experienced by males and females? In the prior example of Rusty’s reaction to the woman, obviously physical attractiveness, or certain cues thereof, and sexual desire are driving forces. For women, the same forces may be operative. As another student noted, women also are affected by behavior that connotes emotional endearment— “the way he looked at me was so enchanting”—without necessarily implying the possibility of sexual interaction. Another question is, does a relationship have to involve physical attraction in order to be satisfying? Probably not. People learn to love and value others on many grounds, including but not restricted to physical attraction. So what can we conclude from this discussion of the PA criterion people often use in the early going in trying to find partners? It appears that people live their entire lives, even into their 80s and beyond, and continue to be compelled to some degree by physical looks. One final little story will end this discussion of how beauty and other elements blend together in relationships—even as people age. In 1992, Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy, age 60, of Massachusetts got married to a 38-year-old Washington, DC attorney Victoria Reggie, whose family had been close to the Kennedy family for many years. Each was divorced. Their love affair is vintage

40

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 41

R E A D I N E S S

T O

M E E T

O T H E R S

Americana. An older, wealthy, educated, powerful, legendary, historically important man marries a younger, well-educated, professional woman who happens to be quite attractive. Interestingly, though, this relationship that appears to be going along swimmingly, as the English say, is one that involved a merger of some dissimilarity. His background is New England, wealthy, public-service–oriented, and liberal. Hers is Louisiana, the South, business-oriented, wealthy, and more conservative. Apparently, though, as revealed in a Boston Globe, October 7, 1992, interview by Jack Thomas with them, the dissimilarities are dissipating in light of the worldview commonalities being established in the relationship. In this interview, Vicki held his hand—which the interviewer reported trembled slightly, presumably because of Ted’s long-term drinking problem—and even jumped into the conversation to defend the Senator against people who had attacked him. She said: My sense is that those are people who don’t know you. They’re people who don’t know us together, and I think it’s gratifying that people who, when they get to know Ted, all that falls away and they get to know the real person. Later in the same interview, Vicki again intervenes in a question–answer exchange by as the interviewer says “refusing to join in conversation that diminishes him.” Such a loving scene, carried out in the Senator’s Cape Cod summer home, portends well for this relationship. Possibly, Ted and Vicki each has found a partner who meets well the complex criteria they have for closeness at this point in their lives. The moral of this story is that criteria cannot be readily analyzed apart from the web of circumstances each of us has around our life and the needs manifest in our particular passage at the time we look for closeness. It should be noted that in 2000 tabloids reported that the Kennedys’ marriage was on the rocks. These stories reported that Ted again was drinking and flirting with other women and that Vicki was threatening divorce. Perhaps, the diverse ingredients going into this marriage make it a tenuous long-term balancing act. If that is so, it very likely is true for many mid-life marriages that occur, some going all the way to death. The Kennedys’ marriage often is compared to that of well-known Washington politicos, James Carville, a Democratic strategist, and Mary Matlin, a Republican commentator, that has weathered several years after they were married in their 40s. They have had a child and often speak of how they preserve their closeness by caring about their marriage, child, and basic human values, although they do not talk politics in the bedroom!

READINESS TO MEET OTHERS Timing is everything in meeting others for closeness. It is a valued state of human kind to be “together,” “stable,” “recovered,” and to be of sufficiently high self-esteem that one feels good about the station and direction of one’s life. All that is a way of saying someone is “ready for love,” or any kind of major living adventure. How do we know when we are ready for love, especially after we have recently incurred the loss of a close relationship? The process of healing varies greatly across people and as a function of the type of loss they have experienced. For example, a person age 60 suffering the sudden death of a spouse may grieve for years before feeling ready to try to meet other possible romantic partners again. On the other hand, a person who feels that s/he went through an emotional divorce at some midpoint in a relationship may move quickly into another close relationship when such relationship becomes possible. Pennebaker (1990) suggests that a typical

41

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 42

3 .

E A R L Y

D A T I N G

D Y N A M I C S

recovery period for people who have recently divorced or had a long-term close relationship end is 18 months. The grieving or recovery period, however, should not be pressed, and again some will take much longer than others. Will the ending of simple dating relationships require less time for healing? Maybe, especially if neither partner felt very attached or committed. We should be careful, however, not to blithely conclude that any relationship is “simple.” The relationship is most centrally a creation or construction of the interacting partners. Only they can feel that it did not matter too much and, hence, not be too affected by it. Sometimes, observers including college teachers look at college-student romances as involving little depth—after all, the partners may be together only a half-year or so and even then continue to engage in some outside dating. As shown by Sorenson, Russell, Harkness, and Harvey (1993), when such relationships end, they too often are quite painful. People in such relationships often feel that they have given a lot (emotionally, sexually, in introducing their partners to parents and friends, and in giving major gifts). Thus, for those who feel that way, the parting is hardly simple. The recovery period may last even longer than the relationship. It also may include the individual’s taking a “sabbatical” from dating or serious relating, in order to acquire more perspective and tranquility about what has been happening in his or her relationship life.

Loneliness. There are lots of people alone and even more lonely. According to Census Bureau statistics, more than 23 million people live alone in the United States, and that number is growing exponentially each decade. These people are single, divorced, widowed, separated. As strange as it may seem, college students are believed to be among the most lonely people in this country. Why? Most of them have been uprooted from their family support systems, their lifelong friends, and are searching to establish an identity, find a good occupation, and possibly establish a lifelong close relationship while in college. College students usually adjust to this new lonely environment and set of new responsibilities. But it takes time and sometimes takes a toll on physical and mental health. In the United States, 10 million men and 17 million women live alone in the United States, according to 1996 Bureau of Statistics figures. Living alone does not necessarily produce loneliness. It may produce positive states of mind and body. Loneliness reflects mainly a lack of intimacy. Loneliness often is a state of mind that involves some unfulfilled goal, such as to have and be with a lover (who may have spurned the lonely person). Thus, there is much truth in the saying that a person can be in a room full of people and still feel very lonely. It also is true that one can be married or involved with a romantic partner and yet feel very lonely. Actress Liv Ullmann (1976) made such a point in her autobiography Changing: I believe that it is sometimes less difficult to wake up and feel that I am alone when I really am, than to wake up with someone else and be lonely. . . . I hope that we people can grow together, side by side, and bring joy to each other. Without one having to be crushed so that the other may stay strong. (p. 259) Louise Bernikow author of Alone in America (1987) argued that women are more willing to admit their loneliness than are men. Women may be more in touch with their feelings, or they simply may be more verbal and articulate about internal feeling states than

42

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 43

R E A D I N E S S

T O

M E E T

O T H E R S

are men. Based on her interviews with people across the nation, Bernikow suggested that men often reacted to the loneliness of divorce or dissolution of a close relationship by moving quickly into new romantic liaisons. Women, on the other hand, took longer to reengage. She indicated that one of the major findings in her study was men’s surprise when women left them. She said: The question of attachment or support or intimacy or connection had risen up like a dragon, quite suddenly and almost always precipitated by a crisis. Women tended to pay more attention to these issues, to worry or care almost constantly about their relationships with other people. Men took it for granted that there would be ‘someone there.’ It was as though, for many of them, they felt that if they did what was expected of them—namely, got good jobs and made decent livings—the rest would somehow fall into place . . . I had the impression, particularly with men who had been left by women, that those women had been background noise, like the television set turned on. They had been ‘someone there’ at the end of the day. (p. 61) Bernikow’s evidence resonates with some of the results indicating that in general, women not only are more articulate about relationship issues, but also they are more adroit in buffering themselves against loss and consequent loneliness via their skill at having and nurturing networks of friends and confidants (Harvey, 1987). Despite this apparent difference in the sexes in terms of loneliness, there are millions of both sexes regularly searching, sometimes fervently, for others with whom to share the most intimate parts of their lives. When people are lonely, they reach out to others for comfort. The reaching out may or may not be timely. If it is done before one has had time to work on and heal from a past relationship, it is untimely for self. If it is perceived as an act of desperation, others likely will be less supportive than if it is seen as a request for equal participation in a relationship of some level. Many people who look to the personal ads as a way of meeting others are extremely leery of those who are recently separated. They are not interested in having their ears bent listening to the recital of infinite pain from the wounded warrior of love. Loneliness may come upon us quickly, like a thief in the night. It comes at unexpected moments as a wrenching sickness of the heart. You may look at your marriage partner across the breakfast table and wonder what is wrong. You are not supposed to feel detached in the company of the person you love. But you do. As the mother’s advice to the new bride of another epoch went, “Now, you’ll learn what loneliness is all about.” This sensation, however unexpected, is frequently the start of a slow erosion in one’s partner’s love for and commitment to another. Loneliness can both define a state of readiness to relate closely to other and represent a “why” of desiring such a relationship. Like depression, we all experience degrees of loneliness, and in different situations, we all are subject to experiencing it. It certainly is not just a drawback, as when too much of it makes a person a bad risk just then for a close relationship. Certainly the recognition that one is lonely is a stimulus to search for something to quell that feeling. When we are lonely and desperately reach out for others to try to escape our pain, we may reach out to others in quasi-closeness to try to diminish our isolation. But the likelihood is that they will not be our salvation from the loneliness. They may be good distracters for a while. They may help us get back on our feet and begin to heal ourselves.

43

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 44

3 .

E A R L Y

D A T I N G

D Y N A M I C S

We have lots of terms in the popular vernacular of such relationships that refer to the role played by others who are helping a person get over love sickness and loneliness. We talk about “transitional others” often when we are analyzing how a person who has ended one relationship may quickly move on to another—as if the new relationship will be a transition or bridge to something more stable and substantial. We refer to people playing the transitional role as “mopping up” a person who is in emotional distress because of a relationship loss and needs the comfort of someone else. We often say that the person seeking such comfort is on the “rebound” from the lost love. In all of these constructions, the emphasis is not on forming a relationship for the intrinsic merits of the possible relationship. Rather, the emphasis is on the need of one, or possibly both partners because each may be on the “rebound.” Such constructions and the attendant psychology of these situations are not conducive to healthy, stable close relationships. Someone is too needy now. Someone else may be feeling too used now. So, such a relationship has a major handicap to begin with and then likely will encounter all of the interaction problems associated with the partners worrying that, indeed, their relationship is premised only on factors such as one’s need for emotional support or one’s loneliness or one’s need to play caretaker and “mop up” the needy. Despite such logic, many relationships start this way, and some—probably not a lot—survive such impediments. Loneliness often is a malady of great proportions for young people in families experiencing divorce. Rubenstein, Shaver, and Peplau (1979) found that kids below age 6 experience the most loneliness in divorce situations, followed by children ages 7 to 12, and the least lonely being kids 13 to 18. We can explain these data by consideration of the previous ideas. The younger the children in the divorce situation, the fewer their friends on whom they can depend and fewer resources such as coping skills in dealing with major losses.

T h e o r i e s o f C o u r t s h i p a n d P ro g re s s i o n To w a rd C l o s e n e s s Historically, stage models of courtship and progression toward closeness have been prominent in the relationship field. Stage models suggest that people go through different stages in order to convince themselves to make the marital commitment. The wheel theory (Reiss, 1960) was one of the first such models. According to this model, the first sequential process is that of developing rapport, such as feeling at ease. Second, the rapport facilitates ease of communication. Third, self-revelation begins to occur, as the individuals share information about their backgrounds, beliefs, attitudes, and the like. The self-revelation contributes to a feeling of mutual dependency, or interdependence as discussed in chapter 1. In this stage, the relationship becomes more exclusive, and the partners begin to rely upon one another and be there for one another. Finally, Reiss conceives that if a couple has passed the previous stages, they begin to assess whether their relationship provides intimacy need fulfillment (i.e., provide a person to whom to disclose deep feelings and to love). Another stage theory of the progression of relationships was developed by Kerckhoff and Davis (1962). These researchers followed couples over an 8-month period. It was found that overall, only value consensus in attitudes and beliefs was related to progress toward marriage over the 8 months. Value consensus was particularly important for couples who had been dating less than 18 months. However, for couples who had been dating more than 18 months, only need complementarity (e.g., a person who is extraverted matching well with a person who is introverted) predicted progress toward marriage. This evidence was used to suggest a series of filters from background factors such as religion to value consensus to need complementarity was the typical progression toward marriage. 44

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 45

R E L A T I O N S H I P

C O G N I T I O N

A well-known theory of filters was proposed Murstein (1970) in his Stimulus– Value–Role model. According to this model, the couple moves from being attracted (physical attractiveness, or the PA effect) to one another to discovering whether or not they have value consensus. Then, if they pass those filters, they eventually move to complementarity or role differentiation within the relationship. More recently, Murstein (1987) suggests that all three factors may operate at any time in a relationship, but that one or the other predominates. A final stage model we consider is the most elaborate: Lewis (1972) six-stage development model. In order, these stages are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

perceiving similarities such as background congruence; achieving pair rapport; inducing self-disclosure; role-taking; achieving interpersonal role-fit; and achieving dyadic crystallization.

This latter stage is new in these models and refers to progressive involvement and interdependence, as the individuals begin to develop a couple identity. Lewis followed couples over a period of time in developing this model. He indicates that couples who progress through the six stages may not necessarily end up married to one another.

A LT E R N AT I V E S T O S TA G E M O D E L S Scholars such as Duck and Sants (1983) and Cate and Lloyd (1992) have contended that stage models portray relationship development often in unreasonably static terms. They suggest that attraction and similarity in attitudes and beliefs may be important early in the development. Later, however, the yin and yang of interaction between the partners is the critical factor later on in determining further development. Surra (1990) has elaborated on this interpersonal process position by suggesting that couples show gradual differentiation, involving periods of stability, instability, growth, and decline [cf. Welwood’s (1990) dialectic process in a relationship of a “ceaseless flow of separating and reuniting”].

R E L AT I O N S H I P C O G N I T I O N Berscheid (1994) reviewed an extensive part of the relationships literature and showed the value of using the lens of relationship cognition to examine this literature. Relationship cognition in judging others’ traits, attractiveness, and developing expectations about their behavior is critical in the process of meeting and getting to know others (Fiske & Taylor, 1991), and hence in the early processes of dating and mating. Cognitive social psychology basically is concerned with how people’s mental representations or schemas (in this case of their dating partners) govern their thoughts, feelings, and behavior. A basic finding in the application of social cognition logic to close relationships is that close others are mentally represented as highly organized person categories in our minds (Anderson & Cole, 1990), that are rich in their associations, relatively distinctive in nature, and highly accessible. Beach and Tesser (1988) examined aspects of premarital relationships and argued that people’s higher-order schema of commitment may play a vital 45

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 46

3 .

E A R L Y

D A T I N G

D Y N A M I C S

role in their interpretation of ambiguous relationship information. Because of their commitment schemas, people may interpret information about potential partners as confirming their attraction to or love for one another. This reasoning is similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy logic (e.g., Darley & Fazio, 1980; Snyder, Tanke & Berscheid, 1977) that has been advanced to explain a number of social phenomena in which people develop expectations and then both interpret information and behave in ways designed to confirm those expectations. Of course, in a close relationship, both partners may be operating on the basis of self-fulfilling prophecy scripts for one another, leading to immensely complex and intriguing thought-behavior sequences (Swann, 1996). A related finding is that individuals who are highly committed to a current dating relationship tend to devalue potential alternative partners (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989). This devaluation effect was found for college students in exclusive but nonmarital relationships. The effect, however, was not replicated in a more realistic experimental setting created by Bazzini and Shaffer (1999). In one of their studies, students in exclusive and nonexclusive relationships were exposed to a real and immediate threat in the form of an experimental confederate who indicated an interest in dating them. Both students in exclusive and nonexclusive relationships were attracted to this other person and did not devaluate the possibility of going on a date with the person. The process of strangers sizing-up one another and then possibly going deeper and deeper into an intimate encounter was studied in a provocative research program by Altman and Taylor (1973). They referred to their theory of this process as social penetration theory. This theory focuses on the early-going aspects of forming a close relationship with other. Altman and Taylor proposed that this social penetration is very much like peeling back the skin of an onion, as people first get to know others on superficial grounds and then dig deeper into feelings and important attitudes and beliefs. In this theory, strangers become friends and sometimes lovers through the process of self-disclosure in which they tell other the details and secrets of their lives. In turn, in the social penetration model, others often reciprocate information about their own particular qualities and experiences. If reciprocation of self-disclosure does not occur, it is likely that the relationship will terminate before these individuals go too far. Even in the most intimate relationships, Altman and Taylor believe that people hold back certain core information about themselves (e.g., fears, highly embarrassing moments). A last intriguing aspect of self-disclosure is that women tend to be more disclosing and to deeper levels than do men. An illustration of Altman and Taylor’s (1973) ideas about social interaction patterns that follow from their social penetration theory is presented in Figure 3.1. It can be seen from this figure that early in a relationship there is little probing of intimate level material in the relationship. But as the relationship develops, there is movement toward the very intimate level. Evolutionary psychology is well-represented in work on physical attraction and dating. Discussions of this theory are presented both in the gender (chapter 2) and sexuality (chapter 4). A representative line of work on physical attraction has been carried out by Kenrick and his associates (e.g., Kenrick & Keefe, 1992). A recent study by Gutierres, Kenrick, and Partch (1999) suggested that young women’s views of themselves as value as potential romantic partners would be affected by exposure to highly physically attractive women. In this research, women and men were exposed to photos and descriptive profiles of other same-sex others their age who were either high or low in physical attractive46

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 47

R E L A T I O N S H I P Early in a relationship

C O G N I T I O N As the relationship develops

Very Intimate Level

In Su

ti m a

p e rfi

Num

FIG. 3.1

te L e v

el

e cial L e v

l

ber of topics

Altman and Taylor’s (1973) wedge of social penetration.

ness and high or low in social dominance (i.e., having lots of associates and friends). As expected, self-assessment as a marriage partner decreased significantly for women exposed to highly attractive women; whereas self-assessment as a marriage partner decreased significantly for men exposed to highly dominant men. Presumably, this evidence shows the unconscious working of perceived populations of competitors for marriage partners. We might wonder if such data would be obtained for older respondents who might be more confident about their value as potential partners and not as apt to change their assessment due to brief environmental inputs.

Cohabitation or Living Together—Is It Good for Closeness? This question has been asked often since the 1960s. Well, not really this question, but rather whether living together leads to marriage. During the 1960s and 1970s, the number of people living together prior to marriage increased tremendously. There really still is no good evidence that living together prior to marriage has a positive or negative effect on the ensuing marriage. In 1997, the Census Bureau estimated that nearly 4 million couples are cohabiting in the United States. In fact, it is estimated that in the late 1990s, one half of the brides getting married in the United States will have cohabited with their boyfriend (maybe more than one, or the one they are marrying) prior to marriage (Amato, 2000). Furthermore, about 36% of the unmarried households included at least one child under age 18 (and very often the child was conceived in a relationship other than the one involving cohabitation). In the 1990s, the number of cohabiting mothers who went on to marry their cohabiting partner decreased from 57 to 44%. In 1999, as reported on National Public Radio (Nov. 16, 1999), a review study of published data on cohabitation was released that suggested a number of negative consequences may derive from cohabitation. As we alluded at the beginning of the chapter, this study was done at the “Marriage Project” at Rutgers University by David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, well-known conservative sociologists. For example, Whitehead wrote a controversial piece entitled “Dan Quayle was Right” in the April 1993 issue of Atlantic Monthly; unlike so many critics, she took Quayle’s side in his condemnation of the Murphy Brown television show that involved Murphy having a child out of wedlock. 47

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 48

3 .

E A R L Y

D A T I N G

D Y N A M I C S

Based on their research, Popenoe and Whitehead have argued that: 1. There is nothing to show that cohabitation leads to a stronger marriage. 2. It is wrong to assume that you learn to have a good relationship by cohabiting. In fact, the more a person cohabits, the more likely the person is to embrace cohabiting as a lifestyle. 3. The longer people live together without marriage, the more likely it is that they will never marry. A series of cohabiting situations could become their lifestyle. 4. Cohabiting parents break up at a much higher rate than married parents, and the economic and emotional impacts of the breakup can be devastating on children. Popenoe and Whitehead believe that cohabiting couples are less committed than are persons who are married (which may be saying much, given the 40–50% divorce rate among married people in the United States in the late 1990s). These authors did admit that many couples cohabit for a period after becoming engaged or making marriage plans, and that such couples often have long-term, satisfying marriages. Certainly, as often is argued by cohabiting couples whom we have known, living together prior to a decision about marriage may help the individuals involved decide that they do not want to be married. It may, then, be an effective “trial marriage,” in terms of eliminating some couplings that would obviously not prosper. On the other hand, successfully handling cohabitation prior to the marriage decision may not immunize the couple from major problems that will occur during marriage, leading to divorce. Why will successful cohabitation not necessarily insure a satisfying, long-term marriage? In general, the answer is because a close relationship is different legally and psychologically in marriage than it is in cohabitation (see Buunk & Van Driel, 1989, for a discussion of research on this question). Money and possessions likely will be handled and perceived differently by the couple. Family and friends will perceive and react differently to the couple. People in general usually believe that couples should be married before having children. These are just some of the factors that make these experiences different. Then, too, successful cohabitation in no way precludes the members of a couple from changing quite differently over time when they are married. Such change frequently is pointed to by the cohabiting couples as the key to why a long-term successful relationship eventually had to end. At the same time, at any age, cohabitation can work to facilitate people’s learning about one another and eventual committed, loving bond. And cohabitation is carried out in many different ways nowadays. As one 65-year-old man said in a study of dating among senior citizens (Harvey & Hansen, 2000): “I don’t want a marriage at this age. I just want a companion to periodically stay with me and to be my traveling companion” (p. 634).

THE HOWS OF MEETING OTHERS FOR CLOSENESS Without question, the topic of how to meet others for closeness is one of the foremost journalism topics of our time. Why is this so? Our answer goes back to the initial comment that we increasingly are a people who are besieged with options on all fronts, expect to have them in relationships, too, and expect to find a lot in quality and quantity of relationships—yet invariably find too little of each in them. Hence, in our single years (which may 48

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 49

T H E

H O W S

O F

M E E T I N G

O T H E R S

F O R

C L O S E N E S S

involve first a couple of decades in our teens and twenties and then sometimes another period in our 30s, 40s, beyond), we often immerse ourselves in “The Search” for a right other. Magazines, newspapers, therapists, commentators of all stripes, then, get into the act in coaching us in how to meet that special other. It is a huge industry that has developed parallel to the development of a high divorce rate and the mobility in jobs and where we spend our lives. Coincidentally, this industry is rivaled in the last decade by the cat food industry in growth. One possible explanation for the growth of both industries is the high divorce rate. Singles often find that they can keep cats for pets more easily than they can keep dogs and other animals.

Specific Lines What do we say to strangers when we want to make a new acquaintance, with the possibility of forming some type of bond of closeness? Knapp (1984) posited a set of stages of interaction from the very beginning to the end of a relationship and typical lines that represent these stages. These lines are presented in Table 3.1.

TABLE 3.1 Stages of Interaction and Possible Interaction Lines Process

Stage

Coming Together

Initiating

Coming Apart

Representative Lines

“Hi how ya doin’?” “Fine. You?” Experimenting “Oh, so you like to ski . . . so do I.” “You do? Great. Where do you go?” Intensifying “I . . . I think I love you.” “I love you too.” Integrating “I feel so much a part of you.” “Yes, we are like one person . . .” Bonding “I want to be with you always.” “Let’s get married.” Differentiating “I just don’t like big social gatherings.” “Sometimes I don’t understand you . . .” “I’m certainly not like you at all.” Circumscribing “Did you have a good time on your trip?” “What time will dinner be ready?” Stagnating “What’s there to talk about?” “Right. We each know what the other will say.” Avoiding “I’m so busy. I just don’t know when I’ll be able to see you.” “If I’m not around when you try, you’ll understand.” Terminating “I’m leaving you . . . don’t bother contacting me . . .” “Don’t worry.”

From Knapp, M.L. & Vangelisti, A.L., Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships, 2/E. Copyright © 1992 by Allyn & Bacon. Reprinted/adapted by permission.

49

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 50

3 .

E A R L Y

D A T I N G

D Y N A M I C S

As can be seen from Table 3.1, after initiating a conversation, a person may experiment with a different line to see if the other seems interested. Then, the stage progression advances all the way to the points of intensifying, integrating, and bonding the relationship. We all probably can add a few interim steps between experimentation and intensification, which might include determination if other wants to go out on a date, regularly go out together (and possibly terminate other ongoing relationships), and have sexual relations. Each of these interim steps also has its own set of typical lines (e.g., for “to have sex,” it might be something like: “Would you like to stay over tonight?”. The downside of becoming involved also is shown by the stages Knapp refers to as first differentiating, then circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and finally terminating the relationship. As we move on now to larger questions regarding how people meet one another, this behavioral foundation for the meeting process should be kept in mind. For practically every social occasion and motivation, there are lines and scripts. As we become experienced in the meeting and dating game, we learn the lines and scripts—sometimes to the point that we become cynical about their use. Nonetheless, there are not many other ways strangers can begin the process of meeting other than via such conventions.

Flirting and Learning to Flirt Flirting is an interesting process, usually occurring early in dating and meeting activities, that has not received sufficient attention in the close relationship literature. Geog Simmel, a famous sociologist, in 1950 described flirting as a nonserious, playful activity that is participated in simply for the pleasure of the actors involved. More recently, a well-known communications scholar Barbara Montgomery (1986) conducted some of most systematic work on the purposes and nature of flirting. Montgomery found that people indicated they had a variety of motives when they flirted, from simple friendliness to desire to attract other for sexual relations. Sometimes, of course, respondents indicated that they were not aware of their motives when they flirted; they may not even have been aware of their flirting behavior, or the flirting behavior of someone interested in them. Montgomery emphasized the nonverbal cues that people send to one another when they flirt. Montgomery did not find this datum, but we may wonder if batting eyelashes still works as a flirting device for women? Although this behavior may not be in vogue, it still is the case that one of the most powerful nonverbal cues for giving others a message is how one dresses. For example, in this culture, miniskirts and leather skirts are trademarks of sexiness in the minds of men and when worn on bodies that comport them well. There likely are major sex differences involved in flirting. In well-cited research by Abbey (1982) that involved college-student males and females engaged in a short group discussion, it was found that the males later rated the females’ behavior as indicating more sexual interest in the males than did the females in explaining their own behavior; in fact, the females believed they were just being friendly. Thus, the sexes likely pick up differently on what is emitted in mixed company. Apparently, college-age (and beyond?) men tend to look for cues telling them women are interested in them and in sexual relations with them. Montgomery’s research also supported this conclusion. In her work, women mainly emphasized the fun and friendly nature of flirting. It would appear that what is fun for one person may be more serious for the other. This conclusion is not very novel, given

50

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 51

I S

I T

A

F A T A L

C O N D I T I O N ?

what we learned in the female–male dialogue chapter about the overall differences in relationship behavior between the sexes.

I S I T A FATA L C O N D I T I O N N O T TO FIND THE RIGHT ONE? What Single hasn’t related to Three Dog Night’s rendition of ‘One is the Loneliest Number.’—Anonymous comment by a middle-aged single person in 1997 “No” is the answer to the question posed. We now can celebrate a greater diversity of close relationship lifestyles than has previously ever existed in this culture. One such lifestyle is to remain single. Being single at one time was a stigmatized condition. Increasingly, that is not true. In the 1992 and 1996 congressional races, for example, several middle-aged single/divorced individuals ran for and won office. One such winner was bachelor Eric Fingerhut, a 33-year-old from Cleveland, who was elected despite his opponent’s passing out campaign literature featuring himself, his wife, kids, and dog with a caption that read “A Common Man With Common Sense,” next to Fingerhut, all alone and surrounded by question marks. Clearly, the idea was to portray Fingerhut as the weaker candidate in part because of his single status. Terms like “old maid” have just about died out in the last couple of decades as an anythinggoes menu of lifestyles unfolds, particularly in large metropolitan areas of the Western World. As one single man in his 30s said in reference to how he is perceived by married associates, “Some men are jealous of my lifestyle, and others see me as a poor, unfortunate soul looking for love. The truth is probably somewhere in between” (Dallas Morning News article December 15, 1985, p. 4F by Peter King “Singles say they’re content with what life alone has to offer”). Another middle-aged, single male discussed his view of the positive side of singles life in that same article: “It provides a tremendous opportunity for personal growth . . . to direct my life in a way that I’m most comfortable with. . . . You make your own decisions.” A 31-year-old single woman also responding in this story indicated that independence was the main advantage of singles life for her. As for disadvantage, she said, “The biggest downside is when I’m ill. I haven’t trained my cat how to make toast.” She indicated that she had the opportunity to marry at 19 but is very glad she did not. She, like many other singles throughout the life span, indicated that she remains open to marriage but is not desperate to get married. A final point to make is that many people have come to the conclusion that because of their looks, their physical condition, their age, or some other condition, they never will have a marital partner, or even a romantic close relationship. They may or may not grieve this condition and feel very lonely. Any human being can make her or his life valuable, however, regardless of whether that life has been blessed with the presence of lovers. It is important in the context of studying close relationships to recognize that at their fundamental core, their most important feature is that they can be life affirming. The will to have an affirming life does not necessitate the presence of a close relationship. We need to constantly be alert to socially embraced stigmas that are attached to those alone. They are not affirming of life.

51

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 52

3 .

E A R L Y

D A T I N G

D Y N A M I C S

C O N C L U S I O N S A N D N E W V I S TA S FOR RESEARCH The theme of this chapter on dating and meeting others for closeness is that of diversity. We are a diverse people who find closeness in diverse ways. We need to be more aware of how quickly changes are being made in family and other intimacy configurations as we approach the 21st Century. As emphasized in chapter 1, change is upon us and likely will blister a pace of new variation in the meeting and dating scene in coming years. We never will be the way we were in the 1950s, or 1980s either for that matter. As only one demographic index of that diversity in dating and meeting, 1996 U.S. Census Bureau statistics indicated that there are over one-half million Black–White married couples in the United States, or nearly eight times the number in 1970—and such data only skim the surface of black–white close relationships not involving marriage (Gaines & Ickes, 1997). Much more research is needed to better understand issues faced by interracial and interethnic romantic couples. In the relationships literature, Gaines and colleagues (e.g., Gaines & Ickes, 1997; Gaines, Granrose, Rios, Garcia, Youn, Farris, & Bledsoe, 1999) have studied attachment and other processes shown by heterosexual, interracial, and interethnic couples. One of the interesting findings to emerge from this work is that young college-age interracial couples generally hold an “insider” view of themselves (e.g., see themselves as individuals rather than as members of groups) versus an “outsider” view that often is imposed on interracial couples by society. They are more aware of their complementarity, similarity, and other relationships qualities they have than are outsiders. At the same time, interracial couples are affected by outsiders’ signs of disapproval encountered in daily life. Rosenblatt, Karis, and Powell (1995) interviewed older couples who had married across racial and ethnic lines and found that these couples also encounter prejudice and discrimination. Stares, poor service in restaurants and stores, and hostility or rejection from family members or neighbors were reported as fairly frequent occurrences by Rosenblatt et al.’s sample. This hostility often extended to their offspring. On the other hand, these investigators report that their respondents felt they had gained a lot of insight about other groups and how different people viewed the world as a consequence of their interracial union. Despite continuing prejudice, in most parts of the country and many parts of the world, there is greater openness to interracial and interethnic types of union than ever before. This new reality hopefully reflects the fact that people increasingly recognize that it takes a lot to make a good close relationship or marriage and that skin pigmentation is a quite small factor in the huge array of factors that will determine success. Newly divorced or widowed individuals in their mid-life may find the process of meeting others for closeness to be quite imposing. In fact, persons in this group who are raising young children and/or who typically do not meet many similar-aged single people may have the most difficult time of any group in finding others for closeness. One of the most positive aspects of changes in meeting strategies in the 1990s is that in cities throughout the country, middle-aged people are taking the initiative to form singles-activities groups for people their age. This trend likely will continue and grow as so many baby boom era individuals divorce at some point in their mid-life.

52

01-070 C03 pp4 9/13/01 1:50 PM Page 53

C O N C L U S I O N S

A N D

N E W

V I S T A S

F O R

R E S E A R C H

From the turn of the 20th century until about the 1970s, meeting others for closeness and courtship were fairly routine activities. Bailey’s (1988) interesting work on From Front Porch to Back Seat documents the culture of courting on the front porch, in close proximity to parents in the first 40–50 years in the 20th century. Then, by the 1950s, the action moved to the automobile back seat, well out of the sight of parents and others, and a setting in which many people experienced their first sexual encounter. The back seat, though, gave out to other courtship settings when young people began to use borrowed apartments, their own homes (sometimes when their parents were away), and other settings for courtship by the 1980s. The 1980s also reflected a movement toward dating in groups, and not calling the activity “dating.” The internet, e-mail, and chat rooms began to be used heavily in the 1990s and promise to continue to represent a venue for meeting well into the 21st century. Their impact on future research in this area is enormous, especially as researchers solve the problems of how to insure informed consent of respondents and how to be more certain about the truthfulness of respondents. While becoming more variegated and public, dating and meeting practices have retained some basic human psychological dynamics over time. They have been and will continue to represent one human’s struggle to conquer the fear to extend self to another human. This fear derives in part from the frightful prospect of being evaluated and found wanting by other, or encountering painful—even degrading—experiences. Also, rejection by others is a given in the dating scene. Yet, the potential rewards and pleasures of dating and meeting are commensurate with the potential liabilities. The experiences one has in this arena can be enlightening, uplifting, and memorable for a lifetime. They also can and do eventuate in lifelong friendship and love. We as humans will try and try again to meet others for closeness, because our quest for human contact and the possibility of in-depth intimacy is even greater than our fears of the vicissitudes of these humbling experiences.

53

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 55

4 SEXUALITY IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS Sex is a wave that just sweeps over me. When the urge comes, I am helpless. —Michael Douglas in describing his many romances, Parade Magazine (August 29, 1999, p. 2) Sex is hardly ever just about sex. —Shirley MacLaine (The Quotable Woman, 1991, p. 119)

In this chapter, the varied meanings of sexuality in close relationships is discussed. Far from being simply a biological process, sexuality emerges from the circumstances and meanings available to people. As we will see in each chapter, gender difference questions are at the forefront of a large stream of contemporary work on sexuality in close relationships. An illustrative recent study was conducted by Regan and colleagues (2000). They assessed college students’ partner preferences for short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners. For a sample of 561 respondents, it was found that for either short-term sexual liaisons or long-term romance, men emphasized attributes related to sexual desirability more than did women, and women valued characteristics related to social status more than did men. For short-term sexual interactions, both men and women emphasized qualities such as attractiveness, health, sex drive, and athleticism. On the other hand, both women and men emphasized personality qualities such as intelligence, honesty, and warmth in their long-term romantic partners. The gender differences in this study partially support an evolutionary psychology position on dating and mating, which stresses men’s emphasis on health and attractiveness and women’s emphasis on resources and social status for sexual contacts, romance, and mating. The vastness of meanings of sexuality was suggested by Sanders and Reinisch (1999) who reported on a sample of 600 college undergraduates concerning their notions of what sex is. Fifty-nine percent did not consider oral–genital contact to be “having sex.” Nineteen percent believed that penile–anal contact was not “having sex.” And these are just the physical relations. How varied might the answers be if psychological aspects of sexuality were included in such a survey? Sexuality teaches us, more than any other human experience, about self—who am I and why do I exist? In this sense, sexuality is the source of some of our greatest fears and embarrassments. Whereas at the same time, it is the source of some of our greatest moments of ecstasy and hope for own life and humanity in general. Our sexuality is shaped both by

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 56

4 .

S E X U A L I T Y

I N

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

powerful biological drives and similarly powerful cultural scripts for behavior and thinking that are implanted in our minds almost from birth. These scripts usually differ for males and females and continue to differ during much of their lives.

DEFINING TERMS In our typical conversations about sexuality, we talk as if sex pertained only to the act of sexual intercourse or coitus. This act, however, is only a part of a larger constellation of acts, thoughts, and feelings that define sexuality. McKinney and Sprecher (1991) edited one of the first books that explicitly treated sexuality as part of the close relationship. They offered the following definition of sexuality, a definition that is consistent with how sexuality is viewed in the present book: Although this book is about erotic arousal and genital responses, it is also about a lot more. We use sexuality very generally to refer to sexual behaviors, arousal, and responses, as well as to sexual attitudes, desires, and communication. (p. 2) This chapter emphasizes sexuality as a part of self-identity and of who the significant sexual others are in our lives. In this vein, the phrase “to refer to . . . and to understandings of self and other” would be added to the McKinney and Sprecher definition. The chapter also endorses an aspect of sexuality that Reiss (1986) emphasized. He contended that the essential elements of sexuality are self-disclosure and pleasure. Selfdisclosure refers to knowing other, and not just in terms of others’ physical body. A relatively full sexual relationship involves two people’s in-depth communication about their lives, their past loves, their understanding of sexuality, their hopes and fears as they pertain to sexuality. As Sprecher and Regan (2000) note, most couples in relationships now report a variety of behaviors associated with their sexuality, including: kissing, caressing, genital stimulation, oral–genital sex. Also, homosexual couples report many of the same types of sexual behavior as reported by heterosexual couples.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND FOR WORK ON HUMAN SEXUALITY The evolution of sexuality as a public topic from 1830 to 1980 has been described and analyzed in a book entitled Romantic Longings (1991) by the sociologist Steven Seidman. From the mid-to-late 1960s to the present, people in general in the United States have shown considerable openness about sexuality and also have experimented with different sexual lifestyles to an unprecedented degree. According to Seidman, however, this evolution sometimes has been analyzed as standing in marked contrast to other periods of time when there was much less freedom about sexual practices. During the first 2 centuries of this country’s existence, the Puritans and their successors emphasized a standard of moral constancy in all that people did. They stressed moderation in sexuality and placed severe constraints upon erotic pleasures. Sensual motivations were thought to disturb the emotional and moral constancy they sought. The Puritan’s main duty was to serve God. Thus, for the Puritans, sex had value only within marriage. Sexual activity outside of marriage was severely condemned. Marital sex, in this system, was es-

56

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 57

H I S T O R I C A L

B A C K G R O U N D

F O R

W O R K

O N

S E X U A L I T Y

sential as a way of preventing the individual from becoming lured into the sins of improper sexuality, including extramarital sex. Sexual activity within marriage was expected, not only to produce legitimate offspring but also to bring mutual comfort and pleasure. Based on this type of emphasis, Seidman suggested that the Puritans were not so prudish, after all. Seidman portrayed marriage during the Victorian period, which took up much of the 19th century, as a consensual arrangement based on love. In marriage, sex was not restricted to a procreative function, but was valued as a sign of love and as a domain of sensual pleasure. What about noncoital sex (e.g., different positions) and masturbation in the Victorian era? Other forms of noncoital sex were proscribed during this period. Sex meant coitus to the Victorians. Thus, Victorianism represented less a departure from Puritanism than a continuous development of the American intimate culture. The Victorians almost obsessively acknowledged the presence and power of sexuality and unequivocally embraced the value of sex within marriage. As the 20th century began, there soon was a major break from the past in how Americans conceived sexuality. No longer would people necessarily conclude that sexuality should only be expressed within marriage. No longer would people necessarily conclude that having sexual relations meant one loved other. No longer would people necessarily believe that sexuality was either a duty to be performed within marriage or a spiritual communion. Rather, the meaning of sexuality was becoming broader, encompassing having sex for purely pleasurable reasons and with different partners. Change was occurring at a swift pace after World War I, around 1920. Seidman noted that from the 1920s through the 1950s, surveys reported a dramatic increase in nonmarital sexual activity. Interestingly, Kinsey’s (1948, 1953) famous analysis of male and female sexuality suggested that men going to prostitutes for sex decreased around the 1920s, indicating perhaps that men did not need to find prostitutes as much for sexual gratification after that point. His research suggested that there was a major rise in premarital sex by middle-class women in this postwar period. Kinsey found that while only 14% of the generation of women born before 1900 reported premarital coitus, almost 40% of the generation born after 1900 reported premarital coitus. During the first 20 years of this century, there also was a dramatic increase in the divorce rate, the spread of venereal disease, and public awareness of homosexuality. Kinsey (1948, 1953) found that all aspects of sexual activity took on a different form after 1900. Oral–genital sex was accepted more often. More and longer foreplay was endorsed, as was deep kissing. People experimented with many more sexual positions than the classic “missionary position,” and people increasingly had sex while nude. It was only after 1900 that erotic fulfillment began to be seen as a necessary standard for successful love and marriage. This historical sketch brings us almost to the contemporary period, which is viewed as from about the mid-1960s to the present. Was this modern period one of true revolution in sexuality? Some analysts have said yes, while others disagree and view it as part of a continued expansion of the intimate culture begun at the turn of the century. There still are residues of the Puritan and Victorian ethos within our psyches regarding sexuality. At the same time, this society has changed dramatically in the last 2 to 3 decades in its openness to discussion of sexuality and to diverse sexual practices. The widespread acceptance of coitus and other forms of sexuality as a part of dating experiences occurred only during

57

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 58

4 .

S E X U A L I T Y

I N

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

this modern period. The number of sexual partners many women have had, in particular, grew at an exponential rate only from the 1960s to the point in the mid-1980s, at which time AIDS worries began to influence (and reduce) the number of sexual partners sought by both sexes. Before the 1960s, sexual activity such as “heavy petting” was more expected as part of dating, but not coitus.

STUDYING SEXUALITY WITHIN C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P S As implied by Sprecher and Regan (2000), it is unfortunate and ironical that there has been little exchange and cooperation between researchers studying sexuality and those studying sexuality within relationships. These fields have separate literatures, journals, organizations, and the like. Sprecher and Regan call for a rapprochement between these fields in the interests of synthesizing knowledge about sexuality within and outside relationships. Orbuch and Harvey (1991) analyzed conceptual and methodological issues in studying sexuality within close relationships. A central consideration in the study of sexuality in close relationships is that of how to examine this phenomenon without undue intrusion into the lives of research participants. An example of research examining sexuality in close relationships was an investigation by Christopher and Cate (1985). In this study, both members of the couple were asked about a variety of aspects of their relationship, including the development of sexually oriented behaviors in premarital dating. These reported behaviors were related to other relationship qualities such as love, conflict, ambivalence, and maintenance behaviors. This study’s methodology and findings are enhance because the involved both members of the couple. Quite often, as with other relationship events, only one member of a relationship serves as the research participant. Of course, it is infrequent that research is conducted in which people’s physical sexual behavior is observed. An example of when such behavior was observed was Masters and Johnson’s (1966) clinical work and related research with individuals and couples who were seeking counseling for dysfunctional sexual behavior. This work involved a variety of clinical interventions. Participants were sometimes paired with research assistants who facilitated their learning of sexual techniques. Participants were shown pornographic stimuli in learning to masturbate. Participants were shown techniques for pleasuring one another and for enhancing their feelings of love during sexual activity. Masters and Johnson’s work only secondarily involved research. If it were being done in a university setting, rather than at a private clinic, such work might not pass the scrutiny of university human subject review boards. These boards evaluate carefully if there is any possible harm involved in research proposed for human participants. Seeing pornographic material or strangers relating intimately likely would be seen as unethical for research under the auspices of a university. To some degree, this stance about sexual research has stifled work on human sexuality in university and related medical school settings. Most of the research on sexuality within close relationships has followed the model of self-report strategy pursued by Christopher and Cate (1985). Self-report may be particularly subject to distortion when the topic is a person’s sexual practices. Harvey, Hendrick, and Tucker (1988) argued that several issues attend self-report methods in close relation-

58

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 59

S E X U A L I T Y

W I T H I N

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

ship research. These issues, which are presented next, may be especially noteworthy in work that involves sexual themes. First, research participants may distort aspects of their reported sexual behavior because of embarrassment or the desire to appear more “normal.” They may feel that admitting they engage in certain practices will label them abnormal or pathological, and be especially concerned about their perceived adequacy as a sexual being. More generally, participants may be highly concerned about how they “come across,” which may lead to distortions in reported behavior and feelings. Second, research repeatedly has shown that women are more open, articulate, and available as research participants in close relationships work than are men (Harvey, 1987). It follows, then, that males may be difficult to recruit, and when recruited, not as likely to report fully or accurately about their sexual behavior. Third, questionnaire items may be particularly open to distortion when the topic is sexuality. Berger and Wenger (1973) found that research participants had considerable confusion about the meaning of the term “loss of virginity.” On many occasions, the meaning problem is the result of imprecise or ill-conceived questions and scales. Asking people if they are “promiscuous,” for example, is imprecise—what does promiscuity mean to the research participant? Also, such a question involves unknown standards in a social group about how many sexual partners constitutes promiscuity, an implied moral judgment about the negativity of promiscuity (see later discussion in this chapter about sexual stereotyping), and lack of clarity regarding what behaviors are sexual, and hence promiscuous (such a point is suggestive of the famous contention by President Clinton regarding his affair with Monica Lewinsky that oral sex was not sex, in the same sense that sexual intercourse is sex).

SEXUALITY WITHIN CLOSE R E L AT I O N S H I P S Research on sex in close relationships includes such topics as: work, sexuality, and relationships; children, sexuality, and relationships; and the long-term frequency of sexuality and satisfaction with it in relationships. Sprecher and McKinney (1993) describe the principal features of sexuality within close relationships, as follows: an act of self-disclosure; an act of intimacy; an act of affection or love; an act of interdependence; an act of maintenance; an act of exchange. As can be seen from this list of dimensions, sexuality within close relationships does not resemble very closely sexuality outside of close relationships, that was depicted earlier. Central to sex within a close relationship are symbolic acts designed to maintain and enhance a close relationship. For a couple, sexuality within close relationships has deeper and richer connotations and connections than does sexuality outside of a close relationship. The question of how often committed couples have sex has been of interest to sex researchers for many years. A national survey study called the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH, first wave conducted 1987–88) included a question on frequency of sex. Call, Sprecher, and Schwartz (1995) reported that the NSFH Wave 1 married

59

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 60

4 .

S E X U A L I T Y

I N

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

respondents had an overall mean frequency of sex of 6.3 times per month. Couples under the age of 24 had a mean frequency of 11.7 per month, but the frequency declined with each subsequent age group. Once a month was the approximate frequency for couples in the 75 and older group. Similar frequency findings were reported for Wave 2 for the period 1992–1994. The decline in sexual frequency may be due both to physical and psychological factors, including habituation (Call et al., 1995). Hyde, DeLamater, and Hewitt (1998) provide evidence about the relationship between work and sexuality in dual-career couples. It frequently is noted by working couples (especially those with families too) that they have less time to engage in intimate contact. Slater (1973) argued that work and sex are natural enemies. Slater’s thesis may have had more of a kernel of truth in the 1970s than it does in the early 2000s. It might be argued that if income-producing work enhances self-esteem (as we know it does in general for many people), the lack of work may be detrimental to sexuality behavior when people are depressed about not working at least in part for a living. To test the so-called scarcity hypothesis that a couple’s sexual intimacy suffers when the wife works for a living, Hyde et al. collected longitudinal data from a sample of more than 500 women and their husbands at three points from pregnancy through a year after birth. They found no significant differences between homemakers and women employed part-time, full-time and high-full–time (working overtime) on measures of frequency of intercourse, sexual satisfaction, and decreased sexual desire. Work role quality was a better predictor of sexual outcomes than hours of employment. Fatigue was associated with sexual outcomes for both employed women and homemakers. Sexual activity was most satisfying when both the wife and husband had satisfying jobs. Hyde et al. speculate that couples are greatly affected by one another’s job outcomes and that such reciprocal effects reverberate into the bedroom. Fatigue accounted for up to a 26% of the variance in decreased desire in all couples. Dear Ann/Abby type columns often report letters from spouses who “are not getting enough.” In a “Tales from the Front,” (December 30, 2000) Chicago Tribune writer Cheryl Lavin presented a letter from a late-40s husband who suggested that he was considering bringing up “open marriage” as a solution to his lack of sex in a 26-year marriage. He and his wife were having sex about once every 6 weeks—but with satisfaction when they did. He had met a woman through the Internet who was willing to have a sexual relationship, while he remained married. This woman was age 38 and divorced for several years. He said that he was not interested in lying to his wife; thus the idea of an open marriage seemed viable. Lavin suggested that the man indicate to his wife that he was thinking of having an affair. Such a strategy might get her to accept therapy. She also noted that an open marriage is not a very neat solution to sexuality difficulties in marriage. She concluded that if the wife is willing to work on the marriage, the husband should say good-bye to his platonic, would-be lover, Internet friend.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SEXUALITY It is in the area of gender differences that sexuality is given its most multifaceted set of meanings. At present, there is a tremendous amount of media coverage of sexuality, and much of it focuses on gender differences. As an illustration, in June, 1993, Mademoiselle

60

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 61

D I F F E R E N T

P S Y C H O L O G I E S

magazine published a summary of the results of a survey of over 2000 men and women regarding their sexual experiences and attitudes. Prominent findings were: 1. 26% of the women could not recall the first and last names of everyone with whom they had had sexual relations versus 51% of the men; presumably this result derives in part from the fact that, on the average, men still have a greater number of sexual partners than do women. 2. 9% of the women versus 34% of the men indicated that they would have more sexual partners “if it were not for AIDS”; this result reinforces the age-old idea that men want more sexual partners, in general, than do women but that members of both groups are being more cautious now. 3. Surprisingly, the percentage of women indicating that they do not get enough sex, 50%, was close to the percentage of men saying they do not get enough sex, 63%. Another interesting reflection of our current preoccupation with gender differences in sexuality may be found in a book entitled The New Male Sexuality (1993, Bantam) by psychotherapist Bernie Zilbergeld. This author suggested that more and more men are seeking therapy because they want to learn how to satisfy women sexually. He argued that the media and various social commentators have mercilessly criticized men’s traditionally insensitive approach to female sexuality and that essentially “love and sex are becoming feminized” in the 1990s. For men growing up in the 1950s, when “scoring” in sex was a meaningful term in their informal discussions of sexuality, a whole new world of opinion about what is valuable and meaningful in sexual behavior has emerged. Men increasingly have heard the message that if they are knowledgeable and sensitive in their sexual behavior toward women, women tend to like the sex much more than was true in previous times. In turn, men are understanding better that when women as well as men like sex with their partners, their overall close relationships are more satisfying.

DIFFERENT PSYCHOLOGIES Zilbergeld’s findings from his clinical practice reflect a positive change in how men relate to women. But most writers today are not as optimistic about gender relations. A quote in Seidman (1991) attributed to Dana Densmore (in an article in Radical Feminism ) says a lot about the presumed psychological gender differences in sexuality: Intercourse, in the sense of the physical act . . . is not necessarily the thing we [women] are really longing for. . . . Physically, there is a certain objective tension and release, at least for a man, when excitation proceeds to orgasm. With a woman even this physical issue is much less clear . . . . The release we feel . . . therefore is psychological. . . . We then enjoy the pleasures of closeness. (p. 139) Densmore’s logic fits with a thesis popular in some contemporary circles that connects female sexual values with intimacy, not necessarily sensual pleasure, and that views sensuality, humor, tenderness, and commitment as vital to satisfying sexual relations. On the other hand, male sexuality is dominated by the genitals and is body-centered, objectifying, instrumental, and emphasizes control. This line of reasoning is much too general and

61

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 62

4 .

S E X U A L I T Y

I N

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

marginally sexist; yet, it is viable among the many theses concerned with extant gender differences in sexuality. Echoing Densmore, Giler, and Neumeyer (1992) in a book entitled Redefining Mr. Right argued that there are legions of women who have had a series of close relationships and feel betrayed by the sexual revolution. Some have been married, many have dated or been involved in live-in arrangements of varying lengths. They are sexually sophisticated, but ambivalent about their goals for an optimal close relationship. Most want a committed relationship, but not of the oppressive variety—read the old “traditional” union. They often feel now that sex for sex’s sake is shallow and without sufficient meaning for any continuation in their lives. They seek a more profound bond, and are dubious of sexual intimacy as a way of producing emotional intimacy and commitment. Their experience is that they have shared sex with a man with the implicit understanding that a relationship will follow. But what happened instead was an approach–avoidance dance without commitment.

RE-MAKING LOVE? One of the hallmark analyses of female–male differences in sexuality was the book Remaking Love (1986) by Barbara Ehrenreich, Elizabeth Hess, and Gloria Jacobs (see earlier discussion in chapter 2 on gender). Remaking love really was about remaking sexuality, both within relationships and outside relationships. Presumably, this book echoed the changes in female sexuality that had transpired in the contemporary period of sexual change, starting in the 1960s. Ehrenreich et al. generally believed that a sexual revolution had occurred for women. They wrote provocatively about how much they thought women had changed. Consider this early summary in their book: In fact, if either sex had gone through a change in sexual attitudes and behavior that deserves to be called revolutionary, it is women, and not men at all. This fact should be widely known, because it leaps out from all the polls and surveys that count for data in these matters. Put briefly, men changed their sexual behavior very little in the decades from the fifties to the eighties. They ‘fooled around,’ got married, and often fooled around some more, much as their fathers and perhaps grandfathers had before them. Women, however, have gone from a pattern of virginity before marriage and monogamy thereafter to a pattern that much more resembles men’s: Between the mid-sixties and the mid-seventies, the number of women reporting premarital sexual experience went from a daring minority to a respectable majority; and the proportion of married women reporting active sex lives ‘on the side’ is, in some estimates, close to half. The symbolic importance of female chastity is rapidly disappearing. It is not only that women came to have more sex, and with a greater variety of partners, but they were having it on their own terms, and enjoying it as enthusiastically as men are said to. As recently as the 1950s, America’s greatest acknowledged sexual problem . . . was female frigidity. Some experts estimated that over half of American women were completely nonorgasmic . . . But in 1975, A Redbook survey found that 81 percent of the 100,000 female respondents were orgasmic “all or most of the time.” (pp. 2–3)

62

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 63

S E X U A L

F A N T A S Y

S E X U A L FA N TA S Y Battan (1992) described a number of gender differences in sexual fantasy. These differences emerged as part of the theory and empirical work that evolutionary psychologists and biologists have been pursuing in the gender area (discussed later). These differences in fantasy mirror the foregoing logic about how males and females are differentially focused in the sexual arena. They obviously are overly generalized, in that many females and males may not exhibit such differences. Even if taken “with a grain of salt,” these differences in sexual fantasy represent still another indicant of the different meanings of sexuality to females and males. Some of the principal fantasies described by Battan are presented in Table 4.1.

TABLE 4.1 Male and Female Sexual Fantasies 1. Men fantasize a greater variety of sexual encounters with different partners than do women. 2. Men are more likely to switch from one sexual fantasy to another in the same fantasy than are women. 3. Men are more likely to have sexual fantasies more frequently than are women. 4. Men are more likely to fantasize about someone with whom they want only to have sex than are women. 5. Men’s sexual fantasies focus primarily on visual images. 6. Women’s sexual fantasies emphasize touching, feelings, and partner response than do men’s. 7. Women are more likely than men to fantasize about someone with whom they wanted to become romantically involved. 8. Men’s sexual fantasies move more quickly to explicit sexual activity than do women’s. 9. Women’s fantasies involve a slower buildup to sexual culmination than do men’s. 10. Women have a clearer image than men of their imagined partners’ facial features. 11. Men have a clearer image than women of their genital features of their imagined partners. Presumably each of these differences in fantasy reflects an evolved type of difference. For example, according to the evolutionary logic, the female is so invested in her offspring (the result of sexual activity!) that she tends to be careful in controlling her arousal. She is not as aroused merely on the basis of cosmetic, visually directed qualities, or a taste for sexual variety for its own sake, as is the male. These tendencies presumably would promote random copulation, undermining the female’s choice of partners and the circumstances of conception. We can conclude that all kinds of presumed innate gender differences may be changed drastically by the normal and regular process of learning new role scripts and that the sexes converge over time due to their similar learning processes. Females may readily

63

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 64

4 .

S E X U A L I T Y

I N

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

learn to fantasize having many sex partners and to be just as indiscriminate as the differences noted above suggest that males may be. Similarly, males, too, may learn to be highly discriminating—in the fashion of females.

SEXUAL OBSESSION Michael Douglas’ quote at the beginning of the chapter about “being helpless” when the wave of sexual desire sweeps over him epitomizes the feeling of little control involved in sexual obsession. Sexual obsession became a prominent topic in the late 1990s due to the Clinton–Lewinsky affair (and the contention by some people that both partners had such obsessions), and movies such as “Eyes Wide Shut” and “South Park” (or “Basic Instinct,” an exceedingly titillating movie of the mid-1990s). Unfortunately, there has been a paucity of research on sexual obsession and close relationships. There has been work on unrequited love (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993) that involved asking people to recall instances in which they had been rejected or being the rejecter of others in close relationships, and feelings associated with those activities. Respondents who were reporting on being rejected recalled grief, anger, bitterness, humiliation, and impacts on future relationships. Respondents reporting on being the rejecting partner recalled less clearly any script for how they should react. They reported some anger and guilt. But they had less readily available labels for their feelings and ways of reporting on their emotions. The deeper forms of obsession, however, have not been extensively empirically studied. One interesting set of interviews with persons admitting to sexual obsessions was conducted by Atkinson (1998) and reported in the Texas Monthly. Amazingly, Atkinson noted that Texas has 61 chapters of Sex Addicts Anonymous—for persons with histories of chronic promiscuity, marital infidelity, molestation, flashers, and other types of obsession. With the Internet so prominent in American culture, many of the activities of sexual obsession are being carried out in cyberspace. In the anonymous interviews conducted by Atkinson, people admitting to sexual obsessions indicated that they had long histories of secret sex lives, often while carrying out marriages or close relationships and without the knowledge of their partner. Most of these persons were males. One middle-aged male had a long history of marital infidelity, with both female and male partners. He had this to say in discussing the feelings of obsession that he felt “possessed by”: Sometimes I’d meet a woman, and of course, I’d immediately begin thinking of how to get her into bed. But then I’d realize that it might take dinner and a lot of conversation to accomplish that. With men, I could just go to a bath house, and it was all very quick. I didn’t really consider myself bisexual; I was just behaving bisexually. My partner in sex didn’t matter at all. (Atkinson, 1998, p. 189)

C O M M U N I C AT I O N A N D S E X U A L I T Y Self-disclosure, which is achieved largely by verbal and nonverbal communication, is essential to a satisfying sexual relationship. Rubin (1983) suggested that females frequently find males to be wanting in the area of communication regarding intimacy. She argued that

64

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 65

C O M M U N I C A T I O N

A N D

S E X U A L I T Y

women desire intimacy that is born of verbal expression—whether or not it occurs during sexual episodes. Rubin said: “The problem, then is not how we talk to each other but whether we do so. And it’s connected to what words and the verbal expression of emotion mean to us, how sex and emotion come together for each of us . . .” (pp. 101–102). Rubin was writing in the early 80s, a time that may represent a distinctly different era in gender relations. Nonetheless, she stressed a belief that men too often engaged in “high sensationlow emotion” sex, while women preferred emotionality and self-disclosure to be central in their sexual experience. In an analysis of gender, communication, and sexuality, Cupach and Metts (1991) contended that two major generalizations hold when one examines literature in this area: (1) A couple’s quality of communication regarding sexuality is closely linked to the quality of the relationship. (2) A person’s skill in communicating about sexuality is instrumental in maintaining satisfactory sexual and close relationships. I think that these generalizations are tenable, almost by definition. Communication—self-disclosure—is at the core of satisfying sexuality and relating. Having emphasized communication’s role in sexuality, it should be noted that we know little about how do we talk about sex. What do females and males say to one another, or how do members of the same sex talk to one another when they desire to be sexual or to engage in different types of sex? We simply do not know. This lack of information coupled with most adults’ reluctance to talk to their children about sexuality–close relationships (or inability to do so) leaves the educational enterprise adrift in the area of sexual education (see final section in this chapter). Baxter (1987) perceptively argued that the typical close relationship process does not reflect open, direct relationship communication about sexuality. Rather, it involves the construction of a web of ambiguity by which people signal their desires indirectly. Why is this indirectness so prominent in communicating about sexuality? First, it fits into the “romantic mind-set” that guides much early relating and sexuality. Males, in particular, learn that they will disturb the erotic mood if they talk too much about what they desire to do. They learn to rely on crutches such as mood music or having a drink, along with nonverbal signals. Women probably learn the same scripts, although they early on may believe that males should be the leaders in this chase. Second, as Goffman (1959) emphasized, people often are worried about how to “save face” and not be rejected or embarrassed. Thus, indirect, usually nonverbal, signals about sexuality help people avert such situations. One of the only lines of research that has much to say about talking and sexuality was carried out by a biologist Timothy Perper. Perper (1985) presented a number of reports by males and females regarding how they seduce persons in whom they have sexual interest. Such behavior may have little relevance to how we talk about sex in established relationships, but it does show how indirect we tend to be in more casual relating. Perper called it “oblique sexual discourse.” Here is what one 19-year-old man said about his practice of seduction: The idea here is simple. There are steps that one follows which lead up to the actual act. No words are desired or necessary. A positive response to one step allows the next step to be initiated, and this continues until she conveys to me the desire to stop the progression. I find it no problem to know when she would like to stop. If we don’t stop, we arrive. (p. 178)

65

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 66

4 .

S E X U A L I T Y

I N

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

Women showed a little more interest in talk about the relationship prior to sex, but they also exhibited considerable indirectness. Here is what a 19-year-old woman said: I would influence this person by asking how he viewed the relationship at this point [i.e., when she is interested in sex]. I would feel out what he says; then I would give little hints like: how would you like to come over to my place or your place for a drink. I then think he would get the hint and act accordingly. (p. 179) Table 4.2 presents an interesting self-report study of men’s and women’s different views about sex with friends. This study follows the evolutionary psychology theory propounded by Buss (1994) that is discussed in chapter 2 and later in this chapter. In this study, Bleske and Buss explored the benefits and costs of friendships. They compared same-sex to opposite-sex relationships. They tested several hypotheses about men’s and women’s perceptions of how beneficial or costly sex is in a friendship.

TABLE 4.2 Sex With Friends Hypothesis 1: Men will perceive the potential for sexual access to an opposite-sex friend as more beneficial than will women. Hypothesis 2: For women, more than for men, a function of opposite-sex friendship is to provide resources and protection (the later is hypothesis 3) Hypothesis 3: For men and women, a function of opposite-sex friendship, more than same-sex friendship, is to provide information about the opposite sex. Adapted from Bleske & Buss, 2000.

In a preliminary study, 400 undergraduate subjects completed a 5-minute in-class activity. Of these students, 200 were asked to write a list of 10 benefits and 10 costs of a same-sex friendship. The other 200 students wrote lists about opposite-sex friendships. The researchers grouped the items into categories and developed a 100-item measure to assess frequency of and perceptions of benefits and costs of friendship. In the second study this measure was given to a new set of undergraduates. The findings suggest that same-sex and opposite-sex friendships have common benefits. These include having a respected friend, being able to talk openly with a friend, receiving information about the opposite sex and having a companion. Common costs include being treated with cruelty, being obligated to help a friend, feeling low in self-worth and being told by friends that one is not good enough for a certain mate. The results supported Hypothesis 1; men perceive the potential for gaining sexual access as more beneficial than women. Men also reported being denied sexual access to their opposite-sex friend more often than women did. Hypothesis 2 was not supported; women are not looking for resources from their opposite sex friends. Hypothesis 3 was supported; women do consider protection as a benefit of an opposite-sex friendship.

66

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 67

C A S U A L

S E X

Another interesting finding in this study was that relative to women, men see the potential for a long-term romantic relationship, which may involve sex, as a benefit. Limitations of the study were that it used a self-report measure and involved only college students as respondents. Also, the study was based on a simple listing of benefits and costs. An interview approach might allow the researchers to collect more information and understand more fully what exactly the subject means. On a positive note, the list of benefits and costs of friendships provided by the subjects were very interesting and could be helpful in planning future research on the topic.

CASUAL SEX: “DEAR STRANGER, WOULD YOU GO TO BED WITH ME?” Although much of this chapter focuses on sexuality within close relationships, there has been a proliferation of research on human sexuality outside of close relationships that has strong implication for the development of closeness. This work pertains to issues such as people’s motives for engaging in sexual behavior and tactics used in the quest for sexuality. As will be clear for this discussion and a later discussion on evolutionary psychology and sexuality, the evolutionary perspective has had a major impact on work on the dynamics of sexuality outside or close relationships. One of the most interesting series of experimental studies on sexuality initiation and rejection among strangers was conducted by Clark and Hatfield (1989). These studies, done in 1978 and 1982, involved male and female confederates on the Florida State University campus approaching and asking members of the opposite sex and asking them one of three questions, “Would you go out tonight?” or “Will you come over to my apartment?” or “Would you go to bed with me?” These researchers probed two possible hypotheses: The evolutionary psychology hypothesis suggests that males and females are wired differently. Males supposedly are more interested in youth, beauty, and sex partners (with whom they can procreate); whereas, females are more interested in finding partners with resources who will love and care for them. Thus, men should be most receptive to female confederates’ sexual overtures, while women should not be so open to sex with strangers. The second hypothesis was a so-called androgyny hypothesis (androgyny refers to people having both female and male qualities). It suggested that both males and females would be responsive to sexual overtures. The confederates were chosen to be of average attractiveness. They approached their targets on one of five quadrangles on the campus. The targets were relatively attractive, such that confederates were told to approach only persons with whom they would be willing to have sex. The numbers of men and women approached in both studies were 48 men and 46 women. Table 4.3 below shows the percentages of compliance with the different types of requests in the two studies. Before discussing these data, it should be noted that as far as we know, the confederate and the subject never fulfilled the arrangement, if indeed a subject agreed to a request. Rather, after the subject’s agreement or not, the study ended and debriefing occurred. Also, it should be noted that these data were collected at a time before the AIDS epidemic was in full swing. Thus, one might wonder if degree of compliance would have been affected if the study had been repeated 10 or 15 years later. Clark (1990) carried such

67

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 68

4 .

S E X U A L I T Y

I N

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

TABLE 4.3 Percentage of Compliance With Each Request Type of Request Sex of Requestor

Date

Apartment

Bed

Male 1978 Study 1982 Study

56% 50%

6% 0%

0% 0%

Female 1978 Study 1982 Study

50% 50%

69% 69%

75% 69%

Adapted from Clark and Hatfield, 1989.

research at the height of the AIDS epidemic and found rates of compliance for men and women confederates for each type of request that were similar to the rates of the late 1970s and early 1980s research. He also asked about reasons for compliance, and males tended to respond with “why not, what time, whenever, wherever” for their reasons for accepting request for apartment or sex opportunity. Females, in complying mainly with the date opportunity, made comments such as “You look respectable,” and “I have not been out much lately.” With these matters aside, the data presented by Clark and Hatfield support the gender difference in sexual interest aspect of the evolutionary psychology position. The female confederate successfully solicited much more agreement from the male to go to her apartment and to go to bed than did the male confederate. One might find worrisome the fact that even 6% of the females agreed to go to the male’s apartment in the 1978 study, because a year or so before that time Ted Bundy, the serial killer, was beginning his spree of killing on university campuses including Florida. The reader may reasonably worry about whether these studies protected human subjects. Such studies likely could not be done more recently because of the more stringent regulations about protection of human subjects, although there was no physical harm done to the subjects (conceivably, some may have been embarrassed or turned off regarding the request, but the debriefing hopefully assuaged their concern). As Clark and Hatfield note, there are other explanations possible for these data. One is that men and women were equally interested in sex (or apartment visits), but that men were less fearful of being attacked. Another is that they shared sexual interest, but accepting the bed/apartment overture was more of a script that males felt obliged to fulfill than did females, who may have been concerned about their reputation if they accepted such an offer from a stranger. Regan and Dreyer (1999) also report interesting results that are consistent with the evolutionary psychology position. They queried 41 female and 64 male college students about the extent to which they had engaged in one-night stands, flings (more than one sexual encounter with the same person), and casual sexual relationships lasting longer than flings and lacking romance and love. They also asked respondents to indicate their reasons for casual sex. Table 4.4 shows some of their findings.

68

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 69

“ O U T E R C O U R S E ”

TABLE 4.4 Percentage of Experience With Short-Term Sexual Encounters and Reasons in Ranked Order of Presentation One-Night Stand

Fling

Casual

Reasons

Women

56.1%

39.0%

29.3%

Alcohol/Drug Use Sexual Desire Sexual Experimenting To Feel Desirable

Men

65.6%

43.8%

37.5%

Sexual Desire Alcohol/Drug Use Pleasure No Long-Term Obligation

Adapted from Regan and Dreyer, 1999.

Hence, as the evolutionary psychology position would suggest, males showed greater percentages for each type of sexual encounter compared to females. Further, the reasons given such as pleasure and no sexual obligation accommodate this position. Other studies testing and generally supporting the evolutionary psychology position have been reported by these authors: Simpson and Gangstad (1991), who devised a sociosexuality scale to measure interest and involvement in casual sex; Kenrick, Groth, Trost, and Sadalla (1993) and Regan and Berscheid (1997), who showed that both males and females emphasize attractiveness in considering a potential sexual partner; the argument is that both sexes prefer “attractive” genes in their offspring; however, Agocha and Cooper (1999) showed that males even tend to overlook sexual history and possibility of sexually transmitted disease in their quest for physical attractiveness in their partners; and Clark, Shaver, and Abrahams (1999), who showed that women report taking a less direct approach (e.g., providing cues) to relationship initiation than do men, who report being more direct and aggressive in their approaches and more often mentioning the goal of sexual intimacy. On the other hand, other researchers (Byers & Heinlein, 1989; O’Sullivan & Byers, 1993) have reported that often young women take the lead in making sexual overtures to men and may do so both in indirect and direct ways. These latter investigators suggest that sexual scripts are taking on egalitarian direction.

“OUTERCOURSE” Young people appear to be inventing new ways of “having sex without having sex.” Or maybe they are becoming more articulate in inventing terms for sexual behavior? Or maybe they, like their adult colleagues, are just becoming more adroit in rationalizing sexual behavior? It was reported in a 1991 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association that the majority of college students do not view oral sex as sex. Of the 599 students surveyed, 59% answered “no” when asked, “would you say you ‘had sex’ with someone if the most intimate behavior you engaged in was oral–genital contact (reported

69

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 70

4 .

S E X U A L I T Y

I N

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

in Daily Iowan, p. 3A, January 21, 1999, article by Steven Cook entitled “Sex, lies and the oral tradition”). High school student Anne Huyck (writing in the City High School, Iowa City, Iowa The Little Hawk, January 22, 1999, p. 1) defined a new approach to sexuality outside of close relationships. It is called outercourse, about which she says: The notion that teenagers cannot ignore sexual urges is behind Outercourse. Definitions of Outercourse (sometimes referred to as ‘Almost Sex’ and ‘Everything But’) vary, but include sexual acts that do not involve penetration and transfer of bodily fluids. It is an alternative to abstinence that is considered more realistic for teens. Outercourse can include kissing, massaging, showering together, cuddling, mutual masturbation, and dry humping. Some definitions include oral sex, but since there is the possibility of spreading disease, to be safe people need to use a condom or dental dam . . . Both males and females can achieve orgasm through Outercourse, while feeling less guilt and regret, without risking pregnancy and exposure to a STD . . . (p. 1) In discussing this so-called outercourse with college students, it is not clear whether it is that common (compared to intercourse and oral sex) or whether they, too, are as upbeat about this approach to sexuality in the autumn of the AIDS epidemic in the United States. But the logic behind the approach is interestingly compelling. Especially fascinating is the formalization of and talking and writing about the idea among high school students (see final section in chapter on need for greater public discourse about sexuality in general).

SEXUAL STEREOTYPES The topic of sexual stereotypes is related to the foregoing work in that women long have suffered greater stereotypic insults from other people regarding their sexuality than have men. As noted for the data discussed before, women often show more concern about their sexual reputations than do men. They do so because they have been the targets of stereotypes. Double-standards in how we perceive women and men in terms of their sexuality have existed throughout the history of the human species. Are they lessening in the 21st century? All evidence suggests that they are not diminishing as much as might be expected in light of the sexual revolution that has occurred in most parts of the world over the last 30 to 40 years. Throughout the history of this country, stereotyping of people following certain sexual lifestyles and myths about sex have been a salient part of the intimate landscape. Stereotypes are negative attributions about others, usually groups of others. They usually are based on little knowledge or evidence and often are quite simple in their construction and unaffected by evidence to the contrary (e.g., “She is an ‘easy lay.’” “He is a ‘ladies man,’ who can’t keep his zipper up.”). Women and their sexuality have been the targets of the most vicious stereotyping throughout history. Being labeled a “slut,” or a “whore,” is more degrading than any epithet directed toward men. Why should women bear the greater negativity of sexual stereotyping? One consuming answer is that societal customs (both in the West and the East),

70

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 71

S E X U A L

S T E R E O T Y P E S

religious doctrines, and laws long have sought to control women’s reproductive activities. Women have ultimate physiological control over reproduction. Some men even in the 1990s may fear and try to control women’s reproduction and related acts. It is in the area of “related acts” that stereotyping is most prominent. Labeling someone a “slut” is, in essence, a condemnation of that person—as well as their presumed sexual acts. It also is a powerful suggestion to other women that they should not take actions that would warrant such a label. So, we label and stereotype to try to control others (Jones, Farina, Hastorf, Markus, Miller, & Scott, 1984). Perhaps the most widespread stereotype that gets applied to both females and males is that they are promiscuous in their sexual behavior. The notion of who is and who is not promiscuous is imposing. How many sexual partners beyond one does a person need to have in order to wear the mantle of being promiscuous? Does the concept of indiscriminate help? Is it not true that promiscuous people are indiscriminate? Most people who have had different numbers of partners and types of sexual experience likely discriminate to a certain degree in their sexual behavior. They do not engage in coitus with anyone. There is a lot more to labeling of women in the sexual arena. Men continue to have ambivalence about women, and vice versa (as noted in the chapter on meeting, “male bashing” now is fashionable too). Like the old saying goes, “You can’t live with them, and you can’t live without them.” Over the course of history, women have been referred to with such contradictory labels as “goddess,” “madonna,” “witch,” “Earth Mother,” “temptress,” “slave,” and “sex object,” among other appellations. Women, at the same time, have been viewed as sometimes being sexually insatiable—being “nymphomanics”—while at other times being frigid and unable to enjoy sex. Women have been considered the weaker sex, the domineering sex, the gold-digging sex, and the castrating sex. The tone and scope of this labeling process against women have been reduced over time; and women sometimes show unfair and pejorative views of men. But, in general, women still bear the brunt of the sexual labeling process. As a small piece of evidence that the sexual double-standard still is in place, consider what the 21-year-old woman in this quote told Lillian Rubin in her 1990 book Erotic Wars: What Happened to the Sexual Revolution: I’d never tell my boyfriend how many guys I’ve slept with . . . It upsets me that I can’t be honest about it because it’s not the way I want this relationship to be. But I know he’d feel terrible about it because I’ve heard how he talks about other girls. I don’t want him to think I’m a slut, because it’s not true. (p. 119) Rubin (1990) herself eloquently spoke of the double standard when she said: Interesting, isn’t it, that even though more than two and a half decades have passed since the sexual revolution brought women a new measure of sexual freedom, there’s still no word in the language that doesn’t reek with pejorative connotation to describe a woman who has sex freely. (p. 110) In sum, these negative sexual stereotypes are directed at others whom we wish to put down. They do not reflect careful definition of terms and then examination of the target person’s behavior to see if it fits the definition.

71

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 72

4 .

S E X U A L I T Y

I N

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

FEMINIST POSITIONS ON HUMAN SEXUALITY In general, feminists such as Bem (1993) argue that people construct their sexual relationships, just as they construct their close relationships, through their thoughts, feelings, and interactions. This idea is the essence of social constructionism, which emphasizes social processes more than innate, biological processes in human development and behavior. Gergen (1985) described four assumptions that he believes represent social constructionism: 1. The way professionals such as psychologists study the world is determined by available concepts, categories, and methods. 2. Many of the concepts and categories that people use in scholarship and everyday life vary considerably in their meanings and connotations over time and across cultures. 3. The popularity and persistence of particular concepts, categories, or methods often depend more on political usefulness than on their validity in any other sense. 4. Descriptions and explanations of the world are themselves forms of social action and have consequences. Just as is true with evolutionary psychology, which emphasizes biological factors in determining dating and mating practices, there are extreme and more moderate positions within the social constructionism camp. A moderate position would give weight to biology, especially early in life and as an interaction process with social conditions. Tiefer (1995) in her book Sex Is Not A Natural Act generally represents a moderate feminist position. The central points in Tiefer’s message are that we learn how to be sexual creatures and how to be satisfied in sexual matters. We are not born experts in the domain of sexuality. She contends that the perspective that biological sex is more basic than other approaches is supported by many people because it accesses and maintains prevailing scientific–medical authority. But it may not be correct. Sexual mores change over time. To illustrate, witness the increasing acceptance of homosexuality and the greater acceptance over the last 4 decades of women having many sexual partners prior to being married. Thus, what is “normal” and “natural” often changes because of changes in human attitudes, values, beliefs, and behavior. Tiefer implies some obvious logic that too often is neglected in the posture-taking among opposing camps on human sexuality: Just as they differ in certain areas, men and women share a lot of characteristics in their motives and social psychological dynamics regarding sexuality. Also, all women and men both are representative of their sexes and unique in their individual ways in representing their sexes and species. Rossi (1985) presents a challenge to a radical social constructionism view of how sexual meaning may be interpreted: “Gender differentiation is not simply as a function of socialization, capitalist production or patriarchy. It is grounded in a sex dimorphism that serves the fundamental purpose of reproducing the species. Hence, sociological units of analysis such as roles, groups, networks, and classes divert attention from the fact that the subjects of our work are male and female animals with genes, glands, bones, and flesh occupying an ecological niche of a particular kind in a tiny fragment of time” (p. 161). Rossi’s comments are well-taken, and a tempered position is needed on the nature– nurture question as it pertains to human sexuality. Social constructionism and feminism

72

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 73

M O N O G A M Y

O R

N O T

I N

T H E

2 1

S T

C E N T U R Y ?

have contributed a lot to our understanding of the malleable nature of human sexuality. Coupled with a common sense appreciation of biology, their position holds great promise for continued contributions to our understanding of this ever changing phenomenon.

MONOGAMY OR NOT IN THE 21ST CENTURY? This topic follows well from the foregoing discussion of evolutionary psychology’s position on relationships and sexuality. With no stop to AIDS, some educators and concerned citizens are encouraging a limiting of one’s sexual partners. Already, from a high point in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it is likely that males and females have cut back, at least somewhat, on the number of sexual partners they have while single. What about outside sexual relationships during marriage? Hite (1987), Bringle and Buunk (1991) and other writers and scholars have estimated that married people continue to have affairs at a relatively high rate—from about 25% of all married people to as high as 70%. It is not clear whether there are many people who continuously have affairs throughout their marriages. Apparently some may have one long-term lover on the side. There likely are some who have one or a couple of brief affairs and do not repeat. The data are hardly precise, in part because of people’s reluctance to talk about their affairs with researchers; and people also sometimes distort their reports of affairs. At any rate, the various reports in the literature reflect a lot of sexual behavior with partners outside marriage. Is there any movement toward more monogamous relationships by the early 21st century? Some survey researchers, such as Tom Smith at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, see trends that make them think infidelity is becoming rarer. Smith, for example, found that only 1.5% of people surveyed in 1995 reported that they “cheated” on their spouse in the last year. However, this low number may be as suspicious as the high numbers reported by Hite (1987). In the latter work, readers of a magazine were asked to write to Hite regarding whether they had been faithful; so the sample could have been tilted at the start by the subpopulation who read that particular magazine. In a provocative book entitled Sexual Arrangements, Reibstein and Richards (1993) interviewed couples who had engaged in casual and sometimes serious sexual relationships with other people outside of their primary, close relationships. Most often, their partners were initially unaware of the affairs. Sometimes, though, the couple agreed to these arrangements. These authors argue that having affairs does not signify pathology as has been implied by some therapists/writers (e.g., Pittman, 1990). Rather, their respondents indicated that positive feelings about self and sometimes the primary relationship may derive from affairs. Reibstein and Richards do indicate that affairs that are discovered may have devastating effects on couples and their children, even if the sexuality involved a onenight stand. The authors suggest that young children from about age 7 or 8 on were the most seriously negatively affected when they discovered their parents’ affairs. These authors use their interview evidence to suggest that affairs offer heavy doses of excitement and guilt, often exact retaliation from a partner who feels betrayed, and may occur more often when a couple has settled in to a comfortable lifestyle. Battan (1992) argued that the tradition of adultery is a long one in human existence. She traced it back to a high point in the time of the troubadours of the 13th century. The

73

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 74

4 .

S E X U A L I T Y

I N

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

troubadours were young French Noblemen who became traveling poets who roamed about celebrating the value of romantic love and the passions of different women. Battan claimed that the love portrayed by the troubadours was centered on adulterous passion and hostility toward marriage. It was a game of courtly love. Battan links the troubadour tradition with its embrace of adultery to modern romance novels. Written by and for women, romance novels are thought to fulfill the romantic fantasies for outside relationships of millions of women. Battan argued that romance novels reinforce the double standard because so often the story line involves an innocent woman’s falling deeply in love with a dashing, very sexually experienced man, who then turns the woman on to her latent sexuality; she, in turn, tames some of his quest for multiple partners. Thus, Battan contended that the supposedly innocuous romance novel reinforces the patriarchal status quo and functions to keep women in their proverbial place. Further, the romance depicted, like a drug, may yield temporary, illusory relief from one’s close relationship realities; but, in the long run, it provides neither ideas nor encouragement to help women deal with the real problems of their relationships. Critics have been quick to raise concerns about recommending affairs as a way of making a primary relationship better. If the primary relationship is “dead,” why do not the partners officially end it, rather than developing some other complicating relationship? Further, as many have noted, although having an affair may be fun at first, it ultimately may adversely affect not only on the primary relationships, but also on bystanders such as children. It is hard to live a “double life,” as we are shown regularly in the media and lives of people we all have encountered. Certainly, some people feel that they cannot readily get out of a marriage or nonmarital close relationship because of financial or other practical reasons. In the longrun, however, the step to end one relationship before starting another one likely will leave less destruction in its path. Hence, the answer to the question starting this section appears to be, there is no clearcut “yes” or “no” to monogamy in the early 21st century. Humans being what we are likely will continue to be attracted to the “green grass” of outside relationships. Those people whose sexual morality accepts the possibility of complexity and ambivalence in a marital relationship have not judged Clinton [President Bill Clinton in reference to the Clinton–Lewinsky affair in the mid-1990s] as badly as those who see marriage as a monolithic simple entity . . . —Marshall Herskovitz, Executive Producer “Thirtysomething,” quoted in the New York Times O-Ed Section, p. A27, October 2, 1998, article by Adam Phillips “How much does monogamy tell us?”

O N S E X U A L – C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P E D U C AT I O N A N D P U B L I C D I S C O U R S E This chapter concludes by discussing the importance of educating children and young people about the connection between sexuality and close relationships and about the general need for greater dialogue regarding this connection in society. In our society we do too little open, thoughtful talking about sexuality as it occurs in the context of relationships. There is hardly any information on whether teachers and scholars are systematically implementing sexual–close-relationship education as we enter the 21st century. We have our courses on each, but seldom on both together.

74

01-070 C04 pp3 9/13/01 1:51 PM Page 75

O N

S E X U A L – C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P

E D U C A T I O N

More specifically, we have courses now at all levels of education on sex education— which emphasize anatomy and functioning. Seldom, though, do such courses attempt to link sexuality and relating. Michelle Fine (1992) has perceptively argued that what is missing in the education of women about sexuality is a discourse of desire. She argues for a more balanced approach in education, that has tended to focus on issues of danger and victimization associated with sexuality. What about parents and their educational activities with their children? From all reports that we have heard in over 3 decades of teaching people in the late teens and early 20s, parents are more negligent than schools even in skimming over these topics, or avoiding them like the plague. They may help the young person be prepared for sex via birth control or condom use, but it is rare to hear about parents openly and knowledgeably discussing the various issues of sex and relating with their children. Some such analyses filter through the countless television and movie depictions of relationships that young people see. But usually, the logic is simplistic and illusory regarding the real difficulties that may be encountered. “Good stories” often require happy endings or stories that sell often require a lot of gratuitous sex and violence. So, we should never look to the media for solutions to the education problem. There are reasons for optimism about this educational issue. Courses at the university level that link sexuality, relationship, and family matters are plentiful in the early 21st century. Good, thoughtfully written books are appearing every day. The children of the late 20th century also have learned a lot from observing their parents, who often have been recycling into the dating world even while their children also are dating. Gladly, some parents are openly and with maturity discussing these issues with their children. A father and child psychologist John Rosemond writing in the March, 1993, magazine Hemispheres discussed his approach to raising his young son with certain inclinations about sexuality, relationships, and women. He suggested that his socialization plan was to try to educate his son not with a “hit and run” approach to sex, as had been the pattern of his own parents, but rather with an ongoing commitment to openness in discussion and recognition that is regularly modeled in adult–adult and adult–child dialogue. Greater openness between children and parents about sexuality and relationships should contribute to the young person’s implementation of his or her relationships with greater dignity and respect of self and of all those involved when a sexual relationship begins. These offerings of advice about the education process blend well with a central motif of this chapter: Sex is not a linear process. As Shirley MacLaine said in an opening quote, sex is not just about sex. It mainly is about creating meaning with another human being.

75

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 77

5 LOVE AND COMMITMENT There is hardly any activity, any enterprise, which is started with such tremendous hopes and expectations and yet, which fails so regularly as love. —Eric Fromm (1956)

Love is such a tissue of paradoxes, and exists in such an endless variety of forms and shades, that you may say almost anything about it that you please, and it is likely to be correct. (In Berscheid & Walster, 1978, p. 105; original quote taken from H. T. Finck’s Romantic Love and Personal Beauty, 1891, Macmillan, London)

Love may not make the world go round but I must admit it makes the ride worthwhile. —Sean Connery

On Valentine’s Day (February 14) 2000, USA TODAY ran a “USA Snapshot” on adults who believe in love at first sight. Amazingly, there was consensus across all age groups on the preponderance of respondents believing in love at first sight: ages 18–29, 60%; ages 30–49, 56%; ages 50–64, 45%; and 65 and older, 41%. Hence, it may be concluded that we are a culture that strongly values love and believes that it can be instantly recognized. Although the literature may suggest pause about how quickly true love can be perceived, these beliefs appear to be deeply ingrained in most of us—even if we have had mixed personal experiences with love. Sternberg (1998) argues that love is a social construction, meaning that there is no one particular reality of love—rather there are many constructed by all of us in the course of our careers of loving many others. The quotes that open this chapter speak to diversity of ideas about love, from the great disappointment that sometimes attends love to the intricacies of the feeling of love to the excitement that we feel in pursuing love. This chapter is about love, the central concept in the whole field of close relationships. The chapter also links love to the idea of commitment in close relationships.

T H E D I F F I C U LT J O U R N E Y T O S T U D Y L O V E The historical back-drop for the study of love is similar to that for the study of sexuality, which is briefly reviewed in chapter 4. For present purposes, it is important to note that the study of the social psychology of love is a 20th century phenomenon. Until the end

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 78

5 .

L O V E

A N D

C O M M I T M E N T

of the Victorian Period of the late 19th century in the United States, human love usually was unequivocally linked with obeying of God’s will in marriage. There was little recognition of passionate love (which is similar to romantic love). Passionate love did not have an accepted place in the intimate lives of people in the Puritan or Victorian eras, that took up much of the first 3 centuries in this country. In fact, other than early work by sociologists on love within the context of the family, the first systematic study of love by psychologists did not begin until the 1960s. Pioneers such as Ellen Berscheid, Elaine (Walster) Hatfield, Keith Davis, George Levinger, and Bernard Murstein began to develop this topic in the 1960s and 1970s. However, they encountered much criticism from the mainstream psychology fields and from grant review committees, who often wrote their work off as common sense, or “too soft” (meaning not well-grounded in theory and clear-cut empirical operations). Berscheid and Hatfied’s work on love, which probably involved the most influential and ground-breaking early research, was singled out in the 1970s by Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin for one of his “Golden Fleece Awards” that he gave to people receiving federal grants and whose work he found to be so wanting that they were “fleecing the government.” Proxmire suggested that we as scholars should not dig into some sacrosanct topics—yet, ironically, at the same point in time, Proxmire was engaged in his own difficult divorce! Here is what Berscheid and Walster (1978) quoted Proxmire as saying in 1975 in his criticism of their work: I believe that 200 million other Americans want to leave some things in life a mystery, and right at the top of things we don’t want to know is why a man falls in love with a woman and vice versa. . . . So National Science Foundation—get out of the love racket. Leave that to Elizabeth Barrett Browning and Irving Berlin. Here, if anywhere, Alexander Pope was right when he observed, “If ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.” (p. 150) As millions of Americans’ book-buying tendencies, interests in relationship counseling, and subscription to college relationships courses indicate, Proxmire was dead wrong! People want to try to know about any mystery, especially one so fundamental to the human condition as what love is and why it occurs. Gladly, Proxmire’s view did not prevail. In fact, it may have indirectly speeded along some scholars’ quest to learn about love. There also is a lot to be learned from common sense, as another pioneering psychologist Fritz Heider showed in his seminal (1958) work The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. The scholars who built this area of scholarship in psychology deserve great praise. They endured an onslaught of criticism and persevered, such that today the topic is fairly common in psychology (e.g., see Berscheid, 1988, p . 360). In the 1980s and 1990s, several federal research grants were awarded to study topics directly related to love.

DEFINITIONS Love.

What is “love”? As implied in the beginning paragraph, love is one of the most difficult concepts to define in the close relationships field. As an illustration, in one of the most useful analyses of love, Susan and Clyde Hendrick (Romantic Love, 1992) avoided a

78

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 79

D E F I N I T I O N S

definitive definition and simply said: “We choose not to provide a formal definition of love, but rather to let the context of the entire book engage in the defining process (p. 6). The context of their book provides many rich connotations of love, such as their provocative work on different loving styles that will be discussed next. Yet, is there no simple definition we can offer at the outset in the way of a general definition? No, there is no such simple definition. We can do some general outlining of the concept and bring in what other scholars have said. One general idea is that love is an emotion, that is positive in valence and may be directed toward other and/or self. In this same vein, love has been construed as an attitude involving positive feeling toward self and/or other. People frequently make a distinction between “loving someone” and “being in love.” The latter usually is reserved for a special romantically oriented relationship, whereas the former may be said to apply to a number of others including relatives and friends. In her last book Courage My Love, written before dying an untimely death, Merle Shain (1989) wrote engagingly about love in a chapter she called “What is this thing called love?” She defined love as involving stages: First, there is the “some enchanted evening,” or bell-ringing, highly romantic stage that she suggested is short-lived, lasting usually around 6 weeks. It should be noted that many other theorists believe that romantic love may last a lot longer. These other theorists, though, typically are referring to love in a general and positive way and not defined mainly by idealization of other, feeling a loss of personal control, and other such illusory qualities. Shain suggested that after this early highly romantic period, a more substantial stage, involving much less idealization of other, usually occurs if the couple continues to be engaged in a close relationship. In this more advanced stage, respect (which Shain referred to as “love in plain clothes”), acceptance, understanding, and mutual self-disclosure—to a high degree—represent love. If love matures to this more advanced stage, it involves also self-love. Shain quoted the theologian Martin Buber who contended that there cannot be a “we” until there is an “I” to keep company with the “thou.” In this context Shain (1989) said: “And while it’s often easier to flesh someone out with your own creativity and fall in love with what you’ve made, the real joy is in understanding and accepting and loving what you find” (p. 31). Aaron Beck (1988) wrote a useful book entitled Love Is Never Enough, which is discussed in more detail in the chapter on maintenance. He, too, did not define love in any direct way. The title of this book is an appropriate one, since the book makes explicit that whatever love is, it is not enough to sustain a relationship over an extended period. Bernard Murstein was a pioneer in the study of love, sex, and marriage (see his 1974 book entitled Love, Sex, and Marriage), but he also has deferred trying to define love in a simple way. In a definitional piece on love (1988), he reviewed a number of other analysts’ definitions, including: Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. —H. L. Mencken (in Murstein, 1988, p. 14) Love is a substitute for another desire, for the struggle toward self-fulfillment, for the vain urge to reach one’s ego-ideal. —Theodore Reik (same reference) Aim-inhibited sex. —Sigmund Freud (same reference)

79

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 80

5 .

L O V E

A N D

C O M M I T M E N T

Interestingly, Murstein, after reviewing work on different types of love, said, “My taxonomy of love did not lead to the conclusion that there is a useful single definition” (p. 34). Now, are we more enlightened? I doubt it. These definitions cloud further our attempt to provide at least one short definition that can hold up against many qualifications. As noted previously, Ellen Berscheid was one of the major shapers of the early literature on liking and loving. Her commentary in Sternberg and Barnes’ (1988) book The Psychology of Love is one of the most cogent statements on the multifaceted nature of love. She said: . . . love is not a single distinct behavioral phenomenon with clearly recognizable outlines and boundaries. Rather, the genus love is a huge and motley collection of many different behavioral events whose only commonalities are that they take place in a relationship with another person (in that they are caused by and/or affect the behavior of another . . .). (p. 362) The value of Berscheid’s point is its emphasis on behavioral events. Too often, scholars who try to define and work with love do not readily operationalize love as involving clear-cut behavior. How can we know about another’s love for us lest we have behavioral evidence? Beyond the contextual and behavioral emphases of the foregoing analyses, the following simple definition by Seymour Epstein’s (1993) is compelling: “To love is to derive satisfaction from observing the welfare and fulfillment of the love one. . . . I know I love you because it makes me happy to see you happy” (p. 109). Implied in this definition is that idea that the lover acts toward the loved one in a way that enhances this satisfaction and happiness. A final point to consider in defining love is conveyed by Oscar Wilde’s famous line that we always hurt the one we love. What does that mean. Coleman (1984) interpreted this line to suggest that love involves a special vulnerability on the part of the lover. We invariably are hurt most by people whom we love. Interestingly, we may be primed for them to hurt us due to a personal history that has involved disillusionment in love, perceived rejection, and lessened hope for the future.

F R I E N D , L O V E R , A N D S E X U A L PA R T N E R Are liking and loving points along a continuum concerning how intensely we feel about another person? Not necessarily. In pioneering work on this distinction, Zick Rubin (1973) provided the seed for later work on typologies of love by trying to distinguish between liking and loving. As an illustration of Rubin’s interest in a component analysis of love, he suggested that love was composed of attachment (involving passion and possessiveness), caring (involving giving to other), and intimacy (reciprocal sharing between two people). Rubin and his colleagues created different scales to measure liking and loving (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976). An example from their liking scale was: “My partner is one of the most likable people I know.” An example from their loving scale was: “I feel I can confide in my partner about virtually everything.” In their research, it was found that, as expected, there was a very high correlation (around .80) for responses to items within each

80

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 81

F R I E N D ,

L O V E R ,

A N D

S E X U A L

P A R T N E R

scale—suggesting that the items within scales were reliably similar. On the other hand, the correlations between the liking and loving scale items was quite a bit lower—0.36 for females and 0.56 for males. Why were the correlations less similar for females and more similar for males? One argument is that females make clearer distinctions between liking and loving than do males. Although one may develop various reasons to support this difference between females and males, this finding has not been pursued enough in subsequent work and remains quite tentative. A related finding from a study conducted in Australia by Cunningham and Antill (1981) did show positive relationships among liking, love, and a personality trait called romanticism. Again, males showed higher associations among these qualities than did females, augmenting the position that females may be more differentiating among the various states of liking and loving. Subsequent research on Rubin’s liking and loving scales led to some qualifications regarding when they differ. Dion and Dion (1976) asked people in different types of relationships to fill out the liking and loving scales. They found that only casual daters clearly differentiated between liking and loving. Exclusive daters, engaged couples, and married couples revealed less differentiation. This finding makes sense. The more positively involved people become, the more likely they are to report both high degrees of liking (e.g., “he also is my best friend”) and loving (e.g., “I don’t know what I would do without his love”). Liking versus loving is a dilemma for most people. We want to be liked by and be friends with our lovers. An implicit theory many of us entertain is that we must first like one another and be close friends in order to develop a close relationship. After we become lovers, we hope that our friendship endures and that both it and the love we have together grow in depth and breadth over the course of our lives together. In her (1992) book A Book of Self-Esteem: Revolution from Within, Gloria Steinem suggested the importance in her life of the sequence of friendship to lover: The only problem was that, having got this man to fall in love with an inauthentic me, I had to keep on not being myself. . . . “Having for the first time in my life made a lover out of man who wasn’t a friend first—my mistake, not his, since I was the one being untrue to myself . . . (p. 265) Many times people are unsure, however, about whether they should cross the line between liking and loving, or between being a friend versus being a lover (the classic question posed in the movie “When Harry Met Sally”). Thus, in these cases, we may preserve a friendship-liking relationship and never know if it could have been successfully turned into love. Some people do cross the line from friendship to being lovers and then successfully return to being “just friends.” Indeed, to have at least a few people whom we have liked for an extended period and who have liked us and who are good friends is a great blessing. It may be as much a blessing in terms of social support as to have one good, long-term lover. What if we become lovers with a person, and yet we are not sexually excited by this person? That too is a fairly common dilemma. It also is a matter that now the judiciary system has addressed. In April, 1993, a California court jury awarded an ex-husband $242,000 in a civil suit against his ex-wife because she never told him in their 11-year marriage that she was not attracted to him sexually—even though she loved him!

81

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 82

5 .

L O V E

A N D

C O M M I T M E N T

LANGUAGE OF LOVE In a fascinating study, Meyers and Berscheid (1997) provided empirical evidence on the commonly used distinction between loving another person and being “in love” with that person. It was hypothesized that the number of others in respondents’ “love” category would be much greater than the number of others in respondents “in love” category. As Meyers and Berscheid note, the language of love matters in our daily interactions. What are the cognitive categories into which we organize people and entities in our world? Neisser (1987) suggests that such categories emerge from the demands of social life and the need to make distinctions in order to communicate coherently. Certainly, most of us have learned in the “game of love” (see further discussion of this idea at end of chapter) that words matter. Meyers and Berscheid had put their finger on the culturally common idea that being “in love” is different than loving others—which so many people blithely attach to various pieces of communication with semi-strangers in their lives. Meyers and Berscheid’s (1997) procedure involved asking 388 students at the University of Minnesota to list all persons in their social worlds whom they believed in the “love,” “in love,” and “sexual attraction/desire” categories. The evidence collected showed the general predicted effect. Both men and women named significantly more persons as members of the love category than as members of the in love category. The sexual attraction/desire category was in-between these the former categories in size. Meyers and Berscheid found gender effects with these findings: Women loved more of the people they sexually desired than did men. Women also sexually desired even fewer of the people they loved than did men. Men included fewer people in the love category than did women. What about overlap among categories? The principal type of overlap found by Meyers and Berscheid was that the in-love category refers to people who are both loved and sexually desired. The in love and sexual attraction categories are nested within the larger love category.

TYPOLOGIES AND STYLES OF LOVE As we will see in the following discussions, several typologies of love have been proposed in the last 3 decades. Common concern about these typologies is how well they reflect the processes of loving, and how well they capture changes across time and different relationships in any one person’s type/style of loving.

Companionate Love versus Passionate Love Walster and Walster (1978) and Berscheid and Walster (1978) first explored the idea of companionate love and distinguished it from passionate love. They contended that companionate love involves friendship and desire to be together as its core features. Companionate love becomes very common as people age and as they have experienced different relationships in their relationship careers. Companionate love is theorized to involve a low-keyed set of emotions. Passionate love, unlike companionate love, is theorized to have a large component of physiological arousal (or feelings of “chemistry”). Couples may combine companionate and passionate love or may emphasize one component more than the other. Passionate love, like romantic love, is theorized to be especially likely to occur early in a relationship. Later,

82

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 83

T Y P O L O G I E S

A N D

S T Y L E S

O F

L O V E

as a couple grows together in their relationship, they may have a solid base of companionate love, but also enough continuing spark to have periods of passionate love as well. Although for most of us, simple companionship may not do, we nonetheless would be well-advised to carefully consider the value of a mixture of romance, passion, companionship, and friendship in our close relationships. Such a mixture coupled with the dose of reality that comes with experience and careful thinking about relating may offer a great antidote to disillusionment about love that is common when a couple has experienced only romantic or passionate love. Tennov (1979), who has engaged in detailed studies of limerant–romantic love, argued that companionate love likely is a far more lasting form of love than are passionate or romantic love. Passionate love and romantic love often are treated as synonymous in the literature. Table 5.1 provides Hatfield and Sprecher’s (1986) listing of the primary components of romantic love, as well as example items from their “Passionate Love Scale.”

TABLE 5.1 Primary Components of Romantic Love Cognitive Components 1. Preoccupation with the one you love. 2. Idealization of the other. 3. Desire to know and be known by the other. Emotional Components 1. Attraction, especially sexual attraction, to the other. 2. Positive feelings when things go wrong. 3. Negative feelings when things go awry. 4. Longing for reciprocity. (Passionate lovers love and want to be loved in return.) 5. Desire for a complete and permanent union. 6. Physiological arousal. Behavioral Components 1. Attempting to determine the other’s feelings. 2. Studying the other person. 3. Assisting the other. 4. Maintaining physical closeness. Example Items from Hatfield and Sprecher’s (1986) Passionate Love Scale 1. I would feel deep despair if ______ left me. 2. I yearn to know all about ______. 3. I have endless appetite for affection from ______. 4. _______ always seems to be on my mind. 5. I get extremely depressed when things don’t go right in my relationship with ______. Adapted from Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986.

83

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 84

5 .

L O V E

A N D

C O M M I T M E N T

Styles of Love The sociologist John Lee (1975) was the first investigator to argue that there are styles of love that are analogous to colors (with primaries—eros, ludus, and storge; and secondaries—pragma, mania, and agape). Lee developed this approach based on his research in which he asked people to sort through a large set of cards describing relationships and select the ones that fit their relationship. Lee’s original work has been extended into a major conceptual approach and body of evidence by the Hendricks (1986, 1989, 1992). They have conducted over a decade of work on love styles and how such styles are associated with close relationship events including sexuality. A general assumption is that people do exhibit personality-like styles in their loving behavior. The Hendricks developed a love attitudes scale to measure styles of loving. Briefly, these six types of love posited in Lee’s work and amplified on in the Hendricks’ work are defined in Table 5.2.

TABLE 5.2 Hendricks’ Conception of Six Love Styles 1. Eros—This style is characterized by strong sexual desire and intense emotional attachment. 2. Storge—This style is comparable to what is called companionate love (see later) and involves a slow, affection-oriented pace of relating, emphasizing the development of frienship before love; mutual need fulfillment also is embraced. 3. Ludus—This style is characterized by the term that means “game” in Latin; it is a nonpossessive type of love that typically does not lead to marriage; another focus is on the conquest of a number of sexual partners. 4. Mania—This is an obsessive, jealous, possessive, and dependent style of loving. It is highly stressful and involves many peaks and valleys in emotion (see Tennov’s limerant love described later). 5. Pragma—This style is characterized by keen awareness of one’s market value and comparison level. Love is maintained for practical reasons. 6. Agape—This style embraces altruism, or unselfish concern for other (see discussion of communal love later). Love is freely given without expecting anything in return; also, this style may involve a spiritual component that focuses on communion and other nonphysical aspects of relating. Adapted from Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992.

As might be expected, the Hendricks have found that relationships often involve mixtures of these styles of loving. Their work has increasingly moved from love styles in dating relationships to love styles in more advanced, long-term close relationships. Some of their more interesting findings using this approach include: 1. Males report themselves to be more ludic than do females. Why? Maybe it is simply because many males buy into the stereotype about them to be game-players in relationships?

84

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 85

T Y P O L O G I E S

A N D

S T Y L E S

O F

L O V E

2. Women report themselves to be more storgic, pragmatic, and manic than do men. The Hendricks suggested that women have been socialized to marry both a love partner and someone who can provide economically for them. 3. Men and women score similarly on eros; that is, both females and males believe they are passionate in their close relationships. 4. Eros lovers have been found to be more disclosing to their partners and able to elicit self-disclosure. Eros lovers appear to be sensitive to the important role of communication in sexuality and relating. 5. Ludic lovers score relatively quite high in desire for excitement and novelty. Ludic lovers also have been found to be more extroverted in their behavior. 6. Manic lovers were found to be sensitive and emotionally expressive, but they also showed higher defensiveness, aggressiveness, and neurotic tendencies. 7. For ongoing close relationships, partners have been shown to have considerable similarity on their storge, mania, ludus, and agape scores. Also, in terms of relationship satisfaction, men appear to favor women who are high in eros and agape; whereas, women’s satisfaction was unrelated to their partner’s scores on eros and agape. This body of work on love styles has been quite stimulating for research and theory on how people love one another in relatively durable ways. What we do not know at present, however, is how well the ideas would apply to people at quite disparate points along life’s continuum. If and when research is conducted with a senior population, will we find, for example, that there are 88-year-old men who still are “erotic” lovers to the day they die? Let’s hope so!

Tr i a n g u l a r T h e o r y o f L o v e Robert Sternberg’s (1986, 1988) previously mentioned triangular theory of love suggests that there are three major components—intimacy, passion, and decision or commitment—that are arranged at the apexes of a triangle. Intimacy includes sharing emotions and stories with other—it is enhanced by self-disclosure; passion involves erotic interest in other; decision or commitment involves making a decision to stay with other and to defer this type of relationship with others. When all three are present, consummate love exists. That hardly ever happens according to Sternberg. Most of the time, each member of a couple emphasizes one or more of the elements, while the other may emphasize a slightly different combination. To the extent that they emphasize quite divergent positions, the couple may experience problems in relating. For example, it often is argued that men emphasize what Sternberg calls passion, whereas women emphasize what he calls intimacy. If so, either they will converge over time in what they really seek and exhibit, or they likely will have conflict. Other types of love in Sternberg’s conception were: infatuated love (involving high passion but low intimacy and commitment); romantic love (involving high intimacy and passion, but low commitment); empty love (involving high commitment, but low intimacy and passion); companionate love (involving high intimacy and commitment, but low passion); and fatuous love (involving high passion and commitment, but low intimacy). Sternberg’s component analysis has been well-received by close relationships scholars. This conception still requires further empirical attention to determine how partners sharing

85

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 86

5 .

L O V E

A N D

C O M M I T M E N T

or not sharing the different love emphases may contribute to satisfaction in their relationships. Fortunately, Sternberg (1986, 1997) has created a triangular love scale that has been shown to be effective in its ability to demarcate the intimacy, passion, and decision components (Acker & Davis, 1992).

COMMUNAL LOVE This position on love was developed by Judson Mills and Margaret Clark (Clark & Mills, 1979; Mills & Clark, 1982) as an alternative to the idea that equity usually guides interactions among family members and friends. Equity basically means that people in a relationship believe that they are getting from the relationship exactly what they deserve, given their contributions to the relationship (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Mills and Clark perceptively asked, however, why do people in close relationships often remove the price tag from gifts they buy one another? Their answer is that people in communal relationships (as with kin, close nonmarital, and close marital) do not always follow the principles of equity in their resource exchanges. Rather, they follow the law of intent and good faith motivation. Mills and Clark argued that in a noncommunal exchange relationship, people give to others with the expectation that their giving will be reciprocated. Not so in a communal relationship. In such a relationship, members assume that each is concerned about the welfare of the other. Each person has a positive attitude toward benefiting the other especially when the other has a need for such a benefit. Members are following what Pruitt (1972) referred as the norm of mutual responsiveness. Mills and Clark further contended that participants in communal relationships are seldom guided by traditional laws of exchange or equity in their feelings for one another. These researchers have developed an impressive body of evidence to support their conception and establish the idea of communal love. It appears that in many close relationships, communal love is the norm and a chief basis for the satisfaction of the participants. We should not, however, conclude that all close relationships, by definition, are communal in nature. As has been implied in other chapters, a couple may have what in principle is a close relationship without any love or sexual intimacy being exchanged at all; in such a case, indeed they may give to one another on the basis of quid pro quo—giving something of like value in return for an original gift from other. Still another likely scenario in many close relationships is a mixture of communal and quid pro quo exchange. It might be postulated that when a close relationship is highly satisfying to both parties, a lot of communal love in how the relationship is implemented will be displayed in the behavior of both parties.

Exchange Theory and Love One interesting theory involving love as an exchange approach was developed by Foa and Foa (1974) that emphasizes the “societal structures of the mind.” According to the Foas, as part of the socialization process, people learn what is acceptable to give to (or take away from) one another in various types of relationships. Their approach is unique in that it focuses on the content of exchanges. In their view, people give one another status, love, services, goods, money, and information. These resources are seen as ordered on the dimensions of particularism and concreteness. Love, for example, is the most particular resource; it matters a great deal from whom we receive love. Money, on the other hand, is

86

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 87

A T T A C H M E N T

S T Y L E S

A N D

T Y P E S

O F

L O V E

the least particularistic and most concrete resource. The resources of status and services are less particularistic than is love. With regard to our understanding of love, the Foas suggest that people learn that concrete resources such as money should not be given in order to get love. To get love from others, one must give love, or possibly status—which the Foas have shown to be close to love in people’s mental maps of relations among interpersonal resources. An intriguing proposition of the Foas’ analysis is that when one gives love to other, one receives in return love from the very act of giving, supporting the biblical saying “It is more blessed to give than receive.”

AT TA C H M E N T S T Y L E S A N D TYPES OF LOVE The last theory of love to be discussed has produced the most research of any approach in the 1990s. It is the simple notion that what happens early in our socialization especially with parents and key caregivers has a reverberating impact on our adult close relationships. The exact nature of this relationship is not clear. However, attachment processes represent one of the most active research areas in the close relationships field entering the 21st century. Cindy Hazan and Philip Shaver (1987, 1994) developed the provocative idea that people’s adult style of close relationship or love is premised on their early attachment experiences with one’s parents. “Romantic love” clearly was part of the phenomenon initially conceptualized by Hazan and Shaver. These scholars also suggested that attachment theory may serve as an organizing framework for the close relationships field (Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Their first paper (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) was entitled “Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.” They proposed that the formation of adult romantic relationships is a biosocial attachment process analogous to the development of child–caregiver bonds during infancy (Bowlby, 1969, 1973). Just as infants can be described as having a secure, anxious/ambivalent, or avoidant attachment to a primary caregiver (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), adults can be similarly depicted in their typical approaches to close relationships. According to Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) definition of the adult attachment styles, secure individuals feel comfortable becoming close to and depending on others; avoidant individuals feel uncomfortable becoming close to or depending on others; and anxious/ ambivalent individuals have a strong quest to get close others coupled with a fear of abandonment or rejection. In their early work, Hazan and Shaver (1987) asked people to select the one attachment style that best described their feelings and experiences. About 50% selected the secure style of attachment (i.e., “I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me.”). Approximately 25% chose the avoidant style (i.e., “I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close . . .”). Finally, another approximate 20% selected the anxious or ambivalent style (i.e., “I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me or won’t want to stay with me.”). In terms of the original ideas and method for studying attachment and close relationships, Bartholomew (1990) and Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) developed finer 87

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 88

5 .

L O V E

A N D

C O M M I T M E N T

distinctions of attachment types and a questionnaire approach to assessing attachment type. Their proposed attachment styles were: secure (generally positive feelings about self and others); dismissing (positive feelings about self but not toward others); preoccupied (anxiety about self but valuing of others); and fearful (negative feelings about self and others). Bartholomew and Horowitz referred to their questionnaire as the “Relationship Questionnaire.” Later research testing the value of this questionnaire against other methods for assessing attachment styles is reported by Crowell, Treboux, and Waters (1999). Since the original work by Hazan and Shaver, whole research programs have been developed based on these attachment theory of love ideas. It has been found that secure individuals experience greater satisfaction in close relationships and tend to report more positive love experiences than do either avoidant or anxious/ambivalent individuals (Fraley & Shaver, 1999). Tucker & Anders (1999) reported that anxiously attached men in close relationships showed consistently lower accuracy in perceiving their partner’s feelings. However, this pattern was not found for avoidant individuals. Fraley and Shaver (1999) report one of their studies in which the attachment styles of couples separating in a public airport were assessed. They found that anxious women were more likely to express distress prior to such separations. Women who had avoidant styles tended to pull away from their partners when separation was imminent. Secure women showed much less of these distress tendencies. Simpson, Ickes, and Grich (1999) reported that highly anxious/ambivalent individuals were more empathically accurate about the thoughts and feelings harbored by their romantic partners than were secure or avoidant individuals. They also reported that 4 months later, more anxious/ambivalent men’s relationships had ended relative to relationships for all other groups. This qualifying work in the late 1990s is stretching the reach of attachment theory and showing many tentacles of association with other variables and processes. Obviously, the theory has been quite stimulating for the relationship field. However, it remains to be seen whether further theory will elaborate successfully aspects of attachment processes both from infancy to adulthood and after people become adult. For example, do early adult attachments also have major impacts on people’s later types of love relationships? One piece of evidence was a 4-year longitudinal study by Kirkpatrick and Hazan (1994) that showed that secure respondents who experienced breakups were less likely to remain secure in the future. On the other hand, avoidant respondents who initiated new relationships after breakups were less likely to remain avoidant than were those who did not initiate new relationships. Perhaps the most daunting continuing challenge for attachment–close relationship work is the question of whether attachment style changes over time (and different relationship partners). To date, there is conflicting evidence on this question. Baldwin & Fehr (1995) reported that approximately 30% of their respondents changed their attachment style classification over a period of time from 1 week to several months; especially likely to change were the anxious/ambivalent respondents. They argue that there may be variability in the underlying construct rather than in the measurement instrument, and that style may depend on relational schema activated for the moment. Davila, Burge, and Hammen (1997) reported that change in attachment style may reflect an individual difference tendency. They found that some women (particularly those similar to women with consistently insecure attachments) were more prone to attachment fluctuations, possibly reflecting earlier adverse experiences.

88

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 89

D E S T R U C T I V E

A S P E C T S

O F

L O V E

A related type of challenge is that people apparently remember past adult attachment patterns as similar to their current attachment pattern (Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1998). This finding may reflect the general tendency of people to reconstruct past experiences to be consistent with present experiences (Ross, 1989). Hazan and Shaver’s personality–developmental approach to close relationships is fascinating. One of the major difficulties with the approach, however, is how to establish strongly the link between early experiences with parents and later experiences with adult lovers. Because of its great difficulty in terms of feasibility, thus far longitudinal research has not been conducted that follows people over a significant part of their life course to evaluate links between their early attachment experiences with parents and caregivers and later, adult relationship experiences.

DESTRUCTIVE ASPECTS OF LOVE Love is not always a positive human state or emotion. M. Scott Peck, in his well-known 1978 book, The Road Less Traveled, argued persuasively that people who love and respect themselves are most capable of loving and giving respect to others. He also suggested that constructive love is not so much something you feel as something you do. How can we expect for others to know that we love them if our actions are not consistent with that sentiment? The following types of love are problematic both for self and other.

Obsessive Love Tennov (1979) conceived a type of love she called limerance that often involved a high degree of obsession with other. She believed that some people were more limerant than others. According to Tennov, to be more limerant is to be more subject to romantic and obsessive love. Certainly not all romantic people are obsessed with love. It is only when a devotion to romance and a high degree of obsession regarding other converge that the stage is set for destructiveness. At the heart of obsession is projection, the belief that other entertains the same viewpoint that you do about how much you care for and love other. The sociologist William Goode (1959) made the following statement about this type of projection in love: Love is the most projective of drives; only with great difficulty can the attracted person believe that the object . . . does not and will not reciprocate the feeling at all. Thus the person may carry the action quite far, before accepting a rejection as genuine. (p. 38) The following is an excerpted account taken from Tennov’s (1979) report of the conclusion of a love affair between a man and the respondent, an obsessed young woman: When I found Danny’s letter in the mail box, I actually staggered. I was afraid to read it; my premonition was strong. My hands literally shook as I opened it . . . It was just one short sentence saying, “Let’s call it quits because it’s really over for me.” It was total, final, the end. I don’t remember how I made it upstairs except that I was in a state of true shock. . . . I hardly breathed. It was as if, if I remained absolutely motionless, it

89

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 90

5 .

L O V E

A N D

C O M M I T M E N T

would in some magical way not be true. . . . Then I considered actions . . . like going after Barbara (the woman toward whom Danny’s interest had shifted) with a knife or throwing myself out the window . . . . (p. 147) Indeed, one of the most hazardous situations involving romantic love is when excessive obsession enters the picture. When a lover is obsessed (as in the movie “Fatal Attraction”), there is a feeling of helplessness and of losing oneself within the other. This latter abandonment of self may occur even when the loved one does not reciprocate and, in fact, is trying to get rid of the obsessed party. Such obsession is not unusual, but it also is one of the most self-destructive tendencies encountered in the close relationship world. It essentially renounces and degrades self and cannot produce a happy outcome for either party. Further, until the obsessed one moves off of this petard of undue regard for other, the individual cannot be a contributing person to the world at large. In some measure, obsessive, romantic love is narcissistic love. In one such scenario, we spend so much time thinking about, directing affective energy toward, and slavishly acting around the loved one that we feel miserable and let everyone know it to an incessant degree. Tennov (1979) said as much eloquently regarding the obsessive limerent: “The limerant endures painfully intense suffering as daydreams smash against the rocks of events, until hope can only be built from the rubble through interpretation” (p. 61).

Love as Infatuation, Need, and Control Epstein (1993) analyzed the destructive situations involving infatuation masquerading as love and love as need and control. Just as they sometimes become obsessed with other, people also become infatuated and believe that they are in love. Epstein argued that this form of loving is related to automatic thoughts that often are irrational. It is as if you have just encountered the person whom you have always longed—the person of your dreams. Thus, as in the typical romantic love scenario, you begin to idealize other, and it may be some time before the “real other” is clear to you. Along the way, you convince yourself that you are “in love,” whether or not that sentiment is being reciprocated by other and whether or not it is a well-considered decision on your part. Love as need and control are similarly irrational in their nature. Love as need refers to the frequent belief on the part of the love that he or she cannot do without the other. The other makes you complete. You may feel you cannot live without the other. This state is that of the quintessential form of destructive romantic love. As Epstein perceptively suggested, one cannot attain a secure love relationship if one is not secure enough to relinquish the relationship. Love as control is the flip side of love as need. In love as control, one expresses his or her insecurity by not being able to love other without trying to control other’s thoughts and actions. Domination by one person in the relationship represents a frequent pattern when love as control is being played out. In truth, the person who must be in control is exhibiting anxiety about his or her vulnerabilities in personality or background or some other important domain. Epstein also noted the control through guilt strategy of some individuals. In this situation, the person tries to keep other bound to him or her through a sense of obligation or guilt. “If you are the right kind of person, you will take care of me and never leave.” “Can’t you see how much I care about you [which involves the sub-text, “You should be ashamed that you cannot appreciate more my care for you.”]

90

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 91

C O M M I T M E N T

A N D

L O V E

As should be clear, love as infatuation or love as need and as control hardly represent love as a positive state of human affairs. Usually, too, these forms of “love” are doomed in that people (most often the persons who serve as objects of the love) will in time try to extricate themselves from the situation, leaving the “needy one” with the task of finding a new object.

COMMITMENT AND LOVE There has been valuable work directed toward distinguishing commitment and love. Following an influential theoretical analysis of commitment and love by Harold Kelley (1983), Beverley Fehr (1988, 1994) conducted a series of studies designed to probe how commitment and love are similar versus how they differ. One of her studies, for example, asked respondents to list characteristics of these two states. There was some overlap in the characteristics, but there also were key differences. Characteristics that were associated with love centered around the experience of positive affect and emphasized the qualities of caring and intimacy. Characteristics associated with commitment centered around the experience of making a decision and emphasized the qualities of loyalty and responsibility. Turning to the “real world,” we might wonder what writers who give advice about love have to say about how love and commitment are related. In one such commentary, Chicago Sun-Times writer Diane Crowley told a writer to her “Dear Diane” column that “Without a commitment, there may be no love.” Crowley was responding to a 40-year-old woman’s plight of having been dating and relating to a man for 2.5 years with no sign of marriage in sight. Crowley responded: What seems to be spooking Ben [the woman’s lover] is commitment, which is the next step when you are “in love.” Your undemanding relationship has stayed spectacular because you and Ben have maintained a certain distance from each other. Now you want more closeness, but Ben feels squeezed. He wants to continue the no-strings-attached arrangement—more than friendship, but less than marriage. . . . If commitment has become a must-have for you, tell Ben how you feel. If it’s clear that what you’ve seen is what you’re gonna get, it may be time to seek true love elsewhere. (Tuesday, March 9, 1993, Section 2, p. 1) Crowley’s advice is interesting in that it suggests that commitment naturally follows love, and that without such a progression, the lover desiring more perhaps should move on. But how often do people maintain a close relationship and yet desire no marriage-type commitment? In the 1990s, frequently. These same people, however, often indicate that they are making a commitment to one another through their love and other forms of committing behavior (e.g., living together, being known as a “couple”), and that a formal commitment such as marriage is unnecessary.

Commitment What is commitment? It is a quality that people regularly associate with ideal intimate partners (Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999). In terms of definition, Kelley (1983) suggested that commitment pertains to a person’s attitudinal and behavioral indication that

91

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 92

5 .

L O V E

A N D

C O M M I T M E N T

he or she will continue in a relationship (as the sayings go, “through thick and thin,” “for better or for worse”). However unorthodox a close relationship may be, it would be surprising to encounter many such relationships that did not depend upon perceived commitment for sustenance. Perceived commitment likely depends on various types of behavioral evidence in order for the relationship’s participants to believe they are a couple (Beach & Tesser, 1988). As Caryl Rusbult’s important work in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., Rusbult, 1983; Rusbult, Bissonnette, Arriaga, & Cox, 1998) has shown, investments of time and resources contribute to a person’s perception of his or her partner’s commitment. An engagement ring may symbolize a commitment, but more important to a person in a relationship may be more subtle indications that other’s thoughts reflect a committed state. According to Rusbult’s (1980, 1983) formulations on commitment, it may be proposed that feelings of commitment arise from forces that make an individual desire the relationship (i.e., satisfaction), and forces that “lock” the individual into the relationship (i.e., alternatives and investments). Thus, commitment 5 satisfaction 2 alternatives 1 investments. Fehr (1988, 1999) has conducted one of the most definitive research programs on commitment. She has asked many respondents to generate features of commitment. The prototype features include: loyalty, responsibility, living up to one’s word, faithfulness, and trust. She has found that people have elaborate cognitive structures regarding commitment and differentiate commitment in romantic relationships versus commitment in friendships. Hinde (1979) wrote of the “private pledge” as one process by which commitment develops. This pledge may be an explicit act, such as a promise of fidelity. More often, however, these pledges are part of the implicit unfolding of understanding between the individuals; they are signs of intention to act in certain ways and continue the relationship. Frequently, people look for evidence that their partner will be exclusive sexually and in terms of closeness and will spurn other romantic, close relationship possibilities. Although it seems essential, this criterion may be one for which people often become uncertain as they evaluate their close relationships. Ambivalence may develop about whether, after further review, one’s partner is the best one available, or whether one’s partner is being faithful. If not worked through in one’s thinking and feeling satisfactorily, such considerations can eventually erode a close relationship. Thus, perceived commitment is a very critical ingredient as most of us conduct our close relationships. What determines perceived commitment? Rusbult (1983) found that global satisfaction with a relationship is one determinant. That may sound circular, because satisfaction should be influenced greatly and positively by perceived commitment. And in nature, these powerful factors likely do have mutual influences on one another. The circularity, if such mutuality deserves that term, is part of the complicated set of rules and processes we must learn to appreciate and seek to understand better. In a longitudinal study of commitment over a 4-year period, Sprecher (1999) found that unmarried romantic partners who continued their relationships over this period perceived their love, commitment, and satisfaction to increase over time. Sprecher also found that for those whose relationships dissolved, perceived commitment decreased before the breakup; interestingly, respondents did not perceive their love to decrease prior to breakup.

Tr u s t Trust is vital to a close relationship. Trust is essential for commitments to be made in close relationships. Trust also is necessary for people to engage in what Altman and Tay-

92

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 93

C O M M I T M E N T

A N D

L O V E

lor (1973) referred to as social penetration. In the process of social penetration, people get to know one another through self-disclosures that increase in depth over time and that tend to be reciprocated by one’s partner. Trust, as Kelley and Thibaut (1978) have suggested, is the exchange of actions or messages that over time reduces uncertainty and increases mutual assurance that the close relationship will endure. In one of the most impressive analyses of trust in close relationships, Holmes and his colleagues have examined the dynamics of trust in close relationships and in so doing have developed the concept of trust as a dispositional quality that people have to certain degrees. Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna (1985) developed an 18-item trust scale that covers a range of trust-related experiences. This scale measures a person’s perceptions of his or her partner’s predictability, dependability, and faith in the future of the relationship. One finding emerging from this work and reported by Holmes and Rempel (1989) is that high-trusting couples tend to be more positive in their attributions and feelings about their partner’s behavior in past conflictual situations than did couples who were low in trust. Holmes and Rempel suggested that high-trusting couples take a more extended perspective on their partner’s behavior and do not judge particular actions (e.g., that may be negative for the relationship) out of that extended, and generally positive, context. Holmes and Rempel also analyzed the typical course of the development of trust in a close relationship. They argued that initially “trust is often little more than a naive expression of hope” (1989, p. 192). Later, however, the extent of trust in the relationship becomes part of its defining fabric. Couples may have a little or a lot. Couples may need regular reassurances regarding their trust, or they may proceed without much continued scrutiny. Couples may test one another on occasion to evaluate the trustworthiness of one another. We frequently wonder about how to evaluate the commitment of our relationship partners. As an illustration of how to evaluate the trustworthiness of a partner, knowing a partner’s past love history may be essential to become trusting and committed. If the potential lover admits that he or she had affairs while married or committed to someone else, does it not follow that you can expect the same thing if you become involved with this person? Such reasoning has some merit, although possibly we often become involved anyway because we believe the excuse offered. “The marriage was over anyway” is a frequent excuse that, if we can buy into it, we then may be able to develop enough trust in other to become significantly involved—although deep in our minds we may continue to mull over the diagnostic likelihood that we too may become victims to other’s deceitful behavior. Of course, often both lovers and their partners are experienced in the “games of love” and each plays a set of cards over the course of the relationship in how they try to influence one another’s perceptions. Consider Tereza, Tomas’ lover in Milan Kundera’s (1984) profound love novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being (see also discussion of Kundera’s ideas in the sexuality chapter). Tereza recently has had sexual relations with someone other than Tomas and is left with the following quandary over the possibility that she will be blackmailed with a picture of her and the other person in intimate embrace: What would happen if Tomas were to receive such a picture? Would he throw her out? Perhaps not. Probably not. But the fragile edifice of their love would certainly come tumbling down. For that edifice rested on the single column of her fidelity, and loves are like empires: when the idea they are founded on crumbles, they, too, fade away. (p. 169)

93

01-070 C05 pp2 9/13/01 1:53 PM Page 94

5 .

L O V E

A N D

C O M M I T M E N T

So much of what we know as both trust and commitment in close relationships may boil down to the “maturity” of the couple. George Levinger (1983) said as much quite well in describing the middles of close relationships, as opposed to the beginnings: Beginnings of relationships are marked by the partners’ experiences of novelty, ambiguity, and arousal. In contrast, middles are accompanied by familiarity, predictability, and the reduction of cognitive and emotional tension. The smoother the functioning of a marriage, the less will be the partners’ self-consciousness of their ambivalence. (p. 336)

CONCLUSIONS The Hendricks’ (1992) final conclusions about love apply well to the foregoing discussion: It seems clear that no one volume or theory or research program can capture love and transform it into a controlled bit of knowledge. Love is too complex for that, and even simple questions such as the relation of love to sexuality, cannot be given simple answers. . . . An ultimate purpose in research on love is to help enrich the vocabulary of love such that everybody will have a more variegated, yet integrated conception of love than has existed in past eras. . . . If, by promoting the growth of knowledge about love, people can increase the precision of their understanding of love and its meaning within relationships, the opportunity is provided for them to develop and live out more satisfying love relationships. Romantic love may not be essential to life, but it may be essential to joy. Life without love would be for many people like a black-and-white movie—full of events and activities but without the color that gives it vibrancy and provides a sense of celebration. (p. 117) We would argue that love for others that is well-conceived and communicated is one of the major positive ways a person can contribute to and connect with other human lives (which is an imposing proposition as we will see throughout this book). Martin Luther King spoke of such a type of love when he said, “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.” This reasoning is similar to another poignant conclusion offered by the Hendricks: When we love and are loved in return, we are somehow ‘more’ than we were before. . . When we are loved in the bestowal sense, without rules or conditions, loved for exactly who we are at this moment in time, then we are somehow free to become closer to what we might ideally wish to be. (p. 117) In real love you want the other person’s good. In romantic love you want the other person. —Margaret Anderson

94

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 95

6 MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT A friend is another self. —Aristotle

Children are very sensitive to their parents’ style of interaction, how they communicate affection and make decisions. When you ask children if their parents are happily married, they have very quick answers. They have a wealth of information . . . [in answer to what is a good marital model] a model of intimacy that will prepare them [children] to have good relationships, and the marriage itself will benefit [from this model]. —Judith P. Siegel, Professor of Social Work, New York University, and marital therapist (told to Chicago Tribune, December 10, 2000, p. 5)

As will be seen in this chapter, friendship is viewed as central to relationship maintenance/ enhancement in certain contemporary theories. What do you think would be a better strategy for making a close relationship work and be successful over a long period: Either you regularly overlook the faults of your partner and choose to emphasize mainly your partner’s strengths? Or you choose to often challenge your partner’s weaknesses (in a nice way, of course)? Or perhaps you do a little of both—sometimes overlooking weaknesses and sometimes confronting your partner about these weaknesses? In this chapter, these different positions are on display in the contemporary theoretical work and research on maintenance and enhancement of close relationships. For example, one theory we discuss concerns what is called empathic accuracy (Ickes, 1993), that pertains to a person’s ability to understand her or his partner’s thoughts and feelings—to put yourself in your partner’s mind-set and situation to a degree. In general, this theory suggests that having empathic accuracy is a positive step in making a close relationship work. An interesting offshoot of this theory emerged from a study by Simpson, Ickes, and Blackstone (1995), one that supports this idea that sometimes it may be best to de-emphasize a partner’s possible vices. These scholars asked young dating couples to take turns rating and discussing with each other the desirability of several opposite-sex persons as “potential dating partners.” Then, members of each couple viewed independently a video of their discussion of these possible other partners, and while doing so indicated what they thought were their partner’s thoughts and feelings during the discussion (i.e., the empathic accuracy task). As the scholars predicted, partners who reported the greatest threat to their relationship displayed

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 96

6 .

M A I N T E N A N C E

A N D

E N H A N C E M E N T

the least empathic accuracy. Furthermore, 4 months later, none of these highly threatened but low empathic accuracy couples had broken up. However, over one quarter of the couples who had displayed empathic accuracy had broken up. The foregoing research flies in the face of another theory discussed later in this chapter. It is called “minding the close relationship” (Harvey & Omarzu, 1999). This theory suggests that most of the time, it is important to know as much as possible about what your partner thinks and feels in order to responsive to that partner. It would suggest that in this research, the couples who broke up when “threatened” by this thinking of partners task and when they exhibited empathic accuracy probably were not that strongly connected in the first place. Minding theory suggests that couples try to know their partners and allow themselves to be known by their partners. It emphasizes knowledge and reciprocal selfdisclosure and sharing. Thus, in no situation would it predict that couples actually would be better off in the long run if they are lower in empathic accuracy. This little story represents just one example of sparring among many extant theories of maintenance and enhancement. We likely have many theories emerging in this area because therapists and scholars of relationship issues have become alarmed about how little we know about how to make relationships work. We know a lot about how people start relationships (Byrne, 1961) and about how they end relationships (Weiss, 1975). But how do they keep the relationships going, and even “grow” them in the process? This topic is very timely as we enter the 21st century, as scholars, practitioners, legislators, policy analysts, and real world couples alike are quite concerned with the high divorce/dissolution rate and quest for formulas that help reduce this rate. Everyone who has been in a close relationship tends to have a formula for success. An October 11, 1999 USA TODAY SNAPSHOT reported a TNS Intersearch survey showing the following set of factors to be prominent in survey respondents’ view in answer to “What factors are extremely important in a successful marriage?” Ninety-five percent of women and 90% of men respondents indicated mutual respect and trust (see later discussion of “minding the close relationship”) was extremely important. Ninety-two percent of women and 82% of men respondents indicated that open and regular communication was extremely important. Finally, 85% of women and 74% of men respondents indicated that marital fidelity was extremely important. These factors mirror theoretical factors that will be discussed next. Maintenance is work toward keeping a relationship ongoing and healthy. Maintenance and enhancement are not simple, linear processes. It is true that stronger, growing relationships will maintain some of the qualities described in chapter 3 on meeting and becoming attracted, such as agreement in important attitude and belief areas and sexual attraction. However, even these maintenance activities do not seem to be enough for a relationship to endure and prosper. Simone Signoret is quoted as saying: “Chains do not hold a marriage together . . . It is threads, hundreds of tiny threads, which sew people together through the years. This quote speaks well to the variegated, delicate nature of maintenance. In a special issue of the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships on maintenance, Dindia and Canary (1993) discussed three conceptions of maintenance. These conceptions were: (1) to keep a relationship in existence; (2) to keep a relationship in a specified state or condition; (3) to keep a relationship in satisfactory condition; and (4) to keep a relationship in repair. Following

96

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 97

I N T I M A C Y ,

A T T A C H M E N T ,

A N D

M A I N T E N A N C E

work by Canary and Stafford (1994) and Winstead, Derlega, and Rose (1997), a listing of common maintenance behaviors include such activities as: • • • • • • • • •

Being positive and cheerful Being open, self-disclosing, especially about the relationship Giving assurances Demonstrating love and faithfulness Spending time with friends and family Sharing tasks Doing activities together Expressing affection, being sexually intimate Being spontaneous

I N T I M A C Y, AT TA C H M E N T, AND MAINTENANCE The concepts of intimacy and attachment, as they have been articulated in theoretical analyses represent two central ideas in theory on maintenance of relationships. Intimacy especially has received considerable attention in recent years (Prager, 1995; Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988) and is discussed at length here. Prager listed over a dozen different conceptions of intimacy in the literature. Reis and Shaver (1988) offered this definition of intimacy and intimate relationships: Intimacy is an interpersonal process within which two interaction partners experience and express feelings, communicate verbally and nonverbally, satisfy social motives, augment or reduce social fears, talk and learn about themselves and their unique characteristics, and become “close” (psychologically and often physically: touching, using intimate names and tones of voice, perhaps having sex). Under certain conditions, repeated interactions characterized by this process develop into intimate relationships. . . . If the frequency and quality of intimate interactions decline below some level which is probably unique to different couples and individuals, the relationship will no longer feel and be perceived as intimate by one or both partners. (pp. 387–388) Reis and Patrick (1996) refined the earlier analysis of intimacy by Reis and Shaver, and in so doing differentiate between intimacy and attachment. They define attachment “as an affective bond in which partners feel close and emotionally connected to each other” (p. 525). They further articulate common components of attachment and intimacy as follows: (1) Both processes involve emotion and both describe the regulation of emotion through interpersonal means. . . . (2) Both processes emphasize the importance of having responsive interaction partners. . . . (3) Both processes highlight the influence that experiences in significant prior relationships may have on current relationship beliefs, emotions, and behavior. In both domains, the vehicle for such influence is a highly complex network of interconnected mental models, or representations,

97

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 98

6 .

M A I N T E N A N C E

A N D

E N H A N C E M E N T

of self and self-in-relation-to others that guides expectations, perceptions, and feelings about relationships and particular partners (both potential and actual). (pp. 387–388) Prager (1995) offers a multilayered conception of intimacy. She differentiates intimate interactions (e.g., communicative exchanges) from intimate relationships in which people have a history and anticipated future of intimate interaction. Although she offers many possibilities for identifying the various components of intimacy, she argues that “intimacy [is] a superordinate concept and . . . , as a concept, cannot be defined precisely enough for research purposes. Rather, basic intimacy concepts, within a clearly delineated superordinate structure, can be defined with more precision and are therefore more likely to be serviceable for the study of intimacy” (p. 26). Prager then suggests that the two basic intimacy concepts that are addressed in her analysis are intimate behavior and intimate experience. “The former is any behavior in which partners share that which is personal and/or private with each other. Intimate experience is the positive affect and perceived understanding that partners experience along with or as a result of their intimate behavior” (p. 26).

L O V E A N D S E L F - E X PA N S I O N Love Styles As described in chapter 5, one of the most useful analyses of love is presented by Hendrick and Hendrick (1986, 1992). Their theory emphasizes that styles of love may not be mutual in a relationship and may involve little ongoing thought on the part of the interacting parties. However, in general, they posit that the phenomenology of love may involve both a sense of “lived time together” and “bestowal” (1992, pp. 111–113). “Living time together” is conceived of as a combination of feeling close and having access to the other. The continuity of sharing knowledge about each other across all circumstances can make people feel that they are in a sense living together and have access to one another even if they are physically separated. Bestowal is seen as giving to one’s partner in a way that makes the partner feel valued and worthwhile. Such giving probably involves inquiring and learning about the other and behaving in a way that reflects what is learned, with each partner aware that this activity is going on. It also seems likely that for bestowal to create a feeling that someone is special over time, it will most often occur in the context of reciprocity between partners and mutually attributed effort and sincerity. The Hendricks also mention a concept of giving that almost seems divine, suggestive of what they call an “agape love style,” which involves selfless giving to one’s partner. Such an idea also is relevant to Clark and Mills’s (1979) notion of “communal love,” which pertains to giving based on a partner’s needs and good intentions toward the giver— whether or not reciprocal giving occurs. The communal love analysis appears to be cogent mainly with regard to familial relationships. Family members may feel communal love despite what appear to be vast inequities in contributions to the relationship. It is not clear, however, whether communal love is not somehow reciprocal in nature, even if the reciprocity is one of expectancy rather than immediacy. One may fulfill a family member’s or

98

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 99

S E E I N G

V I R T U E S

I N

F A U L T S

partner’s needs seemingly without reciprocation if one believes that at a future time of need, these others will then provide support and assistance.

Love as Self-Expansion Aron and Aron (1986, 1996) have developed an interesting position on love enhancement via self-expansion. The Arons propose that in close relationships, elements of the two people’s cognitive structures overlap; the closer they are, the greater the overlap. This overlap is integrated into each person’s set of cognitions, thus “expanding” their existing cognitive structure. The Arons term this process “self-expansion” and propose that this experience is inherently positive: “[W]e have argued at length that self-expansion is a fundamental human motivation. Self-expansion is the desire for enhanced potential efficacy—greater material, social, and information resources. Such self-expansion leads both to the greater ability to achieve whatever else one desires (i.e., both to survival and to specific rewards), as well as to an enhanced sense of efficacy . . . ” (1996, p. 334). Aron and Aron describe self-expansion as produced mainly through the process of reciprocal self-disclosure. We contend that the most effective long-term approach to expansion of selves is through the more complex process we have termed minding (Harvey & Omarzu, 1997, 1999). As will be discussed next, minding involves more than the early merging activities described by the Arons and thus will enable self-expansion activity to continue well beyond the stages of early relationship formation. Minding is a synergistic, reciprocal process between lovers in a committed relationship. Minding emphasizes acts of knowing one other and being known by the other, as well as showing respect and acceptance and making attributions that reflect a strong sense of reality and that enhance the relationship. Aron and Aron acknowledge that after a rapid period of early expansion and disclosure, people sometimes “get used to one another,” leading to a diminution in expansion and interest. Consistent with our argument about how minding brings new, important elements to bear on how people achieve intimacy, we argue that a person’s feeling of the other being “included in the self” and related self-expansion activities are mediated over time by processes more intricate than escalating self-disclosure. Without minding, after a period of time there will be a contraction rather than expansion of selves within the relationship.

E M PAT H I C A C C U R A C Y Ickes and his colleauges (e.g., Ickes, 1993) have articulated a model of empathic accuracy that is germane to maintenance processes. Empathic accuracy refers to people’s ability to read each other’s feelings from their behaviors. Ickes and colleagues have linked this ability to Rogers’ (1957) argument about the importance of empathy for therapeutic personality change. Empathic accuracy appears to be positively related to mutual self-disclosure and increased intersubjectivity in close relationships.

S E E I N G V I R T U E S I N FA U LT S As described at the beginning of this chapter, the idea of overlooking or re-interpreting a partner’s faults and vices has gained a significant foothold in the maintenance literature. Murray and Holmes (1993) proposed and provided evidence to indicate that relationship

99

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 100

6 .

M A I N T E N A N C E

A N D

E N H A N C E M E N T

satisfaction is associated with idealistic rather than realistic perceptions of one’s partner. People may develop story-like representations of their romantic partners that quell feelings of doubt engendered by their partners’ faults. Hence, they may entertain positive representations of a partner not in spite of the partner’s faults, but because imperfections have been construed to fit into positive overall meanings. Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996) extended this conception to include both dating and married couples.

S E L F - V E R I F I C AT I O N Swann and colleagues’ work on self-verification (see Swann, 1996) is similar to the ideas advanced by Murray and Holmes about the ingredients of maintaining close relationships. The major argument of self-verification theory is that people desire feedback from others, especially close others, that verifies or affirms their view of themselves. If they believe themselves to be relatively unattractive to others, for example, they will like most those close others who do not kid them about how attractive they are, but who appear to share their own opinion. This argument has been subjected to considerable investigation by Swann and associates. A finding by Swann, De La Ronde, and Hixon (1994), which differentiated effects for dating versus married couples, showed that dating partners were happier when their partners flattered or idealized them. Married couples, on the other hand, appeared to resist such flattery and were happier when their partners viewed them as they viewed themselves. Swann (1996) suggested that happily married couples come to grips with and redress any perceptual and behavioral tendencies to delude the self or the other (in attempts to conform to the “romantic ideal” that may characterize dating for many couples). He wrote: Why doesn’t the romantic ideal cause the majority of people with negative selfviews to end up in relationships with the adoring dating partners whom it urges them to seek? Some may discover that their desire for self-verification makes them think twice about their inclination to embrace a favorable partner, thus dissuading them from choosing such a partner. Others may seek favorable partners but find that such persons become disappointed and either develop negative evaluations of them or leave the relationship entirely. (p. 119)

M I N D I N G T H E C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P Harvey and Omarzu (1997, 1999) have developed a broad conception that takes into account, and even subsume, many of the extant models and provides a new theory of maintenance and enhancement referred to as minding the close relationship. The role of the mind in regulating interaction and maintenance and enhancement behaviors is emphasized in this theory. Minding is a combination of thought and behavior patterns that interact to create stability and feelings of closeness in a relationship. Minding is defined as: a reciprocal knowing process that occurs nonstop throughout the history of the relationship and that involves a complex package of interrelated thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Harvey & Omarzu, 1999). There are five specific components of minding, which are described next. In the 100

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 101

M I N D I N G

T H E

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P

following chapters, they will be discussed in relation to other contemporary close relationships ideas.

K n o w i n g O n e ’s P a r t n e r The first component of minding refers to behaviors aimed at knowing one’s partner. These include questioning your partner about their thoughts, feelings, and past experiences, as well as disclosing appropriately about yourself. This search to know a partner can lead to and includes intuition. Partners often “read between the lines” to know that something is wrong with the other; often the knowledge they have about each other makes it easier for them to pick up nonverbal cues. Knowledge about a partner can facilitate this ability to see beneath surface behaviors to the emotions and motivations below. This knowing process is similar to the self-penetration process theorized by Altman and Taylor (1973), which suggests that people gradually peel back the layers of one’s another’s lives and personalities as they become more deeply involved. In well-minded relationships, each partner will recognize that people change in many ways over time. These changes can involve their physical bodies and their psychological compositions; they can be ever so subtle. Minding partners will also recognize that continuous change makes the process of knowing each other a major challenge. It takes energy and time for both partners to find the right forum to discuss certain issues and to feel comfortable being open and expressive. Most important, the focus in minding is on wanting to know about one’s partner. There is great motivation to know about the other’s background, hopes, fears, uncertainties, and what keeps him or her awake at night. There is often emphasis placed on “good communication” in a relationship, sometimes stressing the ability to express one’s feelings often and fully. Minding theory acknowledges that accurate and frequent communication is important, but it changes the emphasis on one’s own self-expression to an emphasis on the active seeking of the other’s self-expression or information. It is this overt desire to really know another person that, we believe, creates an atmosphere that allows more open disclosure and “good communication.” This search to know and understand the other should also be reflected in acts explicitly designed to facilitate the relationship, and that are based on this knowledge. Everything from doing an errand to smiling at one’s partner may be included. If the errand in question is one you know your partner dreads doing himself, or if the smile is given across the room as a response to a private joke, these are facilitative acts based on knowledge that partners have shared. Buying your partner flowers is an affectionate act, but it is much more meaningful when you choose a particular variety because you know they are your partner’s favorite. It is a loving gesture regardless, but the latter has the extra impact of minding the relationship behind it. It will move the relationship that much more closer.

Relationship-Enhancing Attributions The second component is the attributional activity that partners engage in regarding their partner’s behavior. Attributions refer to the interpretations or explanations that people make for events in their lives. One of Heider’s (1958, 1976) invaluable contributions was to describe human attributional patterns. He suggested that attribution was a broad, pervasive type of activity that occurred almost anytime a person interacted with or encountered an event in their environment. One of his examples was an occasion when he 101

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 102

6 .

M A I N T E N A N C E

A N D

E N H A N C E M E N T

heard the back door of his home slam shut and immediately hypothesized that his wife Grace had returned from the grocery store. The slamming of the door created the need for an explanation—his wife’s return. In Heider’s view, people continually create these explanations (attributions) for each incident in their daily lives. One of the most common types of attributional patterns Heider identified is the way in which we tend to explain the behavior of other people in terms either of the situation or of their personalities. Imagine that someone walking past you trips and stumbles. Is the sidewalk uneven (situational attribution), or is the person clumsy (personality or dispositional attribution)? A situational attribution explains the event in terms of external, environmental factors. A dispositional attribution explains the event in terms of internal, personalitybased factors. In relationships, the critical attributions pertain to the dispositional explanations (Jones & Davis, 1965) that people make when they observe their partner act in certain ways. For example, a wife comes home and begins screaming that she wants to be left alone, then goes into the bedroom and says that she does not want to talk about how she feels. The husband compares this act to her typical behavior after returning home from the office. If this type of behavior is rare, he may conclude that a unique external event must have occurred, perhaps at work, and caused her negative behavior. If, however, she often acts in this way, he likely will attribute the behavior more to her disposition to be grouchy and unhappy than to some particular incident. As Heider asserted that attribution constantly occurs in everyday life, we reassert that attribution is literally always occurring at some level in close relationships. Attributional activity is a central way in which we develop a sense of meaning about our relationships. In a way, attributional activity reflects our trust and belief in our partners. When we attribute our partners’ negative behaviors, such as rudeness or insensitivity, to outside causes we are essentially telling ourselves that they are not really insensitive; it is the situation. We believe better of them. However, if we attribute our partners’ positive, caring acts to outside events or to self-interest, we are convincing ourselves not to believe in their love, not to trust their sincerity. Relationship-enhancing attributions tend to be those that attribute positive behaviors to dispositional causes: He came home early to spend time with me. She called me at work because she cares about me. Negative behaviors, on the other hand, are attributed more often to external causes: She yelled at me because she is stressed at work. He is late for our date because his car broke down. Attribution theorists such as Heider recognized that people’s attributions of causality and responsibility often are mixtures of internal and external attribution. For example, the husband in the foregoing example may emphasize his wife’s stress at work, but also attribute part of her temper display to her susceptibility to such stresses. In well-minded relationships, these attributional activities will be carefully carried out, which includes working to develop fair mixtures of internal and external attributions. Partners will recognize how easy it is to be mistaken about a partner’s behavior, feelings, intentions, and motivations, and how important it is to feel firm about attributions regarding behavior of their partner in different situations. Flexibility and willingness to reexamine attributions about one’s partner and the relationship characterize well-minded relationships. Partners who are minding well can use the knowledge they have gained about each other to help ensure that they do not blindly attribute all good, or all bad, to their partners. Empathic accuracy as described by Ickes (1993) relates to this attribution process. Part102

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 103

M I N D I N G

T H E

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P

ners who are minding their relationship will become careful students of one another. Their attributions will reflect this study, which should lead to greater empathy with one another’s feelings and thoughts. Parts of the minding process build on each other. The knowledge and attribution components work together to help couples build trust and positive beliefs that are based in real knowledge and that they can feel confident about relying on.

Acceptance and Respect Acceptance and respect for what is learned via the knowing, self-disclosure, and attributional activities are essential aspects of minding. Invariably, we discover qualities of our partners that may be flaws, unflattering to the partner, or that may conflict with our own ideals of background and behavior. In well-minded relationships, there will be respect and acceptance for what is discovered about a partner. The minding components work together to make this acceptance possible. The active search for knowledge about a partner should help serious potential problems or conflicts surface early in a relationship. Ideally, this insures that “critical flaws” most often will be discovered during the courtship or uncommitted stage of relating and not after a commitment has been made. Critical flaws would be any qualities that would make long-term commitment and long-term satisfaction unlikely. The definition of acceptance in minding theory is not intended to be all-encompassing or completely unconditional. After commitment, one partner may learn that the other has had a very troubling history (e.g., infidelity, sexual or physical abuse) that was not divulged during the early courtship stage. It is possible that in this situation, the relationship may be strained to the point of termination. Minding theory argues that people need to find out a lot about people with whom they become involved. They need to look at family albums, listen carefully to relationship stories, and indeed “read between the lines” about what everything they learn tells them about this prospective mate (Harvey, Weber, & Orbuch, 1990). If they have done their homework, people will not be as surprised by what they may discover later. They will have done enough preliminary minding early on that they can generally accept and respect what they learn later when they are minding for maintenance of the relationship. Lesser “noncritical” problems or differences between partners are probably unavoidable. Acceptance is always needed eventually to establish relationships that are stable and long-term with partners who are, after all, only human. In the television series Seinfeld, a running joke is the way in which the characters break off relationships with romantic partners because of superficial annoyances or quirks. One eats too slowly, another laughs too loudly, still another wears a favorite outfit too often. That’s it—the relationship is over. Although fictional, the romantic travails of these characters illustrate the importance of accepting a partner’s minor faults and respecting a partner’s differences, if the ultimate goal is long-term closeness.

Reciprocity Minding involves reciprocity in thoughts, feelings, and behaviors between partners. In short, minding is not a one-way street. The idea of synergy suggests this cooperative interdependence. Interdependence refers to an intertwining of partner’s behavior, thoughts, and feelings. As discussed in chapter 1, in an influential analysis of relationships, Kelley and colleagues (1983) developed a definition of closeness that also embraces this type of 103

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 104

6 .

M A I N T E N A N C E

A N D

E N H A N C E M E N T

interdependence over a long period of time: “The close relationship is one of strong, frequent, and diverse interdependence that lasts over a considerable period of time” (p. 38). It is critical that this mutuality of responses, or reciprocity, occurs. In relationships, both partners think, feel, and behave. To be close, people and their partners need to coordinate these thoughts, feelings, and behavior. Well-minded relationships epitomize this coordination or synchrony. If we are minding our relationships, we will be aware of our partner’s patterns of behavior, and we will attempt to act out similar or complementary patterns that our partner, in turn, recognizes and appreciates. For example, well-minded relationships do not involve one partner exclusively playing “therapist” and getting their other partner to talk and express her or his feelings and concerns. Rather, each partner will recognize the value and necessity of listening and caring about what is heard and of being honest and expressive in return. They are confidants at a very basic level. Does this mean we do tit-for-tat in each area? That there is a scoreboard for behaviors? No, not so formally, nor necessarily in a conscious way. Partners have different strengths and weaknesses. For instance, one partner may be especially good at verbally expressing affection, while the other may express caring in more nonverbal ways, such as giving gifts. Minding partners, for the most part, know about these differences and accept them. They are able to make the accurate attribution of caring and affection to a partner’s actions, even when those actions are different from their own methods of showing their love. In time, couples who are minding their relationships well will achieve a rhythm or flow of interaction (Csikszentmihalyi, 1982) that reduces the need for conscious consideration of whether reciprocation is occurring. It also may be possible that one member of a couple will be the leader and initial worker in taking constructive activity on behalf of the relationship. This person’s leadership may then influence the partner to be likewise engaged in the constructive work. Over time, each partner may take turns as the leader and “front person” in dealing with issues and making things work in the relationship. Although each partner then may not be working strongly for the relationship at the same time or in the same manner, each partner should have occasion to take such a role. Such is the imperative of the reciprocity component of minding.

C o n t i n u i t y O v e r Ti m e A final component of minding is that the process of trying to know one’s partner, understand the relationship, carefully engage in attributional activity, and maintain respect and acceptance for one’s partner requires a substantial period of time to become firmly established. Once developed, the process needs to continue throughout the life of the relationship. The “substantial period of time” requirement derives from the complexity of minding and the many details involved in the knowledge of another human being. Time is also necessary to stabilize and develop the “third party” that is created when a relationship is created. Two individuals, “you and me” also become a single unit, “us,” a new, third entity. Couples in well-minded relationships also recognize, possibly at an implicit level, that ceasing to care about knowing the other or the relationship, ceasing to be careful in making inferences, or becoming contemptuous and disrespectful are steps in the direction toward deterioration of the relationship. Every single act in a relationship certainly cannot reflect the highest form of minding. Our daily lives are far too complex, with far too many

104

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 105

M I N D I N G

T H E

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P

demands, to maintain that quality of concentration on the relationship through every minute. However, in a well-minded relationship, a majority of acts will reflect the minding process. As important, one’s partner will be aware that such a motivation to care for the relationship exists and that there are the very best of intentions behind this composite reality. Remember, too, that this “meaning of closeness” must apply to both partners in a couple. One cannot be the caretaker and the other the cared for; each must nurture and each must be cared for in some general equivalence of thought, feeling, and action.

Va r i a b l e s R e v e a l i n g H i g h a n d L o w D e g r e e s o f M i n d i n g Table 6.1 shows a list of variables that we believe differentiate couples who are engaged in high versus low degrees of minding. This list is only illustrative of the many specific acts, including behavior, thought, and feeling, that relate to the five minding criteria.

TABLE 6.1 Relationships Involving High and Low Degrees of Minding Well-Minded Relationships Behavior-facilitating disclosure • Questioning partner about feelings/behaviors • Utilizing effective listener “responses” • Accurate repetition of partner’s disclosure • Accurate, detailed knowledge of partner’s preferences/opinions Relationship-enhancing attributions • Generally positive attributions for partner’s behaviors • External attributions for negative relationship events • Partner attributions for positive relationship events • Attributions for partner matches partner’s self-attributions Acceptance and respect • Reconstruction of history/memory emphasizing positives • Pride in other’s abilities • Expressed feelings of trust and commitment • Behaviors that acknowledge other’s preferences/concerns • Behavior/verbal expressions that acknowledge self-disclosures Reciprocity • Estimates of relationship effort match partner’s • Can identify partner’s contributions to relationship • Recognition of other’s support and effort • Perception of synergy (stronger together than separate) (Continued)

105

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 106

6 .

M A I N T E N A N C E

A N D

E N H A N C E M E N T

TABLE 6.1 (Continued)

Process • Sense of “we-ness,” togetherness permeates relationship • Agreement in charting ups and downs of relationship over time • Optimistic view of future of relationship • Feeling of control over relationship • Hope for the future in general Not Well-Minded Relationships Behavior avoids disclosure • Poor listening behavior • Lack of interest in other’s disclosures • Distorted repetitions of partner’s disclosures • Ignorance of other’s preferences/opinions Relationship-disruption attributions • Overall negative attributions for partner’s behaviors • Partner attributions for negative relationship events • External attributions for positive relationship events • Nonmatching attributions (self and partner) Criticism and contempt • Negative reconstruction of memory/relationship history • Little overt recognition of other’s preferences/concerns • Inability to recall other’s disclosures • Ability to extensively list other’s faults Inequity • Nonmatching estimates of relationship effort • Expressed feelings of inequality • Inability to recognize other’s contributions • Nonsynergistic Discontinuity • Sense of separateness • Inability to agree on relationship ups amd downs • Pessimistic view of future of relationship • Lack of perceived control over relationship • Inability to perceive future

106

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 107

I N T I M A C Y

A N D

M I N D I N G

A N A L Y S E S

As can be seen in Table 6.1, there are many behavior, thought, and feeling manifestations of well-minded and not well-minded relationships for each of the criteria. The final set of variables refers to “process” for well-minded relationships and to “discontinuity” for not well-minded relationships. It represents an outcome of the first four categories. Note that for each criterion, emphasis is on qualities such as effort to achieve accuracy, empathy, and fullness in how partners carry out their behavior toward one another. Some criteria are very basic and crucial to the rest of the minding process. For example, they include listening and attention to accuracy, acts that facilitate knowledge acquisition, as well as appropriate attributional activity, acceptance, and respect. Without listening and attention, all of the other criteria of minding are negatively affected. It is easy to see how many minding acts and criteria are interrelated and interdependent.

C O M PA R I S O N O F I N T I M A C Y A N D M I N D I N G A N A LY S E S The analysis of minding is conceptually similar to the intimacy model offered by Reis and colleagues. The major difference is that the analysis of minding posits that the experience of intimacy derives from the package of perceptions, feelings, and behaviors that we refer to as minding. Minding is the overall vehicle that is necessary to achieve the components of the intimacy process. Reis and colleagues’ analyses do emphasize mutually escalating self-disclosure as central to the development of intimacy, but are less explicit about the types of behavior, related perception, and attributions that also may be necessary to achieve intimacy. The importance of minding continuing as a process over a substantial period of time also represents a difference from the Reis position. Reis and colleagues’ discussion of interaction patterning and responsiveness in interaction, hints at the roles of continuity over time, but it does not squarely come to grips with the notion that the complex process that moves people along cannot stop if intimacy is to be preserved. A final apparent difference with the Reis conception of intimacy is that the minding analysis emphasizes ongoing attributional processes; whereas Reis and colleagues do not stress the role of attribution in intimacy development. The elements of mutual understanding and shared meaning, reciprocity, self-disclosure, respect, and acceptance appear to be common to both analyses. Consistent with minding, Reis and Patrick (1996) emphasize responsiveness and shared meaning systems as central to the experience of intimacy. They also suggest that the understanding so imperative to intimacy need not imply agreement, a point congenial to the minding position. The process of working to act in accord with shared meanings is critical to minding, but in no sense must partners who are minding effectively become clones in thought and feeling. They can agree to disagree, but respect and accept other’s position, as well as attribute good will and honest differences in position to their partner. Thus, the minding model is essentially in agreement with Reis and colleagues’ position on intimacy; it is our contention that minding is a more extended and broader look at the processes of close relationships.

107

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 108

6 .

M A I N T E N A N C E

A N D

E N H A N C E M E N T

“LOVE IS NEVER ENOUGH” Psychiatrist and pioneering cognitive therapist Aaron Beck proclaimed in a well-known 1988 book that indeed “love is never enough.” In this book, Beck used his cognitive therapy approach, developed in part with depressed patients, to address common problems that couples encounter. His focus was on the process whereby each member of a couple cognitively controls his or her behavior in order to work toward a state of closeness and satisfaction. His book is filled with elements that the minding approach described previously embraces, including: overall positive approach in how we think and feel about our partner, flexibility in thinking and understanding, frequent discussion and checking of interpretations and expectations to see how they compare with those of our partner, and active engagement of issues, rather than avoidance or putting off address of them. Specifically, what did Beck suggest is necessary for achieving durable closeness? Beck argues that warm feelings, heartfelt promises, and strong family ties—in addition to the feeling of mutual love—are not enough for long-term closeness. In other words, emotional commitments are not enough. He argued that being and staying close necessitates development of relationship abilities. Specifically, he emphasizes the skills of competent communication and interpretation of behavior. Beck suggested that these skills lead to respect for the other and that such respect then nurtures and preserves love over the long run. According to Beck, the aims for an ideal marriage are: (1) Strive for a solid foundation of trust, loyalty, respect, and security. (2) Cultivate the tender, loving part of the relationship: sensitivity, consideration, understanding, and demonstrations of affection and caring. Regard each other as confidant and friend. (3) Strengthen the partnership. Develop a sense of cooperation, consideration, and compromise. Sharpen communication skills for practical issues and decision making. Further, Beck suggested that misinterpretation and attributing undesirable motives to the other are at the center of many problems couples experience. He said that couples usually are not in the habit of checking out their interpretations. For example, a woman undressing in front of her partner may detect disapproval in his nonverbal expressions. She may interpret his feeling and thinking as dislike for her breasts. She may have thought this previously, and it is possible that her partner has said something that encourages such an attribution. Beck called this interpretation “negative automatic thought.” He proposes that this type of thinking gets couples in trouble in a hurry. Similar to the minding approach, Beck contended that couples need to discuss their interpretations. In our example, for instance, the woman in the example should find out whether her partner truly dislikes her breasts or if she is instead automatically misinterpreting his behavior and expression. She should not simply continue to silently engage in this type of negative attribution. Beck also believes that each partner should take full responsibility for improving the relationship. They can help themselves, each other, and the relationship if they adopt a “no fault, no blame” attitude. This will allow them to focus on the real problems. Beck (1988) argued that actions by a partner that get blamed on malevolent traits such as selfishness may be more accurately explained in terms of benign motives such as protectiveness or attempts to prevent being abandoned. Beck (1988) contended that positive changes in one partner may produce remarkable changes in the other. If one member of a couple begins to correct previous automatic negativity and act with consistency in respect for the partner, the other will begin to follow suit. This cycle continues until the entire relationship may be revitalized and changed. A 108

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 109

P E E R

M A R R I A G E

O R

P E E R

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P

counter argument is that one partner’s work on behalf of the relationship may trigger the other’s similar engagement, but one-sided behavior cannot last long if the relationship is to be close. It is likely that relationship change is accomplished most reliably when both partners negotiate on at least minor behavioral changes, and preferably when both overtly acknowledge commitment to change.

PEER MARRIAGE OR PEER C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P Sociologist Pepper Schwartz wrote an interesting book on equity and equality in relationships titled Peer Marriage (1994). Some of Schwartz’s ideas are based on interviews with married persons living in various large U.S. cities. Schwartz relates her study of peer marriage to her earlier classic study with Philip Blumstein called “The American Couples Study” (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). This earlier study compared how married, cohabiting, and lesbian and gay couples function in their relationships. Schwartz noted that among these couples in the American Couples Study were several (mainly same-sex couples) who were engaged in egalitarian relationships. An egalitarian relationship is one in which each partner is treated as equal; roles, major relationship decisions, and duties are mutually agreed on via negotiation and regular discussion. This became the definition of “peer marriage” that Schwartz sought to depict as having come to full fruition in many Western countries during the 1990s. Equality and equity are the centerpieces of this type of relationship. Schwartz noted that same-sex couples probably were pioneers in developing egalitarian or peer relationships because they did not have to surmount the more traditional scripts for how men and women relate. She also believes that many heterosexual couples are becoming committed to peer relationships. These couples are not always young in chronological age, but they nonetheless are “new” in their creation of customized family scripts and in throwing out old gender-driven scripts. She says that the people in these couples, who probably now number in the millions, are not ideologues. They construct peer relationships simply because they find them more rewarding than “traditional relationships.” A general definition of a “traditional relationship” is a relationship that is based on what people believe they should do in relationships, given particular understandings of men’s and women’s different roles in society. For example, a traditional relationship may involve a scenario where the male is the provider and the female is the homemaker, but is defined as traditional only when these roles are accepted because “that’s the way it’s done,” without overt mutual agreement or even questioning by the partners. The expectations inherent in traditional relationship scripts may create situations in which people are required to balance two different roles: one dictated by tradition, the other by the realities of personal or family needs. Peer marriages do not have the type of inequity involved in many traditional marriages, or “second shift” relationships (Hochschild, 1989) that may involve elements of egalitarian thinking. Peer marriage participants vigilantly see themselves as equals and work to put that equality into practice. Many of them have experienced a previous traditional marriage or have witnessed that of their parents, and did not like what they experienced or witnessed. They see peer marriage as the only way to achieve the type of respect and dignity that they believe humans in close relationships should maintain. 109

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 110

6 .

M A I N T E N A N C E

A N D

E N H A N C E M E N T

Schwartz reported some intriguing information about the couples in her peer marriage study. There were about 30 couples in the age range of late 20s to 40s; she also compared them with friends whom they identified as being involved in traditional relationships. One datum from the peer couples is that they reported that they generally adhere to at least a 60–40 split of household chores and child raising. Thus, both partners must be significantly involved, though one may be involved at 60 percent in one activity and 40 in the other, and vice versa. Second, each partner believed that each person in the couple had equal influence over important and disputed decisions. Another finding was that each partner believed that she or he had equal control over the family economy and reasonably equal access to discretionary funds. Regardless of who made more money, there was a feeling of shared wealth and shared power to make monetary decisions. A related finding was that each person’s work was given equal weight in the couple’s overall plans. The person who had the less “prestigious” or less financially rewarding occupation did not have to sacrifice unduly to follow the one whose occupation was loftier in status or that paid more. At the heart of peer relationships is friendship. Peer couples very often identify their partner as their best friend. As Rabin (1996) suggested, the qualities of friendship can survive only in an atmosphere of equality, as friendship implies lack of domination, mutual concern, and respect. But how do couples go about creating this friendship? As you might expect, our answer is that friendship derives from the constellation of actions found in minding. Very good friends, and especially friends in a partnership, inhabit shared worlds. They are frequent confidants about significant and minor concerns. In such partnerships, men and women share worries about their progress or lack of it in many areas, including financial, child-raising, health, and career issues. To a high degree, they share information and perspectives (attributions, understandings, opinions, and feelings). In both public and private acts and in both small and large ways, their relationship-oriented activities are designed to facilitate the partnership. Acceptance and respect of the partner’s qualities and revelations are embraced in very good friendships. Couples who are not good friends show the opposite of these types of activities (Rabin, 1996). They often follow scripted approaches to their relationship with little overlap and intercommunication. For example, the woman does the child-raising, and the man the money-making. They may share information about each partner’s sphere of activity, but their sharing is not aimed at mutual involvement. Rabin (1996) argued that when close relationships drift away from peer relating, friendship suffers. Women, in particular, may become ambivalent or bitter about this drift away from peer relating. For them, such a drift may mean that they will have more “second shift” responsibilities or that their partner does not respect them as an equal. Schwartz suggested that in practice, many couples may not be able to reach or to sustain a peer marriage, even if they mutually desire one. Economic and child-raising realities may lead to much more scripted role behavior than these couples believe to be ultimately desirable. In society in general, women still lag behind men in salaries. Child-raising may be complicated by blended families after earlier divorces. Mixes of teenage and younger children may be in the home, and each parent may not be equally effective in interacting with these different children and young adults. Schwartz argued, however, that if couples can eliminate a scripted approach to major areas such as earning money and child-raising, they will have more creative possibilities available to address these dilemmas. Most important, if they will stay focused overall on the peer concept, they 110

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 111

P E E R

M A R R I A G E

O R

P E E R

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P

will have set the foundation for achieving a sense of equality as a primary basis for intense and highly nurturing friendship and love. What are some of the disadvantages of peer marriage? From the perspective of minding, there are no disadvantages that cannot be overcome. Schwartz, though, pointed to a set of possible issues that emerged from her discussions with couples striving to have peer marriages. They included the following. Who takes the lead in stimulating sexual or passionate activity may be unclear. Most of the old “tricks” of seduction may have been discarded by these couples. Hence, they are reliant on regular communication and action relevant to sexuality. This is not easy if both are involved in child-raising, careers, and other activities or hobbies. It is not easy given how most of us still are educated to communicate about sexuality. Too often, our education reflects elements such as parental euphemistic talk about sex, peer gossip and innuendo, and media hype. Couples who are minding their relationships will recognize that all important acts relevant to their relationship, including sexuality, need to be given high priority. They need to organize their priorities, including personal and career responsibilities, so that this recognition is given its due. Peer couples sometimes may compete regarding career advancement or success. Yet, again, if they are minding their relationship, they will realize that career advancement is meaningful only if they maintain a strong close relationship; additionally, if they do not maintain a strong close relationship, that itself may greatly impair their working lives. Hence, it is career-smart to mind a relationship and to make it a higher priority in attitudes and behavior. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of peer marriage is all the constant work involved. This is synonymous with minding in that the behavioral stream of well-conceived, thoughtful acts on behalf of the relationship cannot include big breaks. A couple committed to peer marriage cannot just revert back into traditional roles when the going gets tough. They have to be always flexible and always vigilant to outside influences that may push them away from equality. Schwartz suggests that parents’ input and traditional value systems regarding the nature of the family may represent two of the dissident influences against which couples in peer marriage must hold their own in order to succeed. They will have to be always active in protecting “peerness” in areas that count most to the couple. Compromising and negotiating difficult issues will require a lot of effort on top of the everyday obligations of busy people. Especially when considering the unique problems of a blended family, one can imagine the scope of regular “powwows” and truce-talks that may be necessary in a large household. As is true with minding, these delicate social interactions require a high degree of work on a regular basis. Just like minding, the payoff can be immense—for the children as well as the parents. And, just like minding, many couples may abandon peer relationships because of the degree of regular work involved. Schwartz concluded her book with a summary and an eloquent statement on behalf of the future of peer relationships: There are no rules on how to construct a peer marriage. For the couples interviewed for this book, the impetus usually came from a rejection of past experience— a woman who demanded equality of her spouse, or a man who was searching to make his wife and children the center of his life. . . . Age seems to tame men’s preoccupation with work and control, and it gives women more courage, selfconfidence, and direction. Some couples will develop peer marriages only in the senior segment of their lives. 111

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 112

6 .

M A I N T E N A N C E

A N D

E N H A N C E M E N T

But there is no need for anyone to wait. Peer marriage respects the potential of each person and gives men and women a chance to overcome the biology and sociology that separate them. Future generations might be renewed by a powerful new phase of marriage: two people who can create a strong and durable family because their relationship is secured by a commitment to equality that is underwritten by a deep and abiding friendship. (p. 196)

THE GOOD MARRIAGE Respected family therapist and scholar Judith Wallerstein and her colleague, writer Sandra Blakeslee (1995), were interested in basically the same question addressed by minding theory: How can we make close relationships work in our time? In an interview, Wallerstein described her interest in people’s tendency to always worry about the things that are failing. Especially young people in relationships often ask: “In light of all the divorce in society, including my own family, how can I make my marriage or close relationship succeed?” Wallerstein suggested that we do not spend enough time considering (or investigating) how people make things work—including marriage. Wallerstein took on this challenge by interviewing 50 couples who by their own report had achieved lasting, happy marriages. These were people aged from 40s through their 60s. They were California residents, White and generally well-off, well-educated and articulate about their relationships. Thus, as Wallerstein recognized, the sample was open to bias on several dimensions. Nevertheless, no one had ever conducted a study like this before, which focused on this aspect of keeping a relationship together. Given that the couples defined their marriages as happy ones, Wallerstein was interested in the ingredients that went into that definition for different couples. Were they happy from the start? If not, what events and transformations led to their long-term success? How did they get beyond crises such as the death of a child or a perceived betrayal that so often staggers a couple and makes them highly vulnerable for some time? Indeed, one of the important contributions of Wallerstein’s study is the finding that even these highly successful couples all went through crises, and that it is how couples handle crises that may differentiate them in terms of success. Wallerstein indicated that, overall, she was surprised at how easy it was to find happy couples. She defined these couples as engaged in relationships that were predominantly either “companionate” or “romantic.” Companionate relationships emphasize companionship and like peer relationships, appear to involve conscious efforts to achieve equality or parity for partners. Romantic relationships emphasize a continuation of sexual passion, courtship-type fantasies, and idealization of the partner during the relationship. Although Wallerstein did not compare these types of relationships, many of the relationship processes she addresses occur in companionate relationships. Like Schwartz’s sample of peer couples, Wallerstein’s couples stressed the high degree of work involved in having a strong marriage and successful family life. Parents often have to sacrifice their own needs for rest or relaxation in order to engage in family activities after spending full days at their work. Regarding parenting young children, Wallerstein made the following comments in an interview about her book: If you have young children, there used to be a lot of hands around. Now there aren’t. A companionate marriage, especially requires a high energy level, because you are 112

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 113

L E A R N I N G

R E L A T I O N S H I P

S K I L L S

combining the workplace, the marriage and the children. And each of those is a fulltime job.” (USA Weekend, May 19–21, 1995) Wallerstein continued in the same interview to discuss the special place of sex among the couples she interviewed: What one couple does, another couple doesn’t do. . . . Sex is critical in a good marriage, but sex in a marriage is different than casual sex. It needs time. It needs serenity. You can’t have it on the run. It doesn’t fill only a physical need; it’s central to the marriage, and it has to be treated with dignity. And it is most vulnerable, much more vulnerable than I expected to find among young people. (p. 21) Similar to Schwartz, Wallerstein did not outline a formula for successful relating. She did list a set of attributes that tend to be found in most strong marriages: (1) separation from families of origin; (2) togetherness—including both intimacy and autonomy; (3) privacy that is maintained even during the prime of parenthood; (4) staying power, which means bonding intensifies during crises, which occur fairly often in all relationships (see discussion later); (5) the creation of a safe haven that is able to absorb conflict and anger; (6) sex that is protected from the incursions of work and family; (7) laughter, keeping all manner of events in perspective; (8) comfort, which satisfies the need for dependency through the regular encouragement partners offer one another; and (9) memory, which emphasizes the time when the couple fell in love and collectively memoralizes the high moments of the relationship. One of the most useful aspects of the Wallerstein and Blakeslee book speaks to crises that couples must face together in order to best adapt to their consequences. The loss of a parent to death is one such crisis; even more staggering is the loss of a child. Other types of common crises include severe financial difficulty, sometimes occasioned by loss of a job; major accidents or serious illness; and children’s major problems, such as school- or drug-related. Most couples will face multiple such crises during their relationship career. They need to learn how to face them with grace and wisdom.

L E A R N I N G R E L AT I O N S H I P S K I L L S A N D P R E M A R I TA L C O U N S E L I N G Burleson (1995) argued that people develop their relationships skills. He contended that for each phase of a relationship, either the requisite skills are developed that serve as a filter for further development, or the skills are not developed and the relationship does not progress. Burleson and colleagues also have shown that relationship skills are correlated in wellfunctioning close relationships. The types of skills that such couples exhibit include ego support, comforting, and conflict management. They have suggested that partner similarity in these areas is even more important than the absolute level of skill possessed by each partner. As will be discussed further in chapter 10 on dissolution, considerable contemporary work on maintenance and enhancement of close relationships focuses premarital counseling. Howard Markman and colleagues (see Markman, Stanley & Blumberg, 1994) are engaged in what likely is the most comprehensive premarital counseling and research programs in the United States. Their program is called PREP (Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program) and is conducted at the University of Denver. PREP teaches a variety of relationship skills, including: communication, problem-solving, conflict 113

01-070 C06 pp3 9/13/01 1:56 PM Page 114

6 .

M A I N T E N A N C E

A N D

E N H A N C E M E N T

resolution, building and maintaining commitment, and skill to work through hidden/deeper issues to promote intimacy. PREP has produced impressive results over the 1980s and 1990s, with couples who participate showing much lower premarital break-up, separation, and divorce rates than couples who have not participated (Markman, 1999). To date, most of the couples participating in this counseling program have been relatively young, often in their 20s. PREP emphasizes strategies geared toward lowering risk factors and strategies for raising protective factors to help marriages succeed. Table 6.2 shows key prevention themes in the PREP program.

TABLE 6.2 Key Prevention Themes of PREP Lowering Risk

Raising Protection

•Danger Signs •Communication •Conflict Management •Problem Solving •Expectations •Forgiveness

•Commitment •Friendship •Fun •Sensuality •Spiritual and Religious Intimacy

Adapted from Markman, 1999.

CONCLUSIONS Theories of maintenance and enhancement are concerned with how couples both increase feelings of closeness and “grow their relationships.” Such couples may often perceive themselves as stronger together than apart. More romantically inclined partners may describe themselves as “soulmates” or as “meant” to be together. For these couples, this belief or feeling is a serious and fairly consistent one over time, not simply inspired by the first passion of courtship. Although not losing their individuality as people with separate minds and identities, individuals in these relationships may develop the Gestalt-like sense that their relationship has an importance and meaning beyond that of their two separate lives. Harold Kelley (1979) concluded his analysis of the structures and processes of personal relationships with the following eloquent observation about the difficult quest each human faces in trying to connect intimately with another mind: The unavoidable consequence of human social life is a realization of the essentially private and subjective nature of our experience of the world, coupled with a strong wish to break out of that privacy and establish contact with another mind. Personal relationships hold out to their members the possibility, though perhaps rarely realized in full, of establishing such contact. (p. 169) The processes of work toward maintenance and enhancement offer us the best means by which we can attempt to break out of our private, subjective experience and connect intimately with another human mind and life. These processes can make people feel special and make their relationships meaningful. 114

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 115

7 THE FAMILY Clearly, the past quarter century has seen increased diversity in the demographic structure of American families. There has been a retreat from universal marriage, and among some groups, particularly African Americans, there has been a retreat from marriage altogether. In addition, fewer households are composed of families, and of family households, an increasing proportion are not composed of two parents living with their children. It is no longer the case that a child born today can expect to live his or her childhood with both biological parents. —Teachman, Tedrow, & Crowder, 2000 The happiest moments of my life have been the few which I have passed at home in the bosom of my family. —Thomas Jefferson

D E F I N I N G T H E FA M I LY: A 21ST CENTURY DILEMMA Jefferson’s comment is compelling to most humans. Families often are where we find our greatest sense of meaning and hope as humans. But what is family? Can it be just a person living alone with her or his beloved pet? Why not? In the 21st century, Teachman et al.’s (2000) conclusion about the diversity of the nature of families is readily apparent. All types of families dot the landscape, and many are not bound by biological–blood relations. In early 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether grandparents, other relatives, and even nonrelatives should have a right to visit with children over the parents’ objection. Can anyone without any defined relationship to the child, petition for visiting rights? Can such a petition be ruled in the child’s best interests? More narrowly, this case presented a contrasting pair of easily-depicted images of family life, one with the parents in unquestioned control, and the other with grandparents involved in the children’s lives. This case before the Supreme Court in early 2000 concerned a husband and wife’s petition to regain access to their late son’s young daughters (then in the custody of the son’s widow). The son, who was not married to the mother of his children, committed suicide. The mother married a man who adopted the children. The mother said in defending her position not to let the children see the grandparents that she was spending the children’s college money on legal fees defending the fundamental right of the family not to have the state micromanage their affairs. Although the grandparents’ position was not upheld by

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 116

7 .

T H E

F A M I L Y

the Court, cases such as this one and the changing landscape of the family in the 21st century has opened the door to an intense debate about the definition of family. In the main, this latest family debate has centered on grandparents’ visitation rights, which have been afforded in all 50 states. However, the Washington State Supreme Court concluded in a 1998 decision that the grandparents’ visitation rights law in that state violated a “parent’s fundamental constitutionally protected right to rear his or her children without state interference.” In the early 2000 Supreme Court Case, the New York Times (January 4, 2000, article by Linda Greenhouse, p. A11) indicated that the “Christian right” had fined on the parents’ behalf to hold up “the traditional family, consisting of married partners and their children” and “inextricably linked to the union of husband and wife.” The previous logic of the Christian right flies in the face of many groups in contemporary society who feel that they have a rightful role in the presence of children with whom they are close. Gay rights groups, groups advocating parental choice in education, organizations concerned with families struggling with poverty, all have made petitions in this early 2000 case to advocate their special perspectives on the family. For example, according to one gay rights group, none of the positions being advanced is necessarily sufficiently protective of the needs of children being reared in nontraditional families where a functional parent may have neither biological nor legal ties to the child. The previous New York Times article quoted Professor David Meyer, a law professor who suggested that “those who think it’s a travesty to shut out the grandparents are taking a position that has a lot of implications they may find less palatable than the Norman Rockwell image of the traditional family at the Thanksgiving table” (p. A11). Whether or not people like it, families are living their lives in vastly diverse configurations in the early 2000s. There are many forces at work that have led to this diversity, including parent’s abrogation of their family duties (e.g., when they are imprisoned, addicted, abandon their children, etc). Theorists have been prescient in predicting the vastness of changes and flux that characterize the modern family (Scanzoni, Polonko, Teachman, & Thompson, 1989). A conclusion reached in this chapter is that such diversity is very likely to be a part of the landscape of the family well into this century. A long-standing definition of the family is a group in which people typically live together in a household and function as a cooperative unit, particularly through the sharing of economic resources, in the pursuit of domestic activities (Bane, 1976). In this chapter, we show how some scholars have debated this definition (e.g., Popenoe, 1993), suggesting the more traditional idea that the family is a unit mainly focused on having and raising children.

EVIDENCE ABOUT CHANGES IN T H E N AT U R E O F T H E FA M I LY The American family has changed in marked ways over the last half-century. Many people now consider their primary families to be others with whom they have formed strong bonds, who may not include biologically related kinfolk. Often, these constellations include persons of the same sex and pets, with little or no intense interaction with blood kin. Families led by a single parent are estimated by the Census Bureau to be around 20 million, with 80% led by females. There has been a steady increase, though, in the num-

116

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 117

T R A D I T I O N A L

F A M I L Y

C A R E E R S

ber of male-led single families, especially as males have won custody of children in divorce proceedings. Whereas extended families containing grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins dominated in number in the first half of the 20th century, nuclear families composed only of parents and children dominated by the end of the century. Sometimes, the nuclear family included both young children and an aging grandparent who no longer was able to live alone. This living arrangement often is referred to the “sandwich generation” because it involves the very young and very old, both of whom need the care and support of middleaged parents, who also must carry out two jobs to make a living. Grandparents increasingly are raising America’s children. Their re-involvement in the socialization process had reached approximately 4 million by 1999. They were playing the primary parenting roles because the children’s parents (the grandparents’ children) were single, working, and needing child-care assistance, had drug abuse problems, and were not able to provide consistent parenting, were in prison, or had abandoned their children or given them up in custody cases involving parental neglect. The Census Bureau estimated that about 16 million kids (39%) of the nation’s primary school children are cared for by someone other than their parents before or after school. As we will see later in the chapter, that fact does not spell doom for parenting practices—in fact, it may contribute to positive influences on the child’s life. This commentary on the flux in the family only skims the surface of ripples of change. One change coincides with the urbanization, or better the “suburbanization,” of America’s population. Tom Frickle an anthropologist at the University of Michigan who studies the ethnography of everyday life reports that in rural areas of North Dakota, so many young people are leaving the farms that the former traditions of overflowing clans who support one another in times economic and emotional need are quickly becoming extinguished (reported in Washington Post, October 28, 1999, p. 8A). The young are moving off the farm and often out-of-state for jobs and school. Often, they do not return. Table 7.1 addresses some of the striking demographic changes in the family, just in the last 3 decades. For the numbers shown, it should be noted that even 1% of a population of 250 million people is 2.5 million. Thus, all of the percentages mentioned before refer to large numbers of people. It also should be noted that 56% of adults were married in 1998 vs. 75% in 1972.

T R A D I T I O N A L FA M I LY C A R E E R S Family developmental analysis has focused on significant alternations in the internal organization of married couples, who at some time in their marriages, are engaged in bearing and rearing children (Aldous, 1996). These stages have centered on the parental career within the context of marriage. Table 7.2 provides a listing of sequences of critical transitions generated by changes in the career of a two-parent family that exists from point disengagement from family of origins to retirement. It can be seen from Table 7.2 the complexity of changes and diverse roles occupied by a typical family that is fortunate enough to live a long life and have children, who also begins this same process. Of course, this is an idealized pattern. Diverse types of families

117

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 118

7 .

T H E

F A M I L Y

TABLE 7.1 The Family: Some Demographics for 1970 versus 1998 1970

1998

40%

Traditional family: Married couples with children under the age of 18, including step-families

25%

30%

Married couples: No young children, includes couples whose kids are grown and those without kids

28%

12%

Women living alone: Many are elderly widows, but many also are young just out of the family home

15%

6%

Men living alone: Most are young or middle-aged. The number of elderly men in solo households is only one-third as large as the number of elderly women, since men on the average die 7 years earlier than women.

11%

5%

Single mother and young children: Children under 18 and mother divorced, widowed, separated, or unmarried.

8%

4%

Single mother/no young children: Households may be headed by a grandmother; in others, they are mothers with adult children.

5%

2%

Roommates: Includes Gay partners and households of two or more unrelated roommates.

5%

1%

Single father and young children: Household has children under 18 headed by men unmarried, divorced, separated, or widowed.

2%

1%

Single father/no young children: Household often headed by grandfather; in others they are fathers with adult children.

2%

Data from U.S. Census Bureau (analyzed in Chicago Tribune, March 21, 1999, Section 13 “Family” p. 5).

create diverse patterns. Some do not make it the whole way. As noted in the demographics about the family, some grandparents recycle back into active parent roles, when their children cannot care for their offspring. Some parents lose children to death, which can totally disrupt such idealized sequences. As mentioned in the middle segment of the pattern, economics are a major part of the evolution and issues along the way for most families. This sequence of “career” steps is suggestive of the enormous possibilities for change and continuity in the family. 118

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 119

T H E

F A M I L Y

A N D

I N D I V I D U A L I S M

TABLE 7.2 Sequences of Critical Transitions Generated by Changes in a Two-Parent Family Possible Role Change Disengaging from families of origin Leaving parental residence Leaving school Taking a job Taking on marital status Taking on in-law status

Type of Transition Getting married

Arrival of infant member Taking on parental roles Kinship network (grandparents etc. reactivated) residential change to accommodate infant

First parenthood

Oldest child shifts orientation to peers Youngest child born Life cycle squeeze of deficit financing

Entering school and enlarging family

Oldest child finishes school, takes job Oldest child leaves home and gets married Parents become in-laws

Recycling of leaving family of origin

Change in residence to smaller home Back to dyadic (just two) relations Retirement from active parenting

Grandparenthood

Retirement from labor force Move to independent care/nursing home living

Retirement

Adapted from Aldous, 1996.

T H E FA M I LY A N D I N D I V I D U A L I S M There have been several broad analyses that have strong relevance for discussions about family life and values in the early 21st century. In 1985, Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton published a provocative book entitled Habits of The Heart. In this book, they reported on data from a limited sample of 200 White, middle-class Americans concerning their views on such topics as the family and community. These authors used such data to suggest that Americans needed to come back to a spirit of love and commitment to the family and community that had prevailed earlier in this century but then that had disappeared during a time of fierce individualism, greed, mobility, and “suburbanism.” They also blamed romantic love for part of the aura of individualism in this country. They said, 119

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 120

7 .

T H E

F A M I L Y

Romantic love is a quintessential form of expressive individualism. When it becomes not only the basis for the choice of a life partner but the condition for the continuation of a marriage, it tends to make marriage itself a lifestyle enclave. (pp. 73–74) Later, these writers continued on about the consequences both of our strong endorsement of romantic love and our valuing so much of individualism in this society: Love, then, creates a dilemma for Americans. In some ways, love is the quintessential expression of individuality and freedom. At the same time, it offers intimacy, mutuality, and sharing. In the ideal love relationship, these two aspects of love are perfectly joined—love is both absolutely free and completely shared. Such moments of perfect harmony among free individuals are rare, however. The sharing and commitment in a love relationship can seem, for some, to swallow up the individual, making her (more often than him) lose sight of her own interests, opinions, and desires. Paradoxically, since love is supposed to be a spontaneous choice by free individuals, someone who has “lost” herself cannot really love, or cannot contribute to a real love relationship. Losing a sense of one’s self may also lead to being exploited, or even abandoned, by the person one loves. (p. 93) Bellah et al. also made a subtle indictment of the role of the therapeutic community in their failing to support commitment and obligation in close relationships. Their contentions are summed up in these points: In its pure form, the therapeutic attitude denies all forms of obligation and commitment in relationships, replacing them only with the ideal of a full, open honest communication among self-actualized individuals. . . . the only requirement for the therapeutically liberated lover is to share his feelings fully with his partner. (p. 101) Bellah et al. later called this state of being for many people in relationships one of “utilitarian individualism,” or of “expressive individualism”—in which “love becomes the mutual exploration of infinitely rich, complex, and exciting selves” (p. 108, they say mockingly). Obviously, they have great pause about the emergence of these relationship orientations in this society.

A M E R I C A N FA M I LY D E C L I N E ? T H E N AT I O N A L FA M I LY WA R S Fraying families are taking earlier toll —USA Today Headline November 30, 1999 in article by Marilyn Elias, p. 8D As the year 2000 Presidential Election approached, the American national dialogue intensified, just as it had done in regular cycles over the last two decades of the 20th century. Mental health experts fuel the Elias USA Today-type headline with their frequent commentaries on how changing social conditions and the lack of family anchors are associated with the many manifestations of family-related problems, such as the high incidence of clinical depression and violence among children and youth. For example, the aforemen-

120

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 121

A M E R I C A N

F A M I L Y

D E C L I N E ?

tioned article estimated that a recent study showed as many as 23% of young people between 15 and 24 had suffered a serious depression by age 20. It also showed how the suicide rate among children 5 to 19 had increased by 1995 to almost four times what it was in 1962. Is there an easily identifiable set of issues that can be connected to the family? Arguing from a conservative political position, David Popenoe, a sociologist, has been a leader in articulating a relatively simple causal theory of what is wrong with the American family. Popenoe (1993) has been an outspoken critic of changes in the family over the last 4 decades of the 20th century. Popenoe claims that he speaks for the majority of Americans in seeing the modern family in decline. He said, “Like the majority of Americans, I see the family as an institution in decline and believe that this should be a cause for alarm—especially as regards the consequences for children” (p. 527). Popenoe’s thesis sounds a bit like that of Bellah et al. (1985). For example, Popenoe labeled the last three decades of the 20th century “the me generation,” in which the individual rather than the family comes first. He argued that traditionally, marriage has been understood as a social obligation—an institution designed mainly for economic security and procreation. By the 1990s, he complained that marriage had come to be understood mainly as a path to self-fulfillment. One’s own self-development is seen now to require a significant other, and marital partners are picked primarily to be personal companions. Thus, marriage is becoming de-institutionalized, no longer comprising a set of enforced norms and social obligations. Today it is a voluntary relationship that individuals can make or break at will. Popenoe believes that children and child-raising are the defining qualities of the family, and that increasingly the American family is sliding away from that belief. Popenoe (1993) traced the relatively high birthrates of the 1950 to the following decades when having children began to be less cherished as the raison d’être for the family’s existence. He saw the 1950s as the era of “traditional nuclear family” or the high point in the century for family togetherness (see discussion below of Coontz’s (1992) contrary view of the 1950s). In Popenoe’s view, the 1950s were a time of deep faith in the value of heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong marriage. In making his case about the decline in value of the traditional family as a child-rearing unit, Popenoe cited the following changes in American attitudes and behavior: 1. Between 1957 and 1976, the percentage of adults who felt positive about parenthood dropped from 58% to 44% (Veroff, Douvan, & Kulka, 1981). 2. Between 1970 and 1983, the percentage of women who gave the answer “being a mother, raising a family” to the question, “What do you think are the two or three most enjoyable things about being a woman today?” dropped from 53% to 26% (New York Times Poll, 1983). 3. Between 1962 and 1980, the proportion of American mothers who stated that “all couples should have children” declined from 84% to 43% (Thornton, 1989). 4. In 1960, 73% of all children lived with two natural parents both married only once. This figure was projected to drop to 56% by 1990 (Hernandez, 1988). 5. In 1960, 42% of all families had a sole male breadwinner. By 1988, this figure had dropped to 15%, and Popenoe reported that a 1990s survey found that 79% of adult Americans agreed that “it takes two paychecks to support a family today.” 6. Popenoe reported that in 1960, 5% of all births occurred to unmarried mothers; whereas this percentage had increased to 24% by the mid-1980s.

121

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 122

7 .

T H E

F A M I L Y

Not surprisingly, Popenoe sees divorce as a major culprit in the decline of the American family. Popenoe (1993) argued that key factors in the emergence of a high divorce rate in the 1970s included: secularization, the stress of changing gender roles, women’s increasing economic independence, and divorce contagion—with its great increase, it becomes seen as normal, with fewer negative sanctions to oppose same. Popenoe (1993) concluded his message with this note: My argument, in summary, is that the family decline of the past three decades is something special—very special . . . The weakening of this unit is much more problematic than any prior family change. People today, most of all children, dearly want families in their lives. They long for that special, hopefully life-long, social and emotional bond that family membership brings. Adults can perhaps live much of their lives, with some success, apart from families. The problem is that children, if we wish them to become successful adults, cannot. (p. 540)

REJOINDERS TO POPENOE’S ( 1 9 9 3 ) A N A LY S I S From the 1970s to the present, several family scholars have voiced optimism about the changes in the American family. Bane (1976) proclaimed that the family was here to stay. She said, “The kind of marriage that Americans have always known is still a pervasive and enduring institution” (p. 35). In another set of analyses, Levitan and colleagues (Levitan & Belous, 1981; Levitan, Belous, & Gallo, 1988) argued that the family has great resilience. Levitan and Belous (1981) concluded: “Currently fashionable gloom and doom scenarios miss the essential process of adjustment and change” (p. 190). A major idea in these analyses, as is true for many commentaries in the early 21st century, is that families per force must change, but that many will adapt to their changes. Further, child-raising and childsocialization always will be central activities of families—even gay and lesbian families. In reaction to Popenoe’s (1993) analysis, Stacy (1993) author of the 1990 book Brave New Families repeated earlier rejoinders to Popenoe’s long-standing views (e.g., Skolnick, 1991; Stacy, 1990) that, she contends, represents a belief that “the sky is falling and we cannot do anything about [it].” Stacy argued that Popenoe’s analysis sounds much like blaming the victim logic, and ignored the synergy of social forces that place American families at risk. She contended that Popenoe was blaming the victim when, for example, he noted that women’s greater economic independence was associated with the current high divorce rate. She argued the common scientific refrain, “Correlation does not establish proof of causation,” and suggested that Popenoe’s analysis was replete with assertions that belie that idea. For example, people’s more negative attitudes about having many kids may have little to do with their enactment of positive family values and nurturing of the kids they do have. Financial considerations, careers, and time are critical factors in people’s decisions about number of children they wish to have. Further, there needs to be more careful study of whether the “me generation” logic has anything to do with divorce. In some cases, it may be related to people’s more mature personal development prior to marriage, leading to more stable marriages. As important, there is no clear evidence to corroborate Popenoe’s view that “me generation” attitudes predict marital divorce, or stability for that matter. 122

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 123

W H E R E

A R E

T H E

G O O D

O L D

D A Y S ?

Stacy (1993) asserted that, contrary to the implication of Popenoe’s (1993) analysis, data presently are not available that people with negative attitudes have smaller families. She argued that Popenoe gives short shrift to the necessity of two incomes to make a living and the frequent upheavals in the business world that lead to family instability when breadwinners are laid off in mergers and corporate downsizing. She contended that while recognizing the value of women’s achieving greater economic independence, Popenoe ironically ignored the possibility that traditional family arrangements are reducing women’s desire to have large families and to be less tolerant of husbands who do not want them to have their own careers. A final area of major concern for Stacy was that Popenoe had offered an incomplete assessment of the alternatives to his view that the family as an institution had declined. She suggested that Popenoe was arguing illogically in claiming that critics of his view must conclude either that the family has strengthened or stayed the same. Stacy, however, argued for a celebration of the current diversity found in family structures. Stacy does not believe that the American family of the early 1990s constituted a truly egalitarian approach to relations between wives and husbands. Certainly under present conditions of political, economic, social, and sexual inequality, truly egalitarian marriage is not possible for the majority . . . If, as many feminists have begun to suspect, a stable marriage system depends upon systemic forms of inequality, it will take more than thought reform or moralistic jeremiads about family decline to stanch our contemporary marriage hemorrhage. (p. 547) An interesting side-note to the “National Family Wars” of the early 1990s is that they have not ended in the early 21st century. Continually, there is more fuel for them, too. A November 9, 1999 USA Today article by Rita Rubin (p. 1, Section D) recognized the 1990s as first point in the history of the United States in which more than one half of the first children born to young women below age 25 were conceived outside of marriage—a rate nearly three times that of the early 1930s. In fact, by 1994, only 23% of single pregnant women got married before giving birth. Such data presumably reflect the lesser stigma of pregnancy outside of marriage, as well as factors such as women’s greater financial independence, the decision by both parents to be parents regardless of marital status, and possibly the greater belief that forced marriage will eventuate in divorce.

W H E R E A R E T H E G O O D O L D D AY S ? Stephanie Coontz has taken a position as a debunker of myths about the family, and in so doing counters one of the arguments made by Popenoe (1993) about the merit of the 1950s for the family. In her 1992 book, The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap, Coontz articulated the idea that the 1950s are viewed nostalgically as a wonderful decade for the family. Compared to subsequent decades and the wartime period in which divorce rates were high, divorce rates in the 1950s were relatively low. In reality, however, she documents many areas in which the family of the 1950s was a problematic institution. The much-ballyhooed traditional family—self-sufficient, patriotic, and God-fearing—usually included a father, homemaker mother, at least two children, and a house in the suburbs. According to Coontz, that kind of family is a figment of our nostalgic imagination. It did not exist in such a pure form in the 1950s, when, for example, 123

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 124

7 .

T H E

F A M I L Y

government programs provided subsidies for most suburban families, and the number of out-of-wedlock babies being born was reaching an all-time high. Other common problems in those families were physical abuse, or battering, incest, and alcoholism. Rates of divorce were relatively low, but that did not prevent the 30% of American children from living in poverty, a higher rate than at the end of the 20th century. These problems typically were hidden in the “closets,” although friends and relatives usually knew some of the grim detail. Nostalgia traps exist with regard to the assumption that the American family in centuries before the late 20th century were more linear in nature—with a mother, father, children, and grandparents often living together in semiextended family settings. However, as Coontz documents, families in the 19th century often contained a diverse array of relatives and lodgers, who were taken in to help make ends meet. Such settings existed at the same time that the 19th-century Victorian period insisted that males and females avoid displays of public intimacy and often go about their separate ways. It is true that the 20th century brought the advent of the couple-oriented family in the United States. Dating as a form of courtship became prominent by the 1920s, linking together couples for extended periods in an increasingly automobile-oriented society. After World War II, the development of suburbia further stratified families, emphasizing couples with a few children living often at some distance from grandparents and other relatives.

FA M I L I E S O N T H E FA U LT L I N E Rubin (1994) argued that many families in the United States are living on a figurative fault line in that may lead to their demise. This fault line basically is economic in nature. Rubin is one of the few analysts who has addressed broad family issues as they relate to social class and race. Her ideas were based on a study involving 162 working class and lower middle class families. Based on her interviews, Rubin concluded that these families are subject to regular economic and social upheavals due to corporate downsizing and flux in the business world. She found that many working-class families were living on the fault line of going paycheck to paycheck, with little if any health benefits, savings, or accruing retirement funds. These families were worried about health issues, how to finance child care, their children’s college education, and how to get out from under major credit card debt. Rubin found that family life and hope were severely diminished when parents lost their jobs. Frustration, anger, and dashed expectation for the “American good life” were typical concomitants of these circumstances. She carried out this research before the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, that likely has moved still more families to this economic precipice. For many of these families, the education and training level of the breadwinners made them less marketable for the increasingly high-tech jobs of the 21st century. When they lost good-paying jobs, they had to fall back on lower-paying service jobs for which little training was required. For some of the families, their race and ethnicity also played a role in securing adequate-paying jobs and retaining them. Some of these families were new immigrants to the United States. They faced barriers associated both with skin color and minimal English language. Rubin’s analysis is valuable even with an economy in the United States that in the early 21st century is stronger than in the early 1990s when the book was written. Particularly service jobs are plentiful as this book is being written. The population increasingly is 124

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 125

W H A T

C H I L D R E N

T H I N K

A B O U T

W O R K I N G

P A R E N T S

showing a variegated nature, with Whites of European descent making up only 50% of the population in the most populous state—California. It still is true today that the great wealth of the United States is mostly in the hands of the fewest people, with about 1% (around 260,000 people) of the population holding as much or more total financial assets as the remainder of the population of 260 million citizens. Rubin concluded her analysis with this warning: We live in difficult and dangerous times, in a country deeply divided by class, race, and social philosophy. The pain with which so many American families are living today, and the anger they feel, won’t be alleviated by a retreat to false optimism and easy assurances. (p. 247)

W H AT C H I L D R E N T H I N K A B O U T W O R K I N G PA R E N T S Psychic Orphans? —Headline in Chicago Tribune October 7, 1999 in article exploring possible effects on children of both parents working In the context of many commentators’ concerns about the impact of two-career parents on children (including Popenoe’s commentaries), Galinsky (1999) conducted research on what children think about working parents. In many ways, Galinsky’s data may be interpreted as reassuring to working parents. Galinsky’s method was twofold: She conducted nonrandom interviews with 78 parents and 93 children in 15 states and the District of Columbia. In 1998, she also studied, with the help of Louis Harris and Associates, a nationally representative sample of 1,023 children under age 18 and 605 working parents. Overall, therefore, Galinsky’s data are fairly imposing in number of responses. Two main areas of findings emerged from Galinsky’s studies: 1. For the statement, “A mother who works outside the home can have just as good a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work,” 76% of employed parents agree somewhat or strongly with this statement. However, within this group, fathers are much more likely to disagree with this statement (30%) versus mothers (18%). Mothers noted that they sometimes had seen growth and maturity in their children (especially girls) consistent with their own enhanced self-esteem and growth associated with work. Galinsky also discussed a well-known 1997 study (NICHD, 1997) by the National Institute of Child Development finding that mothers working and a child’s being in day/child care in themselves do not affect the bond between the mother and the child. This study did find some children who were negatively affected by their mothers’ failure to give them security and responsiveness. The study concluded, however, that security and responsiveness can be readily offered by working mothers. 2. Galinsky asked a question about how much time working parents are spending with their children. In asking this question, she noted that working hours especially for fathers had increased (to an average of 50.9 hours per week) by 1997; for mothers the average was 41.4 hours per week. Thus, a lot of hours are being devoted to work each week. Nonetheless, for children at all levels, quite a few hours were 125

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 126

7 .

T H E

F A M I L Y

devoted to them by parents each workday. For infants through age 3, mothers spent an average of almost 6 hours with their child, whereas the father spent an average of almost 4 hours. The lowest total was for 13–18-year-old kids, who often have strong commitments to their peers. For this group, the daily average was almost 4 hours for mothers and almost 3 hours for fathers. These averages almost doubled for nonworkdays, such as Saturdays and Sundays and holidays. Children reinforced the drift of these data. Over 60% girls and boys from the 3rd through the 12th grade indicated that their employed parents spent “just enough time with them.” As important, around 70 to 75% of girls and boys in these grades felt that their working parents had been “very successful in managing work and family life” and a majority of such children felt that their parents “never put job before family.” However, Galinsky did report the following narrative comment from a 12-year-old girl whose parents both worked: I would like to tell working parents . . . to try to put their parents first and then your job, to take more time to think, talk with, and love your children as much as they love you. Because one day, they are not going to be there anymore. (p. 350) In a December 6, 1999 USA Today article on “togetherness” in families, another teen, age 14, seconded the thrust of Galinsky’s data and provided this explanation for why togetherness was not something many middle-class teens could achieve: “There is no real way for any teen to spend the preferred amount of time with their parents because of academic, extracurricular, and athletic responsibilities” (p. 1D). For the parents in Galinsky’s study, overall about 37% felt indicated that they often felt successful as a parent. Parents with a younger child felt a bit more successful than did those with an older child. Galinsky (1999) did find areas of child behavior problems or experienced difficulties in some families with two-career parents. Some of the salient problems or difficulties reported by parents for their children were: periodic unhappiness or depression; cannot concentrate or pay attention for extended periods; feels worthless or inferior; acts too young for age (acts immature); and is nervous or high-strung. For those reporting such areas of problems, most reported that these problems existed on a “sometimes” basis. Galinsky suggested that central to this model were the intentional acts of focusing on and spending of time with kids especially on weekdays. These acts might include addressing family demands such as eating meals together, playing together, and exercising together. She also indicated that she was particularly struck by the importance of social support for working families. Having friends to turn to is a significant factor in the success of parenting. In conclusion, Galinsky’s findings and analysis paint a relatively positive picture of parenting in the two-career American family. The implications of Popenoe’s (1993) analysis about the problematic nature of families in which both parents work were not confirmed in these large studies. Galinsky did find that parents have to work hard to balance family and work, much less their other needs and commitments (e.g., aging parents, personal health, and romance–relationship maintenance for themselves). Yet, they appear to be doing a pretty good job. Children appear to have accepted and are making the best of the necessity of combined family life and dual-career work patterns.

126

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 127

D I V E R G E N T

F A M I L Y

R E A L I T I E S

College students frequently show the ill effects of chaos in the family. Galinsky’s data do not show these effects because it appears most of her respondents were reporting from the perspective of intact middle-class families in which separation and divorce was not an immediate threat. Further, it would appear that she somehow sampled mainly families in which “fatal conflicts” were not ongoing about whether the wife should work. Another likely concomitant of Galinsky’s findings is that the families were in the middle class socioeconomic range. Poorer families often are single-parent, single-breadwinner families. By definition, they were not included in this work.

D I V E R G E N T FA M I LY R E A L I T I E S Larson and Richards’ (1994) developed an interesting analysis of the American family that was based on reports by 55 Chicago-area families on random moments in their family life. The investigators beeped respondents at different points to establish telephone contacts and ask questions about their behavior and feelings. A conclusion that jumps out of Larson and Richards’ data is that at many points in the day, the complexion of the family is a swirling arena of perceptions, feelings, and behavior. As these authors argued, part of that swirling arena is a set of divergent realities. Family members have different experiences and see the same event in different ways. Thus, reality for the family as a whole is an amalgam of these diverse senses of realities. Larson and Richards’ analysis is particularly helpful because it tries to examine real behavior via the report of family participants. Some of Larson and Richards’ conclusions may be qualified by the fact that they focused mostly on White, middle-class families with adolescent children at home. Reports by Larson and Richards’ respondents indicated that the mother and wife of the family was beset by the multiple tasks of an outside job, the bulk of household chores, and taking care of the children. This type of evidence is consistent with Hochschild’s (1989) “second shift” findings and analysis. In this context, Larson and Richards reported that many of the women in their study reported unhappiness with this state of affairs—again consistent with Hochschild’s findings. As one example of women’s plight, Larson and Richards’ women respondents indicated a numbing effect for TV watching. They had fewer positive and more negative states during media watching because they were trying to use this activity as antidote to the emptiness of housework. Although reading and active recreation did provide some release for women, overall their leisure moments were much less “leisurely” than were the moments of men—husbands and fathers in the households sampled. Too often, women’s attempts at leisure were sandwiched between housework and child-care activities. As a reported behavioral index of women’s concerns, Larson and Richards stated that women reported their greatest emotional lows each day between 5:30 and 7:30 p.m., presumably a period in which they were carrying out household/dinner preparation tasks. On the other hand, men reported this period to be their highest emotional point in the day; their lowest was soon after arriving at work around 9:30 a.m. Women’s highest emotional point was after arriving at work in the midmorning period. Most husbands came home from work claiming fatigue and entitlement to leisure. Most wives, in contrast, felt that the home and family had become environments with pressing household and family obligations.

127

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 128

7 .

T H E

F A M I L Y

Larson and Richards argued that women often take on the role of trying to work through complex feelings in a family, and sometimes they find themselves in no-win situations. These conclusions strangely resemble the conclusions of Bernard (1972, 1982) decades earlier about the impairing roles of women in many traditional American families. One may wonder whether the egalitarian-oriented couple studied by Schwartz (1994) in her “peer marriage” research has not achieved much of a hold yet among somewhat older couples than the youngish 20s and 30s couples she mainly studied. A major finding in Larson and Richards’ (1994) study coincides with the evidence reported by Gottman (1995) and discussed in chapter 6 on maintenance of relationships. Negative emotion in families is most often transmitted from fathers to others in the household, especially in families deemed “troubled.” Gottman argued that fathers and husbands have a special role in precluding the escalation of negative emotion in dialogue and interaction with wives and children. Larson and Richard noted that couples with adolescents who have been married continuously since the birth of their children often report relatively low levels of satisfaction with their relationship (Glenn, 1990). Part of these couples’ dissatisfaction may stem from their lesser interaction during this time when their careers are at their busiest and their kids are making demands based on adolescent needs (and this does not include the possibility that the parents are “sandwiched” with older parents needing their help). It was found that both wives and husbands perceived that they spent about 27% of their time together, but that they were engaging in the same activity only about 10% of the time. Thus, the type of in-depth interaction between the partners that probably was prominent in leading to the original close relationship bond has been greatly reduced. It has been replaced with other commitments and some degree of mundane interaction. As one of the women in Larson and Richards’ (1994) study said, “As our children grow older, the time we have together, for just us, is smaller and smaller and later and later at night” (p. 110). As shown by Galinsky’s (1999) evidence, some significant percentage of their time is being spent with their children. Other time is devoted to household chores. Still other time may be devoted to take-home work. Larson and Richards reported that a few couples made a special effort to take off from work and to be away from kids and various obligations in order to share feelings and engage in sex. This effort was well-rewarded in their couples’ levels of satisfaction with the marriage and family. Adolescents, the other members of the family in Larson and Richards’ (1994) study, also reported various negative emotions in daily family life and interaction. At the same time, adolescents rarely pitched in to help during the crunch times in the early evenings when household chores needed to be done. Their time at home after school usually was filled with aggravations. Tension with their parents was high. Teens often experienced parents’ requests that they do chores as harassment. Hassles with siblings were common in the household. Boys especially felt little responsibility to the family’s regular needs. When they shut down for the day, teens alone in their rooms often reported feeling lonely and sad. At the same time, many teens used the time alone to engage in activities such as computer games (that now would involve “surfing the Internet”) and reading—activities that gave them a sense of sanctuary. Overall, young adolescents were found to have the most profound needs for refuge and are most vulnerable to family dysfunction. Larson and Richards (1994) concluded their statement on the family by suggesting that men need to be more involved with household work and child care—refrains from the writings of Bernard, Hochschild, Schwartz, and other scholars over the last 3 decades. 128

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 129

B L E N D E D

F A M I L I E S

Given that families appear to feed off of fathers’ moods, men have a special obligation not only to be involved with the family tasks, but also to recognize their duties as emotional regulators and sustainers. In the context of pressure-packed careers, meeting these challenges may be difficult. The options, however, are not good. Relationship and family deterioration take a huge toll on men’s careers and economic well-being. Either they work to make their bonds successful, or they will suffer both direct and indirect negative consequences in health, prosperity, peace, and fulfillment.

B L E N D E D FA M I L I E S Families have been diverse in nature throughout the 200 years of the country’s existence. Contrary to the myth that the blended family is a phenomenon of the last several decades when divorce rates approached 50%, blended families have existed in the United States since the Colonial times. Then, death rates were high in families, and remarriage often led to new mixes of adults and children. In the early 21st century, about 75% of divorced people remarry, and serial remarriages are increasingly common (Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2000). Over one half of all children in the United States now live in blended families. There is an extensive literature on how blended, “step-families,” have made their relationships work, or the special problems they encounter that may limit their success. Despite arguments such as Popenoe’s (1993) about the greater problems faced by families who are remarried constellations, there is no good evidence that these families have any more difficulties in coping, raising children, and finding happiness than do families in which neither partner has previously been divorced (Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2000; Ganong, & Coleman, 1994). Certainly, bringing together children from previous marriages can be a major challenge. However, the children may grow and learn as a consequence of having to accept new people into their families. As reviewed by Coleman, Ganong, and Fine (in press) and Ganong and Coleman (1994), there is a beginning strand of ongoing research about remarried families. Too little work still is being directed at the processes of adjustment in remarried families. Remarried families are faced with multiple challenges, such as maintaining ties with family members from previous households and families while developing and maintaining relationships in their new family configurations. Also, adults with children from prior unions may be challenged to redefine and renegotiate ongoing relationships as coparents of these children, while incorporating a new partner into their lives and the lives of their children. At the same time, children in remarried families often encounter the tasks of maintaining ties with their parents, while simultaneously developing relationships with one or more stepparents. As Coleman and Ganong (in press) noted, typically less 25% of couples engage in any significant preparation other than cohabitation before remarriage. Such a lack of preparation makes more daunting the task of blending families. This lack of preparation is understandable when it is considered that 30% of couples who remarry do so within a year after divorce. Banker and Gaertner (1999) provided evidence and argued that stepfamilies can achieve greater harmony to the extent that they can learn to view the members of the family as being like one group, rather than as remains from different families. Their work was based on Gaertner and colleagues (1993) ingroup identity model that suggests ways to 129

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 130

7 .

T H E

F A M I L Y

reduce intergroup bias. As applied to the stepfamily, achieving more favorable conditions of contact among members help the family develop a sense of ingroup identity and unity. The types of contact that seem to work best are equal status interactions, cooperation, and developing personalized interactions and relations. Another type of interesting blended family on the rise in the United States is that containing adopted children. Many of them contain several children and are bi- or multiracial families (with the Census Bureau estimating a quarter of a million such adoptions in the United States between the late 1960s and late 1990s). This development has been caused in large measure by the strong economy in the United States in the late 1990s, such that Americans now adopt approximately 70% of all children adopted in the world. Although critics have suggested that adoption across racial lines is bad for the self-esteem of adopted children, the real world is such that many of these children will not be adopted at all unless they are taken by a family who is willing to cross racial lines and not allow race to be a transcending factor in determining their behavior. Even when kids discuss the difficulty of growing up in mixed-race families, they have to consider the alternatives of not growing up in a family at all. Swenson (1997) suggested that there three major types of tasks involved in the adaptation of families adopting children: (1) the balance of bonding with the new stepparent and with the biological parent (if the latter is known); (2) the balancing of the children’s behavioral freedom versus parental control; and (3) the shifting balance of closeness and distance with the biological parent.

C H I L D - F R E E FA M I L I E S Just as there are millions of people in their 20s and 30s deciding not to marry in the early 21st century, there also are millions of married couples choosing not to have children. Many of these couples are now called DINKS (dual income, no kids). Reasons for this development are many, including: the simple decision not to have kids; the decision to concentrate on careers, travel, and leisure activities; worry-free birth control methods; the high costs of raising kids and other perceived problems in raising kids in this society. Salzman and Matahia (1999) analyzed the DINK trend and estimated that fully 22% of the women born between 1956 and 1972 never will have children. Many of these families do have pets and consider them the same as children in the reciprocation of love and affection. They also may have nieces and nephews whom they treat very much as they would their own children. Although DINKS may feel some isolation in suburban neighborhoods dominated by families with children, these individuals may be closer to one another in such couplings than are the couples in many families with children. Because of the relatively greater time they have to be with one another, they may have forged a very intense relationship that involves significant high quality interaction. Yet, DINKS have to endure social stigma in some quarters about why they have made this decision, or that they are selfish or something is wrong with them in light of this decision. Still, principled DINKS resist having children to make others (including their own parents) happy, or “to save their marriage,” or “to fill a void” in their lives. They do not believe that their decision requires either sympathy or disbelief, or that they will someday regret the decision— another common contention they deal with.

130

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 131

C O N C L U S I O N S

CONCLUSIONS: PROBLEMS AND P O T E N T I A L S W I T H T H E FA M I LY Much of this book has explicitly or implicitly addressed the many problems with the American family. Issues that have been pinpointed include: two-career parents and their ability to provide the time and energy needed in parenting; dealing with the presses of having children and aging parents dependent on a middle-aged couple and their resources; the economic and child-care difficulties faced by single parent families; the needs of adolescent children who may be sad and depressed and pose a special challenge for busy working parents; the difficulty of couples making time for their close relationship in the midst of other obligations and pressures; and because of mobility and the diminishing role of family traditions, the reduced role of extended families in nurturing one another. Leading family expert James Garbarino (1995) has referred to the “socially toxic environment” in which many children of the latter 20th century were attempting to navigate. He used this term as a parallel to physically toxic environments due to pollution of the water, air, and soil. He argued that vulnerable children are most at risk in relation to such social “toxins” as: the pervasiveness of television in their lives (with only 6% of the population reporting having read a book during the last year); economic deprivation, with thousands of children in the United States suffering physical and psychological impoverishment; the decline of community and the threat of high-risk neighborhoods, with excesses of guns available to the youth. These “toxins” are only a few and supplement the set that includes conflict, separation, and divorce in the family. In discussing Larson and Richards’ (1994) research on the family, it was mentioned that many teen-age children do not have positive feelings about major aspects of their family life. They also do not have much interaction with their parents. Peers dominate with these young people, probably more so than at any time in history of this country. Many have a “Hi, good-bye,” relationship with their parents most days of the week. Families as a whole even go their separate ways more and more in this suburban-oriented culture. This development is partially a consequence of the fact that this country has been a two-parent working nation for almost 3 decades. Beyond this gulf, teens in affluent homes often live in their own quarters and seldom interact with other family members. That reality was powerfully brought home when it was discovered that the two teen killers in the Littleton, Colorado school murders in 1999 had been preparing for their acts, which included making bombs, in the garage and other areas of one of their upper middle-class homes—homes in which both parents worked outside the home. Many other questions surround the family in the early 21st century. One issue that is generating increasing debate is that of legalizing homosexual marriages. Many cities and business organizations now have policies permitting same-sex couples to receive health benefits when one partner is covered. The same applies to heterosexual couples who are unmarried, but living together as domestic partners. The late 90s and early 21st century have seen a movement toward an end to discrimination against women who take leave in order to have children and nurture them early in their lives. The U.S. Family and Medical Leave Law of 1993 made it illegal for companies having over 25 employees to fire parents who take leave from their jobs for early parenting duties. Increasingly, that right is being extended both to mothers and fathers. The “mommy track” was a late 1980s and early 1990s term that referred to companies’ tendency to put women on a slower track in rising up in the company hierarchy if they put their family before their career. Outrage by 131

01-070 C07 pp3 9/13/01 1:57 PM Page 132

7 .

T H E

F A M I L Y

employees about such practices has virtually ended the mommy-track approach of the business world. As one mother with an MBA who took off 8 years to raise children, said about resuming her career in 1999, “[upon assuming her new position] I stated up front that if something’s going on at my kids’ school, I’ll be there, and a kid is sick, I’ll be home—but I’d get the work done. I was greeted with nods and smiles” (Chicago Tribune, Carol Kleiman “WorkingLife” Column, January 26, 1999, Section 3, p. 1). The role of the father perplexes many analysts of the family in the early 21st century. Despite the work of organizations such as the Promise Keepers (that is a religiously oriented organization designed to help men be better husbands and fathers), the jury still is out on many fathers’ commitment to their families, including their children. This observation not only derives from the continued high levels of unpaid child support, but from children’s own reports of who is most critical in their development. There are more gangs, drugs, alcohol, and ill-advised sex than at any other point in the history of the family in this country. Standing tall against such vices are mothers. Increasingly, moms are the best friends of their own teenagers, particularly for girls. They are the people whom those teens look to for information, acceptance, and guidance at critical junctures in their development. Similarly, separated and divorced moms may rely on their teenage and college-age daughters and sons for advice when they resume dating and other perilous activities in their midlives. At the same time, the concept of “house-husband” is thoroughly embedded in this society’s fabric now. Further, many fathers are seeking and winning custody battles. As noted in chapter 1, there has been a steady increase in the number of single parent, father-led families. They now number in the millions in the United States. As implied before, fathers are using the Family and Medical Leave Law to take leave and care for their infants. Some of these men are even suing their employers so that they can exercise this right. It is estimated that one-half million men had taken advantage of that law in 1999 (as compared to 1.4 million mothers). All of these and a host of other issues notwithstanding and the immense vulnerability of the American family, it remains our greatest institution. Whether the family is small and composed of a senior citizen without relatives, with only a lone pet companion, or a multigeneration extended family of adults and children, the family is the locus for our greatest joys and sorrows.

132

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 133

8 SAME-SEX CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS The Netherlands, a pacesetter for gay rights, gave final approval today to groundbreaking laws allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children . . . ‘As far as possible, homosexual marriage will have the same consequences as heterosexual marriage,’ the Senate said in a statement and went on to note, ‘A marriage between persons of the same sex thus has little chance of being recognized abroad.’ (Reuters news story, The New York Times, December 20, 2000, p. A6)

G AY – L E S B I A N R E L AT I O N S H I P S The opening excerpt from a news story reflects a movement, albeit quite limited to date, to give legislative credence to gay marriages. While the United States as a whole appears to be quite far from a time when such legislation will be enacted at a state or national level, there have been moves—particularly in the State of Vermont (see later)—to officially recognize gay marriages. Mores frequently trail after folkways. The public already recognizes and increasingly accepts gay relationships. As will be discussed in this chapter, there is strong evidence that gay couples do as well parenting as do heterosexual couples, and that the dynamics of their relationships are quite similar in almost all respects to those of heterosexual couples. Many, if not most, lesbians and gay men express the desire for a committed relationship with a member of the same gender. Research shows that 40 to 60% of gay men and 45 to 80% of lesbians are currently involved in steady romantic relationships (Peplau, Veniegas, & Campbell, 1996). When asked about their satisfaction, lesbians and gay men report as much satisfaction with their current relationships as do heterosexual couples (Patterson, 2000). For approximately 2 centuries, the term homosexual in connection with human behavior has been applied to sexual relations between members of the same sex. Broadly defined, the sexual relations may be physical as well as psychological in nature. Derived from the Greek root “homo,” the term emphasizes the sameness of the two individuals who are involved. The word is meant to represent the antithesis of the word “heterosexual,” which applies to sexual relations between individuals of different sexes. As described in a valuable review of the close relationships of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, Peplau and Spalding (2000) reviewed past work showing that from 1980 to 1993 only 3 out of 312 articles in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships focused on some aspect of sexual orientation. For the Journal of Marriage and the Family, the number was 2 out of 1,209 articles in this time period. There is, therefore, a great

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 134

8 .

S A M E - S E X

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

paucity of available evidence about same-sex relationships. As we will see throughout this chapter, part of the difficulties for researchers in this area is to regularly and systematically collect evidence from lesbian and gay samples of couples. Further, in terms of limits, most of the work to date has been done with white samples (Peplau & Spalding, 2000). One of the first studies of homosexuality in the United States was Kinsey’s (1948) classic work on sexuality. Kinsey was a Professor of Zoology at Indiana University who used his great penchant for discovery and way with people to interview thousands of Americans about their sexuality. He did his work in such an objective fashion that housewives, farmers, and clergy felt equally at ease in reporting on matters such as premarital sexual experiences and how often they masturbated. Kinsey’s findings have been challenged by John Bancroft, a psychiatrist who later became director of the Kinsey Sex Institute at Indiana (see “Kinsey research more than a little suspect,” USA Today, Dec. 13, 1995, by Linda Chavez, p. 13A). The self-selected nature of his samples (i.e., not all people approached to participate in the research agreed to do so, and for those who did participate, it is possible that they shared special qualities that distinguish them from the general population). Bancroft claimed that Kinsey relied greatly on individual case studies to collect his data. Nonetheless, for that point in time, Kinsey’s work remains one of the most interesting and revealing guides about sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular. Kinsey (1948) reported the amazing datum for the midcentury that a relatively large percentage of American males and females had engaged in at least some homosexual experiences. For example, in the youngest unmarried group (age 15 to 20), more than a quarter (27%) of the males reported some degree of homosexual behavior to the point of orgasm. This incidence among these single males increased in successive groups until it reached a maximum of almost 39% between ages 36 and 40. Kinsey (1953) reported that 25% of the females he sampled at 30 years of age recognized erotic responses to other females, with the highest incidence at about age 35 among single females. There was less clear evidence of orgasm among females, with the highest reported incidence at about once every 2 weeks for women having homosexual contacts in their 20s and 30s. Again, though, such data were revolutionary regarding human female sexuality in the early 1950s. In the last 2 decades, gay and lesbian individuals increasingly have been “coming out of the closet” in declaring their sexual preference and in asserting their rights in the political arena. In December 1999, in the first such decision by a state supreme court, Vermont justices ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the same rights as married couples. The justices, though, told state legislators to decide whether such rights should be contained in legal gay marriages or through more conservative recognition of domestic partnerships (that are recognized now in many cities and corporations, a recognition that entitles the couples to benefits similar to those afforded married couples). This December 1999 decision in Vermont stemmed from a 1997 lawsuit by three gay couples who wanted marriage licenses. The gay–lesbian married rights issue has been growing in scope in the United States since the Hawaii Supreme Court ordered a retrial in a case brought in 1990 by a gay couple seeking a marriage license. The case was thrown out in 1998 after Hawaii voters endorsed an amendment to that state’s constitution outlawing same-sex marriages. Cloud (2000) argued that by 2025 gay couples in several pro-

134

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 135

S A M E

S E X :

D I F F E R E N T

C U L T U R E S

gressive states will enjoy all responsibilities, rights, and daily frustrations of married people, even if they do not have a marriage license. As Cloud noted, Vermont has been the leader to date in establishing those rights—a “separate but equal” type decision in the decades step in the decades old civil rights movement. The Vermont decision fell short of advocates’ hopes for mandated gay marriages. According to a USA Today article (December 21, 1999, article by Fred Bayles, p. 3A), conservatives condemned the Vermont decision as an assault on traditional marriage. One conservative commentator quoted by USA Today said, “. . . Our view is that marriage is defined as something between a man and a woman. When you start defining marriage between anyone, you dilute the protection of the traditional family unit.” Both sides agree that the opinion moves the issue of gay marriages one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court showdown, although the Vermont decision has no effect on other states. One supporter of the ruling was quoted in the USA Today article, “It’s a tremendous gain for our families and for fair-minded people around the country.” As we will see throughout the topics discussed in this chapter, despite some beginning progress in the social sciences in conducting research examining issues in gay and lesbian close relationships, we still have a paucity of evidence on the determinants and dynamics of homosexual orientations. We also lack research involving broad samples and prospective designs on questions concerning whether principles and issues of close heterosexual relationships are necessarily the same for gay and lesbian close relationships. Laumann (1994) provided evidence from a national probability study about the degree of incidence of homosexuality in the U.S. These investigators estimated that an average of adult homosexuality of approximately 2.5% for men and less for women for the U.S. population of approximately 260 million people. This estimate is probably quite conservative. In his classic study of homosexuality, Kinsey (1948) argued that most such estimates overlook many homosexuals who have not come out to many people or who are reluctant to discuss their sexuality with strangers. Binson (1995) estimated the percentage of males who have had some homosexual contact as 7.8%. Adding in younger males, these investigators estimated as many as 14.5 percent of the males in the United States had engaged in some homosexual contact. These estimates for females are somewhat lower, more likely in the 10 to 12% range.

S A M E S E X : D I F F E R E N T C U LT U R E S Cultural anthropologist Gilbert Herdt (1997) has provided fascinating evidence and argument about same-sex behavior and attitudes in different cultures. His work provides examples of same-sex relationships in ancient Greece, Native American societies, feudal China, Japan, developing countries of Africa, India, Mexico, Brazil, and Thailand. He examined in-depth the same-sex behavior of New Guinea societies in which young men are initiated into manhood by homosexual relations with their elders. Herdt generally argued that homosexual behavior is common across different cultures and historical eras and that the legislation of prejudice against same-sex relationships in 20th-century Western countries is a backward practice. Although Herdt’s (1997) analysis is not an explicit history of homosexuality, he presented an interesting historical perspective on how gay and lesbian relationships have been

135

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 136

8 .

S A M E - S E X

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

stigmatized and slowly accepted in Western countries over the course of the 20th century. In Victorian times near the beginning of the 20th century, sex was interpreted as meaning only reproduction, and “natural sex” was defined only as missionary-position heterosexual, married sex. The transformation from closet homosexuality to 21st century openness was tortuous, but steady in civil progress. For much of the 20th century, homophobia was not disavowed, and homosexuality was seen as a problem of personal sin, disease, or psychopathology. The Nazis’ treatment of homosexuality during their reign in Germany from 1933 to 1945 reflects extreme prejudice and cruelty, as homosexuals were included among the groups systematically persecuted in the Holocaust. As Herdt (1997) noted, the German Sex Institute in Berlin had adopted the position that homosexuality was biologically determined and should be accepted as a normal, decriminalized sexual orientation. However, this position aroused right-wing extremists led by the Nazis to promote heterosexism as the fundamental human condition and hatred of homosexuality. The Nazis enforced by killing a naïve “naturalist” ideology of reproduction that made men superior to women, abortion a crime, and homosexuality a moral drain and threat to the reproductive virility of the Fatherland. By the late 1930s, the Nazis set about “cleansing” Germany of Jews, homosexuals, and Gypsies. In other countries, as well, Herdt (1997) argued that people born before World War II were socialized into a cultural worldview that held terrible stereotypes of homosexuality. These included images that were the product of folk tales and that were reinforced by newspaper accounts of exposure and the frequent arrest of “dirty old men,” who frequented public toilets and bus depots. Their arrests and names were made a matter of public record, resulting in public humiliation for them and their families. Lesbians were sometimes characterized as man-hating vampires, gay men as serial killers, child molesters, or promiscuous compulsives looking for sex in public toilet areas. These images were reinforced by the media and taught to children. Herdt (1997) stated that the 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a disease by the American Psychiatric Association was a milestone in fueling the gay movement in the United States and other Western countries. Until 1973, all basic issues of same-sex attraction and relationships were classified as a disease under the general diagnosis of “homosexuality.” About the same time, the public idea of homophobia began to take hold in Western countries. Generally, the stigma and prejudice inherent in antihomosexual activities had been accepted in society and sanctioned through the disease label (see later discussion of contemporary issues associated with homophobia). Herdt (1997) summarized his historical sketch with the argument that since the mid- to late-1970s, “coming out” has become more accepted in the United States and other Western countries. Because of the strength of the gay and lesbian movement, coming out has started to occur at younger ages, as early as 16, in evidence that Herdt has collected in a study of homosexuality among Chicago youth. Hatred for homosexuality and homophobia have not gone away, but the power of the homosexuality movement has neutralized some of the horrors of discrimination of earlier times. Herdt (1997) suggested that there are powerful, magical beliefs that slowly are being rewritten about homosexuality among homosexuals. These include: the idea that homosexuals are crazy and heterosexuals are sane; the belief that if one is going to be gay, there are necessary goals, rules, roles, and political and social beliefs that must be followed (with greater safety and comfort will come more diversity in all of these areas); and the magical 136

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 137

T H E

A M E R I C A N

C O U P L E S

S T U D Y

belief that to have same-sex desires means giving up gendered roles as they were previously known and acting as a gender-transformed person—for example a boy dressing as a girl. Herdt argued that the latter ways are the old ways of gender inversion that are being replaced in gay and lesbian lives. Particularly from the point at which AIDS became recognized as an epidemic, lesbian and gay activists have been challenging society in ways that are no less revolutionary than discrimination based on skin color, gender, or religion. In commenting on evolutionary psychology’s treatment of homosexuality (as discussed in chapter 2), Herdt (1997) argued that this theory treats homosexuality as a biological quirk or aberration, or at best, as a hidden adaptive advantage for families that produce a homosexual. He contended that the notion—hinted at by Darwin—that universal sex drives might organize human development and society is particularly problematic because it gives priority to heterosexuality and reproduction over current social roles or identities. Herdt noted that the entire population is not needed to reproduce itself, for that would contribute to problems of overpopulation. He concluded that any theory of homosexuality must explain sexual variations within the life histories of individuals and within and across societies. Reductionistic theories of homosexuality have been quite unsuccessful as explanations of human sexuality.

THE AMERICAN COUPLES STUDY A classic study comparing different types of couples along dimensions such as their sexual patterns and satisfaction and their orientations toward work and financial needs was carried out by Blumstein and Schwartz (1983). It is known as the “American Couples Study.” This study compared samples of gay, lesbian, cohabitating heterosexual, and married heterosexual couples. Although the samples were relatively small and mainly drawn from a few large U.S. metropolitan areas, overall the sampling of people and diverse views embraced by this work is as good as any in the literature for such a complex set of comparisons. Also, the evidence is somewhat dated in that the evidence was collected in the late 1970s before the AIDS epidemic was having as much impact as it did by the late 1980s. This epidemic, alone, altered some of the patterns of sexual behavior and dating found by Blumstein and Schwartz. For example, gay men in the study indicated that they had engaged in sexual relations with a relatively great number of partners. However, because of the emergence of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s and the gay community’s emphasis on “safe sex,” this pattern was altered such that gay men probably are much closer to the norm for heterosexual single men in the same age range in terms of number of sexual partners (Peplau & Spalding, 2000). With these caveats in mind, it is instructive to consider some of the differences among the different types of relationships reported by Blumstein and Schwartz. In particular, we might be concerned with issues such as intimacy and independence differences, or differences in talking, and the like, such as were raised by the theorists whose work we have reviewed in this chapter. The answer to this general question is that lesbians, far and away, emphasized the importance of each partner communicating and sharing emotions more than did other types of couples. Clearly, as compared to other types of couples, they were the type that most strongly appreciated and represented the egalitarian relationship. Also, lesbians emphasized the value of each partner working and developing a career. Thus, they often felt in a double-bind, not unlike heterosexual couples, in how to find the time and 137

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 138

8 .

S A M E - S E X

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

energy to make strong contributions both to the social psychological quality of the relationship and to their careers. This general superiority of lesbians in terms of living out egalitarian relationships is not surprising considering women’s generally greater concern with equity in relationships than men’s demonstrated concern—even in the 1990s. As illustrations of indirect evidence pertinent to intimacy questions, Blumstein and Schwartz found that married couples in the study reported the greatest amount of deception about sexual relations (either in fact or as possibilities) outside of their primary relationships. As might be expected, all types of couples showed high degrees of possessiveness when they feared their partners might be having a meaningful affair. In terms of perceived importance of being monogamous, married couples and lesbian couples both evinced high degrees of belief in monogamy; a quite low degree of belief in monogamy was reported by gay men in these years just before the first report of a case of AIDS. Lesbians were, by far, the most egalitarian type of couple in not being swayed by who made the most money in the relationship. They, alone, tried diligently to make sure that the woman who made more money was not accorded more power and decision-making ability. Also, as compared to married and cohabitating couples, gay and lesbian couples decided housework in terms of practical considerations—who was at home more and/or who had the most time for such contributions. Married and cohabitating couples showed more traditional patterns, with women doing the bulk of housework.

Specific Findings for Same-Sex Relationships It appears that Blumstein and Schwartz’s (1983) same-sex samples were relatively progressive, especially for this period in time in the late 1970s and early 1980s, in declaring their homosexual status to others. For example, 36% of the gay men indicated that they did not care who knew they were gay (vs. 23% for the lesbian sample). Twenty-one percent of gay men reported that there were a large number of heterosexuals that they did not want to know they were gay (vs. 33% for the lesbian sample). This type of evidence begs for year 2000 and beyond follow-up comparisons of different couples. It also should be noted that these people had been “out” to the point that they felt comfortable in participating in this research; thus, the sample very likely was selfselected in nature. Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) also conducted in-depth interviews with gay and lesbian couples. Themes emerging included: Gay men frequently discussed the role of one or both of them being attracted to possible alternative partners; lesbians did not emphasize this topic. Lesbians discussed the origin of their homosexuality—with an emphasis by some on being “tomboys” as young children and continuing that style later (see discussion later regarding Bem’s (1996) theory of the origin of homosexuality). Lesbians talked often about trying to make their relationships egalitarian in status. They sometimes said that they had been in status-oriented heterosexual marriages, which they disliked very much. Just as heterosexual couples do, both gay and lesbian couples discussed issues such as domestic responsibilities, feelings about quality of sexuality in the relationship, and feelings of vulnerability regarding various perils to the relationship and their individual welfare.

Conclusions on Comparisons of Couples Blumstein and Schwartz concluded their comparisons of types of couples and gender differences in general with this interesting observation, which stresses the value of a bal138

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 139

O R I G I N S

O F

H O M O S E X U A L

O R I E N T A T I O N S

anced view regarding the merit of alternative versus more common types of close relationships and ways of relating within these relationships: Looking at marriage and its alternatives, we see advantages both in the institution and in nonmarital forms. As we look at the impact of being male or female, we see no evidence that historic gender–role traditions and restrictions help solve all issues for couples. We believe that the time for orthodoxy is past. Neither, however, do we reject the idea that gender differences may be valuable for a couple in certain areas of life together. Gay couples face problems that arise from ‘sameness’ of gender [e.g., they had noted lesbians’ difficulty in deciding who would lead in many decision-making areas, including sexuality]; these give us an indication of where it might be wise for partners to be different. Heterosexuals face problems that arise from their ‘differentness’; these give us guidance about where it might be better for partners to be more alike. There is, of course, no perfect composite picture that will fit every couple’s needs. . . . As the institution of marriage loses its predictability for heterosexuals, and while homosexual couples have no institution to enter, each couple will have to establish guidelines for making gender work for, not against, the possibility of a lifetime relationship. (p. 330)

ORIGINS OF HOMOSEXUAL O R I E N TAT I O N S Psychologist Daryl Bem (1996) produced a controversial theory of the origins of homosexuality. This theory emphasized the idea of the “exotic becoming erotic” (EBE) as the basis for homosexuality. This “EBE” conception assumes that individuals come to find one gender group arousing, and then select partners from within this group. Bem, who declared his homosexuality in mid-life and then divorced another well-known psychologist Sandra Bem, proposed that genes do not lead directly to sexual orientation. Rather, genes shape temperament, which affects childhood expectations, such as being a tomboy or -girl or “sissy-boy” who prefers to play with the opposite gender. Then, Bem invoked Schachter’s (1964) theory of emotion, which focuses on the misattribution of cues indicative of emotional states (“I’m laughing when the movie comes on; therefore, I must find the movie amusing”). Bem argued that unfamiliar gender is arousing—which later is misattributed as sexual arousal. According to EBE theory, “gender conformity/nonconformity in childhood is a causal antecedent of sexual orientation in adulthood” (Bem, 1996, p. 322), because it determines which gender will become exotic. Like earlier theorists, Bem based his analysis on hypothesized similarities between gay men and heterosexual women, and between lesbians and heterosexual men—the inversion hypothesis. This hypothesis emphasizes similarities between gay men and heterosexual women, and between lesbians and heterosexual men. In Bem’s theory, boys on the path to homosexuality are similar to girls in temperament (low activity level), similar to girls in activity preferences (dislike of rough-and-tumble play), and similar to girls in playmate preference (preference for playing with girls). The “sissy-boy” is the prototype of the prehomosexual boy. Presumably, lesbians are attracted to women because in childhood, they were different from other girls. 139

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 140

8 .

S A M E - S E X

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

Peplau and colleagues (1998) provided a compelling critique of Bem’s EBE argument and in so doing commented perceptively on what we do not know about the origins of homosexual orientations. Peplau et al. noted that although “exotic” was the central concept in Bem’s analysis, the concept was vaguely defined at best. It meant “unfamiliar or dissimilar from oneself” in Bem’s statement. But are these differences in the individual’s perceptions or objective differences? Peplau et al. agreed that people sometimes are attracted to novel others but that such attraction does not necessarily imply a general rule of gender attraction. It does not help us understand how gender exoticism affects attraction to a whole class of other people, nor is it cogent in making such a claim. As for the inversion hypothesis, Peplau and associates made some perceptive arguments against Bem’s position. They noted that research on human sexuality repeatedly emphasizes similarities based on sex rather than sexual orientation. Peplau et al. pointed to research showing that tomboyism is widespread among American women, leading to a weak, inconsistent association between gender nonconformity and adult sexual orientation for women. For example, Hyde, Rosenberg, and Behrman (1977) found that 51% of Midwestern women approached in a shopping mall indicated that they had been tomboys. Also, Sandberg, Meyer-Bahlburg, Ehrhardt, and Yager (1993) conducted a survey of parents of 687 boys and girls aged 6 to 10. Parents’ reports indicated that 39% of the girls and 23% of the boys showed 10 or more different gender atypical behaviors at least occasionally (e.g., boys playing with dolls). Most important, overall, Peplau et al. contended that research evidence in this whole area of determinants of sexual orientation is too meager to answer clearly the questions raised by Bem. And Bem himself provides no new evidence to accompany his analysis. There have been few prospective studies, that follow young people as they learn about sexuality and develop preferences. Memories of childhood may be colored by adult experiences. Nonetheless, considerable literature in the field is based on case studies of persons’ reports of their childhood play activities and psychological inclinations. Apart from Bem’s analysis and the rejoinder by Peplau et al. (1998), there continues to be a plethora of writing and research about biological versus environmental determinants of homosexuality in the early part of the 21st century. Gays and lesbians themselves are divided, as are nonhomosexual analysts, in concluding that homosexuality is either biological in origin or due to cultural influences. Then, it may be argued [as Bem (1996) argued] that a combination of biological and environmental determinants may be at work in the development of homosexuality. There also may be biological predispositions that require environmental stimuli to be set in motion. Obviously, the “truth” of biological–environmental bases of homosexuality may have relevance for how society treats homosexual individuals. Some commentators have argued that because homosexuality may have a substantial biological component, societal institutions such as the justice system, religions, and the military should be accepting of gay orientations—gays cannot change their nature. Other commentators argue that it does not matter if biological or cultural factors or both represent the bases of homosexuality. A belief in basic human rights dictates fairness in the system be afforded all people regardless of sexual orientation. On the biological side of recent literature, there is evidence that identical twins may be more likely to identify as gay than will fraternal twins (Bailey & Pillard, 1991). Also, evidence has been presented suggesting that gays might have a higher than average number of gay family members and lesbians a higher than average number of lesbian family mem140

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 141

R E L A T I O N S H I P

M A I N T E N A N C E

bers, as compared to estimates of the general population (Bailey, Pillard, Neale, & Agyei, 1993). On the environmental side of the determinism question, there has been work from various theoretical camps arguing that homosexuality has cultural roots. Dannecker (1984) contended that homosexual behavior may be a socially constructed activity, reflecting a history of labeling by parents and key others in a person’s early years and youth. Psychoanalytic scholars emphasize early parental experiences as critical to the development of homosexuality (Chodorow, 1978). The idea of having had unpleasant experience with members of the opposite sex is another environmental theory. Brannock and Chapman (1990) reported that 56% of lesbians in their sample versus 36% of heterosexual women had experienced traumatic events with men. However, this study could not rule out the development of lesbian orientations prior to the traumatic events. Overall, the biological–environmental debate is not apt to be resolved in the near future. Similar to the nature–nurture debate in developmental psychology, it is likely that advocates of both positions as well as those advocating interactive positions will continue to bring forward suggestive, if not definitive, evidence in support of their views. In addition, regardless of this debate, gay and lesbian individuals have every right to interpret their sexuality in terms of their own phenomenology and memory. Whether their interpretation meets with support from outside analysts is another question. The political/rights issue raised here is subject to resolution in the direction of affording gays and lesbians their due rights, without resolution of these scientific debates about causality.

R E L AT I O N S H I P M A I N T E N A N C E Gender differences are apparent in gay men’s and lesbians’ differential support of monogamy. As reported by Patterson (2000), lesbians have generally been found to be more supportive of monogamy than have gay men. These findings, however, derive mainly from Blumstein and Schwartz’s (1983) findings and need updating in an era when gay men may create lives that are more supportive of monogamy and relationship maintenance and enhancement in general. Kurdek (1992) conducted a longitudinal study of satisfaction among heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples and found that all groups of couples showed more satisfaction to the extent that there were fewer discrepancies in how well they felt their partners showed expressiveness and social support in their relationships. Over the course of the 4-year study, relationship satisfaction was positively related to decreases in dysfunctional beliefs regarding the relationship, increases in perceived rewards, decreases in perceived costs, and increases in emotional investment. Such data have been repeatedly found in studies of heterosexual couples that did not involve comparisons with gay and lesbian couples. Kurdek (1992) also found similarities between gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples in the process of dissolution of their relationships. All samples of couples who reported dissatisfaction with their relationships placed a high value of personal autonomy, saw viable alternatives to their relationship, invested little time and emotional commitment in the relationship, and had few personal financial resources invested in the relationship. Kurdek (1999) obtained data from 236 married, 66 gay cohabiting, and 51 lesbian cohabiting couples on five dimensions of relationship quality—intimacy, autonomy, equality, constructive problem-solving, and barriers to leaving—that have been conceived as 141

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 142

8 .

S A M E - S E X

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

gender-linked factors in relationship maintenance. For example, Kurdek suggested that past work pointed to the tendency for women to emphasize intimacy, constructive problemsolving, and equality than are men; whereas men value autonomy more than women. Kurdek (1999) found that as compared to married partners, gay partners showed more autonomy, fewer barriers to leaving, and more frequent relationship dissolution. When compared to married partners, lesbian couples reported more intimacy, more autonomy, more equality, fewer barriers to leaving, and more frequent relationship dissolution. Overall, however, as in previous work, there was considerable similarity among the different types of couples in their relationship emphases. Kurdek (1999) attributed his replicated finding of the tendency of gays and lesbians to dissolve their relationships more often than married couples to the lack of formalized social and cultural support for gay and lesbian relationships. In dealing with distress, gay and lesbian couples encounter few institutionalized barriers to leaving their relationships. Such barriers would include legal constraints. On the religions front, most religions condemn homosexuality. Finally, gay and lesbian couples may have encountered little support for their relationship from their family of origins (Bryant & Demian, 1994). A difference in gay and lesbian couples versus heterosexual couples may exist in the area of domestic work. Kurdek (1993) compared the allocation of household labor in cohabiting gay and lesbian couples and in heterosexual married couples. None of the couples had children. Replicating research on married couples (see chapter 2), the wives in this research typically did the bulk of the household work. By contrast, gay and lesbian couples were likely to split tasks so that each partner performed an equal number of different activities. Gay partners tended to specialize on certain tasks, while lesbian partners were more likely to share tasks.

FA M I LY A N D I D E N T I T Y I S S U E S A considerable amount of current research on gay families concerns their functioning visà-vis heterosexual families. As reviewed by Patterson (2000), this work shows few major differences in functioning. Interesting related findings include: Lesbian couples with children have reported more satisfaction with their relationships then have lesbians without children. The great majority of children with lesbian or gay parents grow up to identify themselves as heterosexual (Bailey & Dawood, 1998). Savin-Williams (1990) reported that teen and young-adult lesbians who said that their parents were accepting of their sexual identities (or would be accepting if they knew) indicated that they were relatively comfortable with their sexual identity.

HOMOPHOBIA Homophobia is irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals and of closeness and intimacy with others of one’s own gender. It has been suggested that homophobia is one of the bases for homosexuals beginning to develop self-hatred (Rey & Gibson, 1997). “Heterosexualism” is the assumption that all people should be heterosexual and the lack of acceptance of alternative forms of sexual identity. The HIV/AIDS epidemic of the last 2 decades has had many effects on gay and lesbian people, including for some an increase in the experience of homophobic others. This epi142

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 143

F U T U R E

D I R E C T I O N S

A N D

C O N C L U S I O N S

demic also had profound effects on close relationships among gay and lesbian couples, simultaneously pulling some couples apart and bringing others closer together. Fear of death and of others’ past sexual histories became prominent topics of concern, especially in male gay relationships. Before the epidemic, there is evidence that as many as 25% of gay men had over 1,000 sexual partners in their lives (Brody, 1997). After the epidemic, however, that number has been declining for gay men who did not contract and die from AIDS, such that it might be argued that gay men often show exemplary responsibility in their practice of safe sex (Brody, 1997). Hence, homophobia associated with the labeling of gay men as promiscuous in the age of AIDS is likely to be erroneous. As suggested previously, although homophobia is less overt in the United States in the early 21st century, it still is a constant concern for gay and lesbian people and, by implication, a major social problem confronting all citizens. As late as the 1990s, 95% of college students reported having made or laughed at antihomosexual jokes or having used derogatory terms for homosexual—with over 30% making such derogatory comments in front of gay people (Rey & Gibson, 1997). Further attesting to the climate of continued homophobia is evidence produced by Jorday, Vaughan, and Woodworth (1997) that gay and lesbian high school students report hearing derogatory words on average of once a day, at least. The one sliver of optimistic evidence of late is that after high school, homophobic attitudes may decline somewhat with age (Johnson, Brems, & Alford-Keating, 1997). How can we combat homophobia? Slater (1994) argued that early in a lesbian relationship, partners may actively work to strengthen their bond to withstand homophobic challenges to their relationship. This strategy may involve explicit discussion of the couple’s boundaries and how to defend the bond in hostile environments, with anticipation of awkward scenarios in settings involving such others as family, friends, coworkers, and strangers. Slater (1994) argued that the couple may seek to educate their close others about the evidence of diversity of sexual experience in gay and lesbian couples. There are many misconceptions about sexuality in gay and lesbian relationships, which typically are viewed in highly sexual terms by members of the broader society. Just as is the case for heterosexual couples, this view may hardly represent all homosexual relations, with many involving little physical intimacy but considerable psychological intimacy. More generally, the strength of the gay and lesbian political movement, which has continued to gain clout for the last 3 decades, promises the greatest long-term antidote to homophobia. This movement also indirectly has played a prominent role in educating the public about the nuances and diverse elements of homosexuality. In the gay community, in particular, there has been a current of grief for the last 2 decades deriving from the thousands of gay individuals who have died as a result of contracting AIDS. One of the movement’s primary accomplishments is the concerted and generally successful campaign for research on drugs (such as the so-called cocktail drugs) to help HIV-infected persons effectively fight their disease for many years, with many infected people now looking forward to normal life spans.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS From the work of Blumstein and Schwartz and Kurdek, we have learned the importance of long-term, longitudinal work with different types of couples. We could enhance our understanding even further if future studies of diverse couples involved consideration of 143

01-070 C08 pp2 9/13/01 1:58 PM Page 144

8 .

S A M E - S E X

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

factors such as developmental period (e.g., few studies involve couples over age 60), ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Interestingly, however, available research with different types of couples has pointed to certain differences (e.g., the greater tendency toward dissolution among gay and lesbian couples as compared to married couples) and a host of similarities in functioning and what satisfies couples. The latter evidence is not surprising, because human functioning from early acquaintance to friendship to in-depth closeness appears to involve similar principles and dynamics, while showing some nuance differences for each type of relationship (Harvey, 1995). What is obvious from the study of same-sex relationships is that human rights possessed by couples in these relationships remains a problem as we enter the 21st century. Not only are gays and lesbians still discriminated against informally in society, they also continue to encounter institutionalized and governmental restrictions. Although gays and lesbians increasingly have fought for and achieved political power, they still encounter homophobia, various forms of put-downs, and daily and regular hassles in simple living, with no likely reform of marriage laws in most of the States of the United States in the first decade of the 21st century. Interestingly, researchers who study homosexuality as well as sexuality in general report being the target of ridicule among their colleagues (McCormick, 1997). This attitude seems strange in light of the interest in sexuality in society and at the same time how little we know about almost all facets of human sexuality. Thus, as was true for the development of Kinsey’s courageous work of over a half-century ago, we need to encourage scholars and researchers to explore human sexuality in its fullest manifestations. A frontier that is even newer for research than work on same sex relationships exists for the relationships of bisexual persons. Peplau and Spalding (2000) and Spalding and Peplau (1997) address the even greater gap in our knowledge of the relationships of bisexual men and women. Bisexuality has been defined variously, but usually involves the idea of being romantically interested both in females and males. Stereotypes abound for bisexual relationships. Spalding and Peplau found that college students believe bisexual persons are more unfaithful and likely to have sexually transmitted diseases than either heterosexual or homosexual individuals. As Patterson (2000) suggested, bisexuality is a topic that has received far too little research attention to date. She also noted the importance of future work on assessment of sexual orientation over time, and only a paucity of work has been done on the role of ethnicity in gay and lesbian families. The area of work on same-sex relationships, as well as work on relationships of bisexual individuals, likely will grow in scope and interest in the early 21st century. Stigmas for research and research participation are slowly easing. The diversity of human sexual and romantic life is a beacon of novelty and intellectual light for many contemporary scholars in the field of close relationships in the 21st century.

144

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 145

9 RELATIONSHIP VIOLENCE AND THE “DARK SIDE” OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS I never dreamed I would have a life like this. I live in fear—and it eats you up. —Dawn Wilson, wife who has been stalked relentlessly by her ex-husband; reported to Chicago Tribune Magazine writer Bryan Miller, April 18, 1993, article “Thou Shalt Not Stalk,” pp. 14–20

Thirty percent of the 4,399 women slain in the United States in 1990 were murdered by their boyfriends or husbands, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report. (Only 4 percent of the almost 16,000 men who were homicide victims that year were murdered by their girlfriends or wives.) Many of the slain women were followed, abused and intimidated before their deaths. —Article by Bryan Miller, referred to previously, p. 16

Baltimore—A doctor has been reprimanded by a state board for trying to get revenge on an ex-girlfriend by arranging for her to be told falsely that she had tested positive for the AIDS virus. . . . The woman, a nurse, was told that her blood had tested positive for the AIDS virus, but didn’t believe it because she hadn’t submitted a sample for testing. —Associated Press article, July 11, 1992

In its February 15, 2000 edition, the New York Times included a lengthy discussion of “When women find love is fatal” (story by Erica Goode, pp. D1, D6). This article described three women who, in the course of 48 hours, had been the targets of homicidal attacks by men with whom they had had romantic relationships. The article noted that such events are common throughout the United States. FBI statistics showed that 32% of the 3,419 women killed in the United States in 1998 died at the hands of a husband, a former husband, a boyfriend, or a former boyfriend. The article quoted Dr. Beth Moracco of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health who studies women killed by intimates. She and her colleagues found that 42% had been killed after they threatened separation, tried to separate or had recently separated from their partners. The article also quoted psychologist Dr. Donald Dutton of the University of British Columbia as noting that typically the murder is overkill, in the sense

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 146

9 .

D A R K

S I D E

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

that more is done to the woman than is necessary to kill her. He went on to say, “what’s going on deep down is that they believe the woman is leaving them and they can’t live without her. The prospect of her leaving throws them into a downward spiral where they feel like they are staring into the abyss” (p. D6). Finally, this New York Times article noted an interesting project by Dr. Jacquelyn Campbell at Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, who is trying to put together a list of risk factors of lethal violence. She and other scholars in this field suggest that many of the same types of gestures we are taught as young girls to view as romantic are, in fact, major warning signs of a serious potential for domestic violence. For example, statements such as “I can’t live without you,” or “You only need me,” are indicative of this potential—or at least a very naïve or deluded understanding of human relations; or the behavior of the man telephoning the woman 20 times a day would also reflect a warning sign that his thoughts, feelings, and behavior are out of control and possibly dangerous for the woman. It is ironic that in closeness we share our most satisfying moments with others, but also in closeness we share many of our darkest and most horrific moments. What people who are or have been in close relationships with others are capable of doing in the way of cruelty toward those others literally defies logic and sometimes imagination. How can love and caring for others in any way be connected to sadism and violence toward them? In the name of love, why do people sometimes kill and maim others? Why do some parents sexually assault their children? Why do some individuals become so obsessed with their ex-loves that they stalk them mercilessly, sometimes eventually killing them? Why do spouses sometimes engage in a long history of periodically beating and abusing their partners? Why do people in the midst of some divorce situations “go for the jugular” of their ex-spouse and often in the process inflict great pain and make life miserable for many close others, including their children? Why do people on dates sometimes force their partner to engage in sexual acts with them? These are some of the questions that are central to our analysis in this chapter. Although we have said before that we face many unanswerable questions, the present chapter raises in questions such as these dilemmas that are the hardest of any to adequately understand in the close relationship field. We believe that in the early 2000s, this focus on the egregious aspects of close relationships represents a must type of inquiry for the student of close relationships. We cannot shirk the facts of events that speak volumes about the deep, unmitigated darkness of some people’s ways of treating others with whom they have, or have had, close relationships. Whereas what people do to their close others in this arena does not represent “closeness,” it often is done in the context of closeness and even with the rhetoric of love and closeness as a justification. The present chapter, like all the others in this book, reflects mainly on events occurring in this society and culture. Are we in the United States an especially violent society? By all accounts, we are. We are, if the media and what we often want to see in our entertainment is any indication. We are, if murder rates in large cities are any indication. We are, if one considers the staggering extent to which spousal and relationship physical and sexual abuse are reported. We are, if we take stock of the number of people who are killed each year by their spouses or lovers. We are, if we examine the extent to which violence sometimes is a part of the divorce process, including violent acts in the courtroom directed at attorneys, judges, witnesses, and spouses and lovers.

146

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 147

O B S E S S E D

“ L O V E ”

O B S E S S E D “ L O V E ” A N D R E L AT E D D E S T R U C T I V E B E H AV I O R A lot has been written about obsession for a past lover, or a person with whom the obsessed individual has had little contact. As will be discussed in chapter 12, obsession is an especially prominent problem for teens and individuals just beginning to date. We also note in chapter 11 on grief that our best evidence is that mentally confronting the loss of a close relationship is a more effective approach to healing than obsessing about the loss. Despite our understanding of the perils of obsession, it appears to be a common part of the contemporary landscape of close relationships. What we will address here is the nature of obsessed and pathological love and link that obsessed condition to stalking and other forms of violent behavior. Obsessed love can occur at any age. Consider the following wire services report on April 26, 1993, headlined by “Abduction failure ends in suicide”: Albany, NY—A tennis coach described as obsessed with a teenage player shot himself to death when officers approached after a failed attempt to kidnap her. Investigators believe Gary D. Wilensky planned to take Jennifer Rhodes, 17, to a mountain hideout he had equipped with an elaborate security system and restraining devices. Wilensky, 56, used to coach Rhodes, a promising amateur player from New York City . . . Wilensky, of New York City, had been undergoing psychological treatment for his obsession until last month and was considered suicidal, although his doctors didn’t think he was a threat to Rhodes or her family . . . A gunman wearing a ski mask attacked Rhodes and her mother Friday night outside a hotel . . . The daughter broke away and ran for help while the man beat her mother with a flashlight . . . When a hotel manager came out and said police were on their way, the man cocked a rifle, jumped into his car and drove away. Police spotted his car 21⁄2 hours later in a parking lot near the hotel. When police approached, the man shot himself in the head with a rifle. . . .” (Chicago Tribune, Section 1, p. 4) It was later discovered that Wilensky had developed a macabre plot to kidnap Ms. Rhodes and keep her in a remote house in the Adirondack Mountains that had been transformed into an electronic fortress. The house had been equipped with a closed-circuit television system, emergency scanner, leather muzzles, and steel chains. People who knew the tennis coach said that he had become a major figure in teaching private school kids to play tennis in New York City. “He had become part of everyone’s life,” one observer reported to the USA Today writer Bruce Frankel in his April 28, 1993, follow-up on the story. It appears that the coach Wilensky had a large following of young women and parents. In 1992, he had been voted “pro of the year” for a three-state area by his tennis colleagues. One tennis colleague said, “He may have been a little bit extreme in the sense of being overly friendly [with the young tennis students] . . . But I wouldn’t have ever expected something like this” (article by Frankel, Section 1, p. 2). Given his thriving business, rapport with many young people, and following in the city and beyond, Wilensky’s behavior is even more mysterious. Or is it?

147

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 148

9 .

D A R K

S I D E

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

We now consider the coach’s possible motivations. This individual, now in his 50s— still youthful but no doubt thinking about retirement and the latter part of his life—may have seen in this young woman a fulfillment of self that he had not previously experienced. He may have felt that she represented youth, sexuality, and sensuality, and someone whom he could mentor and help make grand achievements. In some bizarre twist of logic, he may have sensed that his own life would be of little use if she were not in it; indeed, he may have considered the idea of killing himself if she would not accept him as her lover (and he may have communicated that threat to her). He may have believed based on his earlier experience with the woman that she eventually would come to love him. Eventually is an important term here—remember that he planned to keep her in chains and a muzzle at his hideout! Or, perhaps none of this logic is correct. Perhaps the tennis coach was attracted to the young woman and acted out of compulsion and without reason? Indeed, as former associates of the coach noted on a May 3, 1993, airing of the “Maury Povich Show” on NBC, Wilensky had a history of falling in love with very young women, some of whom had gotten involved with him over time. Perhaps, then, Wilensky was suffering from a form of obsession that was related to love addiction for young women. Griffin-Shelley (1993) discussed such a behavioral addiction in the sense that a person feels little control over the urge to “have other.” The obsessed lover is, in effect, a slave to his or her drive; the person does not feel free to choose (Norwood, 1986). The loved one soaks up his thoughts and imagery much of the time—just as it did for John Hinckley, the person who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan in 1981, and his obsession with actress Jodie Foster. Hinckley’s love for Foster was an addiction for him (an addiction that he may have formed for some other famous starlet if it had not been directed at Foster). It was an habitual, destructive love. It was unrequited love.

OBSESSION AND UNREQUITED LOVE In an interesting and insightful analysis and presentation of evidence, Roy Baumeister and Sara Wotman (1992) depicted the many sides of unrequited love. Unrequited love pertains to love that is not reciprocated. It may be the case that at one time it was reciprocated, but that was the past. In the present, one continues to try to love other, while the other tries to exit, usually gracefully. Another scenario, similar to Hinkley’s, is to have unrequited love for someone with whom the lover has no actual relationship. According to Baumeister and Wotman, unrequited love can be very painful, especially for the person who has been rejected. It dampens or even destroys self-esteem. It leads to long-term regret and distress. It can make the person who had a relationship that was lost feel as if he or she was responsible and may have some serious flaw that, in general, contributes to such effects. In the following letter to “Dear Abby,” a woman reveals some of the common qualities of obsession in an unrequited love situation: Dear Abby: I am 32 years old and people say I am very attractive. A year ago I started seeing “Alex.” He was everything I ever wanted—handsome, intelligent, successful. We were together almost every night, and he even started talking about marriage.

148

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 149

O B S E S S I O N

A N D

U N R E Q U I T E D

L O V E

Then last month, out of the blue, he announced that he thinks we’re getting “too serious” and we should both start seeing other people. That was the beginning of the end. It’s like a bad dream. I can’t stop crying. I’m in sales and my job requires my full attention, but I’m in a fog. My eating is out of control. The night before last, I ate a whole barbecued chicken, a large pizza and three cheese danishes. . . . Abby, I dial his phone number 15 to 20 times a day just to hear his voice—then I hang up. I’m sure he knows it’s me. I’m humiliated he would dump me like this. How can I get him back?” (September 18, 1991, from Iowa City Press-Citizen) Abby did not have a magic suggestion for this woman. She said the woman is suffering from “compulsive behavior.” As has been argued in the chapters on self-empowerment and dissolution, regardless of the angst and dashed expectations this woman feels, she must figure out how to vent her feelings (this letter to “Dear Abby” probably helped), develop her understanding of her ex-lover’s behavior as best she can, and then find positive activities for her healing. The latter might include involvement in a support group for newly divorced/separated persons, enhancement of physical fitness activities, working on a stronger network of friends, writing in a journal, and traveling. An interesting side bar to Baumeister and Wotman’s work is that even the rejecting other suffers when unrequited love becomes pronounced. This person may become annoyed, angry, victimized, guilt-ridden, ambivalent in her or his decision, and vengeful toward the person who will not let go. The rejecting person frequently noted that there was no good script for how to reject another human being—“it’s never easy having to tell someone that you don’t love him anymore.” The rejecting person also may conclude that the decision to become involved with the other was tenuous in the first place and may question his or her judgment in getting involved so seriously in allowing the relationship to go so far. Why does unrequited love occur? If we can answer that question, will it help us understand the more general obsession for a lost love and even destructive actions such as stalking the loved one? One idea mentioned by Baumeister and Wotman is that unrequited lovers maintain an attachment for the lost love. As we saw in the chapter on love and maintenance, it has been theorized by Hazan and Shaver (1987) that people develop attachment styles in adult relationships that mirror their sense of attachment as a young child. Perhaps, those who experienced unrequited love and become obsessed are more likely to have felt abandoned early in their lives? Maybe in their behavior toward the loved one they sometimes “self-fulfill,” or contribute to, rejection through their neurotic concern about being rejected? We can only speculate about the role of attachment in these behaviors. It seems clear, though, that the obsessed person is unduly attached to the loved one. Otherwise, why does he or she not “accept your losses and regroup,” to use a common maxim regarding how all of us must learn to accept loss and move on? Put in its most clinically straightforward form, unrequited love and serious love obsession may reflect a failure to accept reality. What often happens is that a person who obsesses is told repeatedly by the other that she or he does not want a close relationship. The obsessed one, however, reinterprets the message to suggest that he or she must try harder, be a more persistent lover in extending gifts and other symbols of love, and essentially

149

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 150

9 .

D A R K

S I D E

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

convince a new other that the relationship is “right” for her or him. Going back to the tennis coach, we may assume that he, too, was an undaunted lover, despite repeated indications from the young woman that she did not want to be his lover, or even associated with him. An informative point emerging from Baumeister and Wotman’s research is that over the course of a relationship, the person who ultimately does the rejecting may send many double messages concerning whether he or she really loves the other. Even if in the present the messages are explicit in their rejection, the history of ambivalence on the part of other may give the obsessed person much room to reinterpret and “not hear” what the other is trying to make clear. Baumeister and Wotman suggested that unrequited love often occurs because in terms of their match in physical attractiveness, people are ill-suited for one another initially. One person is questing to bond with someone else who is more attractive—someone for whom he or she really feels great passion and who really raises his or her self-esteem and social status. It may work for a time. Over the long-run, the “upward achiever” likely will not be able to hang on to the relationship. The other will want someone more similar in physical attractiveness, or some other perceived vital quality. In addition to perceived physical attractiveness, however, there are other key factors in most close relationships that determine whether closeness occurs and is maintained. Returning, however, to the tennis coach, this type of matching of physical attractiveness may not matter too much. Certainly, at the outset, the sequence may involve attraction followed by a falling out of the attraction on the part of one person. The obsessed person, however, may never assume such a simple line of reasoning. He or she may feel that the other is a soulmate who cannot be surrendered, or who must be jolted out of this decision to give up something so special. Serious obsession likely defies any type of logical analysis about what one should feel. Once it starts, serious obsession may quickly become illogical in content and agenda. Then, the loving may just as well become killing, in the narrowed world view of the obsessed.

Obsession and Stalking Stalking a lost love appears to have some of the qualities of obsession and unrequited love, but other qualities as well. It is a type of activity that involves pursuing other and not just sitting around and moping and pining about why the other has left. Stalking embodies threatening action. So often, stalking involves violent actions taken toward the other or the other’s close colleagues. Stalking usually becomes violent when the loved one will not accede to the stalker’s desire that she or he come back to the relationship, or “do what I want you to do.” Attempted control, and the desire for control in one’s relationships, is at the heart of the stalker—who predominantly is a male. The mind-set appears to be one in which the stalker feels something that is his possession (his girlfriend, his wife, his children) has been or is being unreasonably taken away from him. He is enraged. He will not stand for it. He cannot control his emotions of anger, desire for revenge, and loathing for the persons involved in his loss. He will harm the other or himself or both before he gives in to having what he deserves to have, or what “he was meant to have.” We return one final time to the tennis coach and his obsession for his young pupil. Was that an instance of stalking? Yes. Wilensky planned violence toward Ms. Rhodes and her mother. He wanted to force her to accompany him and presumably become his lover. In the weeks before the finale of his plan, he had begun showering her with expensive gifts, such that her mother fired him as her coach. His subsequent behavior fits the “obsessed 150

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 151

O B S E S S I O N

A N D

U N R E Q U I T E D

L O V E

stalker” profile quite well. He took the rejection to an extreme. While appearing “normal” to many on the outside, Wilensky’s elaborate plans to keep Rhodes captive suggest a seething hurt and anger that he shared with no one. He may have seen his plan both as revenge for the rejection and as a scheme that ultimately would have led to happiness both for Rhodes and himself. It was crazed reasoning. On the aforementioned “Maury Povich Show,” a police detective noted that if Wilensky had been able to capture Rhodes, he had left a number of clues that likely would have led police to his hideout. But the detective also mentioned that his security system was so sophisticated, Wilensky likely would have become aware of anyone coming to get him. In fact, the detective suggested Wilensky probably would have been able to carry out the ultimate act of the obsessed lover—kill both himself and Rhodes before they could stop him. We must try to understand the whys and wherefores of Wilensky’s behavior. Even though his behavior defied logic, it was not that unusual for the stalker syndrome. Consider the following instance of long-term stalking: The system failed Dawn Wilson. Married to Christopher Wilson for just a year and a half and the mother of his child, Christi (now 4), she discovered early on that he was abusive. Even before their marriage, he’d push her around. “After we got married, the real violence started,” Dawn says. . . . “When she became pregnant, three months after the wedding, Christopher started having affairs with other women—and using Dawn as a punching bag, hitting her in the stomach and once bouncing a can of milk off her head. After the baby was born, the assaults continued. On one occasion, Dawn fled from a beating to a neighbor’s house, leaving Christi behind. Christopher tossed the infant outside, bassinet and all. . . . (Chicago Tribune Magazine, April 18, 1993, article by Bryan Miller, “Thou Shalt Not Stalk,” p. 14) This story goes on to document Christopher being sent to jail first for 6 months for abusing his wife. She then moved to try to get away from him and filed for divorce. He was granted visitation with his child Christi as part of the divorce decree, and the judge gave him Dawn’s new address. Then, there were more incidents of battery, each time ending in a court appearance—9 times in all. Dawn said, “He asked me once, ‘Why do you waste your time taking me to court?’ He knew he would get away with it” (p. 15). In 1991, Christopher, lying in wait for Dawn as she came home, beat her severely before a building security guard intervened. This beating destroyed all cartilage in her nose and led to four surgeries—though she still has a coccyx that needs more repair. This time, Christopher was given 3 years in jail. He has continued to write her threatening letters from jail. Even though his sentence has been extended because of these threats, he likely will get out soon. Dawn said that she will not move again and try to hide from him. She said she is afraid he will hurt her family if he cannot find her. She also argued, “I am not the criminal. Why should I have to move? You have to deal with the problem, and moving me is not the answer” (p. 20). Dawn and other women in Illinois are hoping that a new stalking law that went into effect there in 1992 (as it did in other several other states too) will deter ex-husbands and -lovers bent on violence toward them and their children. The law requires proof of three specific acts: A threat followed by two instances of following the victim or putting them under surveillance. It makes stalking a felony that can bring a sentence of 1 to 3 years in jail and a $10,000 fine. Yet, the stalking survivors reasonably have noted that three chances is a lot when the chances have to do with potential killing. Further, they wanted a tougher 151

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 152

9 .

D A R K

S I D E

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

sentence such as up to 5 years for the first and 10 for the second offense (only Massachusetts now has such stringent terms). Beyond the obvious terror of the stalker’s persistent violation of another person’s safety and rights, what can we say about the psychology and sociology of stalking? As the Cook County, Illinois, State’s Attorney Jack O’Malley contended in a radio talk show in Chicago in 1992, stalking has been carried out by men across racial, geographical, and economic lines. In speaking to its cause, O’Malley said: There’s an attitude problem out there . . . a mind-set that some people have that they have an inherent right to control others. Someone wants to terminate a relationship— and the other party doesn’t want to let go. It’s human nature, but it’s an attitude we’ve got to change. (same article by Miller, p. 18) O’Malley is correct. Somehow we have to do a better job of educating men and women that no one owns someone else. Somehow as youth, men and women must learn that they will on occasion lose in love, but that they cannot turn to violence as a way of “fixing” the other’s rejection. Violence fixes nothing. The very first instance a woman encounters physical violence in a man toward her or innocent persons, she needs to have the sense to consider ending the relationship then and there. That message has to become a part of young people’s learning about key signs in the early part of a relationship.

OTHER TYPES OF DESTRUCTIVE, A B U S I V E C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P S On the same page of the Daily Iowan on May 5, 1993, were two Associated Press stories headlined, “Wisconsin Woman Killed by Estranged Husband,” and “Man Charged with Murdering Ex-Girlfriend, Family Members.” In the former incident, the ex-husband stalked the woman and killed her as well as two men who were trying to protect her. In the latter incident, after the killings, the killer was reported to have gone to a New York Yankees’ baseball game and then back to spend the night in the East Harlem apartment with the five corpses. Daily, we read of such events. Are we as people becoming desensitized to such brutality in the context of the home and close relationships? As we see in this section, the human motivations for such deeds often defy our understanding and even imagination. The category of destructive, abusive close relationships covers a lot of territory. We are making an arbitrary distinction among this category, the previous one on obsession, and related destructiveness and the following category that will pertain to familial sexual abuse, or incest. Each involves physical damage inflicted on the other, who is or was a person close to the perpetrator. Each involves devastating consequences for all concerned, whether or not death occurs. The lines of action to be described next may not involve the type of obsessed brooding about one’s loss that was discussed in the foregoing section. Rather, these actions that include murder and physical abuse, may occur spontaneously or in a planful manner. Again, the imposing question we will ask for each type of event or sequence of activities is, why does it occur? Why can we as a society not rid ourselves of the dynamics that produce such behavior in the 1990s? We will not develop clear-cut answers to either ques-

152

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 153

A B U S I V E

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

tion. We will try, though, to depict the complexity of these phenomena that must be understood before they can be addressed in interventions. The first destructive event to be discussed will be that of the murder of one’s spouse or lover.

Murder A classic case in Boston illustrates why people sometimes decide to kill their partners. In 1989, Charles and Carol Stuart, who had been married a few years, were returning from a night out. Charles, a fur salesman, stopped his car on a city street and later claimed that while they were parked, a Black man forced his way into the car, killing Carol and wounding Charles. This story became a raging media event for a few days as Charles recuperated. City leaders vowed that they would find the killer and make the streets safe. As you may recall, it was all a cover by Charles. He shot his wife that night, and then wounded himself. After a few days of panic and budding racial conflict in Boston, Stuart drove to a bridge, got out of his car, and jumped to his death. It turns out that the police were getting close to discrediting his story. His brother had knowledge that Stuart had committed the murder and was beginning to break. Beyond that, Stuart was trying to cover up a series of affairs with women whom he would encounter in his fur business. A race war in Boston was barely averted with the discovery of the truth behind Charles Stuart’s tale. Yet, his tale and the murder illustrate the extent to which people sometimes go to get rid of a spouse or lover who stands in their way—in their way of fortune, other lovers, or in their way of a host of other desires. Why do some people go to the extreme of killing their spouse or lover to try to have their way? Especially why do they do so when we so often hear on the media of cases in which the spouse/lover was the one who did it and is justly punished? Just as murder itself is hard to understand, it perhaps is doubly difficult to fathom in the situation in which the murderer presumably loves the victim. Or do they? Could we agree that such a person simultaneously holds both the ideas of love for and intent to kill the other? What more likely exists in the killer’s mind is a great fear that if other “finds out” about their secret (e.g., having had affairs), that event will produce such a disaster that killing other is the preferable option. The truth is that they likely lost their love for the other long ago and now maintain a secret life. This life is not unlike what was discussed in the chapter on dissolution, in considering Vaughan’s (1986) findings that the first move toward dissolution often involves the development of one party’s having secret discontent with his or her partner, discontent that may or may not eventuate in an affair. A more common scenario involving the murder of a lover occurred in 1993 in Indiana. After going with and being engaged to Mark Francis, 25, for a couple of years, Michelle Yelachich, 20, of Hebron, Indiana, decided that she wanted to break off the engagement. It seems that Francis periodically beat and threatened her, just as he had beaten and threatened his other girlfriends. On February 11, 1993, Francis escalated his violence to the ultimate. Only a few days after the engagement had been called off by Yelachich, Francis, armed with his brother’s 9-mm Beretta handgun, walked into the Yelachich home and shot Yelachich’s parents before chasing Yelachich to her bedroom and shooting her once in the head. Then, he shot himself. Yelachich, her parents, as well as Francis died from their gunshot wounds. What can we make of such senseless violence? In this case, as in many others, Francis appears to have been a man who often was close to being out-of-control when matters

153

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 154

9 .

D A R K

S I D E

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

became shaky in his love life. His history of violence with his lovers was known to the local community. Other women who had been involved with Francis, and in fact who earlier had pressed charges against him for physically abusing them, were fortunate enough to escape Michele Yelachich’s fate. It also turns out that this most recent breakup was not the first in the couple’s history. They had broken up almost a year before. After Francis had attempted to take his life at the Yelachich home, Michelle, presumably out of sympathy, had agreed to get back together with him. Why did Francis opt for suicide in this earlier situation? He may have assumed that trying to take his own life would show Yelachich how much he loved her and could not do without her. This step also is part of the general syndrome of violence or threatened violence. It is drastic but it sometimes is effective. The male has not developed communicative skills and maturity to express his hurt, continued care for woman, and to bid her best wishes. Rather, he cannot tolerate the rejection. In effect, he cannot tolerate the fact of the woman having a will of her own and a relationship goal other than what he has. One time he tried suicide. For the second, maybe murder was all that was left in his wretched state of mind. Murder by females of their lovers also occurs fairly regularly. The tell-tale predictive indicators of earlier anger and violence, however, do not necessarily occur when the female is the perpetrator. A fairly common scenario is similar to the one that unfolded in Alabama in May, 1992. A wealthy ophthalmologist was shot dead in his home, presumably as part of a bungled burglary. His wife found his body when she came home. Then, the police traced evidence obtained to a hit man. The hit man then told the police that the wife and her twin sister had hired him to do the job. This classic tale involved the twins’ apparent desire to obtain the man’s estate and the wife’s involvement with men outside of her marriage. In another situation, a 43-year-old woman stalked and shot to death her exhusband and his new wife as they slept. This woman was a prominent San Diego socialite and was convicted and sentenced to jail in 1991. The prelude to the murders apparently involved infidelity on the part of the ex-husband and a bitter divorce proceeding regarding the division of property. Commentators on the events leading to these murders suggested that it was a classic tale of a wife “helping her husband to the top of the financial and social heap—only to be dumped for a younger woman” (USA Today article, September 25, 1991, by Carol Castaneda). Over the last decade, enough women have killed their spouses that at least one set of general conditions appears conducive to a woman’s decision to kill her spouse. Women who have been abused regularly over a period of time and who have not found relief through the courts have, in increasing numbers, resorted to violence including murder against their husbands/lovers. In the 1990s, there have been many publicized cases in every state of incarcerated women convicted of this type of murder who have sought and sometimes obtained executive clemency, or pardons of their convictions, from governors. The number of young women engaging in violence leading to murder has increased considerably in the 1990s. A spate of well-publicized incidents have occurred, including: 1. In Madison, Indiana, four girls ages 16 and 17 were convicted of torturing and burning alive a 12-year-old girl, with whom they had been friends. 2. In Houston, Texas, a 15-year-old “hitgirl” recruited by a 13-year-old boy to murder his grandmother was sentenced in May, 1992, to more than 22 years in prison. The grandmother survived two gunshot wounds. 154

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 155

A B U S I V E

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

3. A Beaverton, Oregon, 16-year-old was charged in April, 1992, with plotting with her boyfriend to kill her mother to get money to rent an apartment. The mother was severely beaten and died. 4. In Los Angeles, California, in June, 1992, a 14-year-old girl enlisted her boyfriend and another girl to help drug her father. The father then was shot, and his body was set on fire and buried. Police said the girl resented her father’s meddling in her romance. (accounts abridged from June 25, 1992, Associated Press release “Girls accused of murder in flurry of new cases, printed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen) Why did these young women turn to violence against close others? Whereas in some cases, they are retaliating against people whom they perceive have hurt them. In still other situations, such as the one involving the Indiana girls who burned to death their “friend,” the destructive behavior appears to be similar to that exhibited by males who use violence to try to get rid of their competitors or enemies. A July 1992 Chicago Tribune analysis of this murder by Ron Grossman suggested that it may have occurred as a result of a love triangle among the 12-year-old girl and two of her killers. As the writer noted, “‘Lesbian’ is not a word native to everyday speech in Madison. Few adults here are comfortable with the idea that children of 12, or even 16, might be sexually active, even in heterosexual relationships” (Chicago Tribune, July 29, 1992, section 2, p. 5). These reports may be taken to suggest that, at present, women increasingly are turning to violence as a way of resolving their issues. The 1990s may become a marker decade in the history of the United States for a substantial increase in the number of women involved in violent acts and murder against their close others. The 1990s movie “Thelma and Louise” depicted a great degree of violence by two women against men, most of whom had harmed or harassed them in one way or another. Is it possible that this controversial movie may have been a harbinger of what may lie ahead in regard to tumult between the sexes in the next century?

P h y s i c a l A g g r e s s i o n To w a r d S p o u s e o r L o v e r Murder is but an extreme form of the physical aggression that is a part of many close relationships. It has been estimated that about 1 in every 10 close relationships involves severe physical violence, at one time or another, and usually with the male as the perpetrator (Herbert, Silver, & Ellard, 1991). That percentage increases to 60 to 70% for minor violence, such as one person slapping the other with intent to harm other. This area of the relationship field is one of the most heavily researched in the early 21st century. Further, although breakups frequently occur when violence is involved, often women return to men who have beaten them. Why do they return? Marshall, Weston, and Honeycutt (2000) noted that violent men also often engage in loving, kind behavior toward their spouses or lovers. The target persons take these diverse behaviors into account in making their decisions about whether to leave, along with a host of other factors such as economic well-being, the needs of their children, and alternative relationship/domestic situations (Holtzworth-Munroe, Stuart, Sandin, Smutzler, & McLaughlin, 1997). Following Taylor’s (1991) theory of body mobilization to face negative stimuli, Marshall and colleagues (2000) have theorized and reported evidence that positive behavior of abusers is especially important to women’s decision to stay in the relationship. They argued that the kindness, however rare, may offset the residual aversiveness deriving from bouts of violence. Their sample involved couples in which the violence was not 155

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 156

9 .

D A R K

S I D E

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

frequent. Thus, we might wonder whether any type of positive behavior may offset severe, repeated abuse. Herbert et al. (1991) conducted a study of 44 women who had been beaten, had left, and then had returned. Their major finding was that these women somehow reinterpret their situations such that the abusive behavior is not that destructive. They further interpret the relationship as, on balance, one that is positive and constructive for them. Another prominent explanation for why women continue to endure violence include characteristic self-blame (Andrews & Brewin, 1990), which leads to low self-esteem, depression, and feelings of helplessness. All of these factors lead to the woman being—or feeling— entrapped and that she has no options but to endure and hope that the male will reform his ways. But he seldom does! Such explanations refer to contemporaneous factors that no doubt are powerful. What we need, though, is evidence that tracks males’ behavior from their family of origin (and their parents’ behavior toward one another and their children) to their adult relationships. It is widely assumed that these men have seen abuse in their primary family, or in fact that they were the target of severe abuse. So far, though, we can only speculate about the causal sequences involved. For this and other types of male violence, some scholars and commentators have looked to the general culture and pointed a finger at male control and domination over women that are part of the male’s growing up and daily life. The machismo motif, although frequently discredited as being antiquated by analysts of close relationships in the 1990s, nevertheless, still is part of the landscape in many subcultures of this and other societies. Speculation also has focused on the so-called male hormone testosterone and its possible role in stimulating males to be inappropriately and excessively violent. Testosterone is a gonadal hormone, as is estrogen, that is secreted by the gonads and adrenal glands. Testosterone has muscle-building and masculinizing effects. A social psychologist James Dabbs (e.g., Dabbs, 1992) has presented impressive correlational evidence about the elevated testosterone levels of males who are highly competitive in their work (e.g., trial lawyers) and still other males—who presumably do not have an acceptable outlet—who are violent in their behavior and frequently in trouble with the law. More generally, Dabbs has argued that testosterone underlies dominance and desire for control on the part of males. As Dabbs has emphasized, this work is correlational in nature and only suggests a possible causal role for testosterone in violence. Most likely, other crucial factors such as environmental influences and stressors either affect testosterone level in producing violence, or these other factors interact with testosterone level in affecting the progression of violent episodes. Moreover, regardless of hormone level, people can learn to be responsible in their behavior toward others. We have to be wary lest the idea of hormone level be used as an excuse for destructive human conduct. Marshall and Vitanza (1994) have provided one of the most compelling reviews and analyses of myths regarding physical abuse in close relationships. A first myth is that violence only occurs in certain people’s close relationships. But the evidence indicates that it occurs in all types of close relationships, across age, socioeconomic status, and education. Amazingly, one of the most frequent situations involving violence is physical aggression directed toward females who are pregnant by their lovers or spouses. A second common myth is that only macho males inflict violence on their partner. It is true that many do, and male aggression toward females usually is more severe than female aggression

156

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 1:59 PM Page 157

A B U S I V E

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

toward males. As Marshall and Vitanza reviewed, however, national sample data collected by Straus and Gelles (1986) indicate that 12% of the people surveyed reported at least one act of wife-to-husband violence in 1985. Two other interesting myths addressed by Marshall and Vitanza are that violence involves the use of alcohol and that in couples, there is a cycle of violence. Regarding the alcohol-violence connection, Marshall and Vitanza discussed some of their own data in which wife-battering in an alcohol-free home and other work showing that about 45% of males convicted of battering had not used alcohol in association with the abuse they inflicted. Marshall and Vitanza do acknowledge, however, that alcohol often is associated with interpersonal violence—whether or not it causes such violence. The idea that violence occurs in cycles was advanced by Walker (1984). According to this idea, there is a gradual escalation of tension in which the wife withdraws to avoid angering her partner, who unleashes a barrage of physical and verbal aggression. Then, “loving contrition” occurs in which the abuser asks the victim for her forgiveness. At some later point, the movement back toward a violent episode recurs. Marshall and Vitanza pointed to contradictory evidence from their own work showing that for many couples, violence was unpredictable and that no interim period of kindness–forgiveness occurred. As they suggested, even in battering relationships, no man or woman is violent or even hostile all of the time. When the man is not violent, the woman may feel relief due to the absence of his aggression. In fact, she may become attached to the man in part because he has a significant positive side to him, and then she may tend to dismiss early examples of his violent self. Long-term violence and her better understanding of his pattern of positive and negative behavior toward her over time may finally make it clear that she has to leave the relationship, if at all possible.

Date or Acquaintance Rape Date or acquaintance rape has become a major topic of discussion on college campuses and beyond during the 1990s. This phenomenon refers to forced sexual relations, usually by a man, when a couple is engaged in a dating or visiting situation. It often happens at or after parties in which drinking is heavy. In fact, perpetrators sometimes claim that their acts were not under control because of the amount they had drunk. Victims, too, sometimes indicate that they would have been more wary if they had drunk less. But drinking seems to be subsidiary to the other processes involved, including: control of the other; conquest and bragging rights with one’s buddies; and underlying dehumization of and anger toward the victim or what she may represent. If such hatred is not involved, it is difficult to understand how semi-intelligent people could force others into such an act that continues to traumatize the victim for many years. Muehlenhard, Goggins, Jones, and Satterfield (1991) provided a useful review of worn on sexual violence and coercion in close relationships. One salient point in this literature is that there has been a large percentage of young women on college campuses who have been coerced into having sex with a friend, date, or lover. The category of date rape has been extended to include coerced sex within marriage. The percentage of married women who have been forced to have sex by their husband also is quite large; there also is a small percentage of married men who apparently have experienced forced sex by their wives. A principal way of coercing sex within marriage is to threaten to end the relationship if other does not give in.

157

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 2:00 PM Page 158

9 .

D A R K

S I D E

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

Muehlenhard et al. noted a number of factors that play a role in forced sex. They include: women’s need to maintain a relationship or economic reasons; alcohol and drug intoxication; the sexual double standard; gender differences in perceptions of sexual interest (i.e., the work by Abbey, 1982, showing that men often interpret women’s friendly actions as involving more sexual connotations than do the women taking the actions); and stereotypes about masculinity and femininity (e.g., to be masculine is to be dominant and in control). Shotland (1989) theorized that quite a few instances of date rape result from a personality trait in some men that involves misogyny, or hatred of women. These essentially antisocial men look to dating opportunities to try to have sexual relations because of their difficulty establishing that a rape occurred when a dating relationship exists. So, these people are cunning as well as antisocial in their behavior. A promising development aimed at reducing violence on campuses is the creation of college groups of men who are dedicated to changing the script of coercion in dating and sexuality. One such organization was started at Duke University in 1992 and was called “Men Acting for Change.” Jason Schultz was one of the founders and began his effort to try to do something constructive after one of his female friends was raped. He said, “I just saw on campus the way the rape education had been handled really alienated men.” He was referring to the “hammer” routine directed toward young men that some teachers and commentators have used in trying to make changes; whereas his group tries to get men and women to come together to have discussions of and debates about the dynamics of violence and sexuality. Men often point to women’s seductiveness in clothes and actions as one of the reasons kissing and other flirting goes too far. Discussions such as those occurring at Duke may help both parties understand better the minds of people with whom they share intimate moments and how to be clearer in making others know what they want or do not want to do. Unfortunately, the same news that carried the story about the foregoing constructive work of college men to address date rape issues also brought to our attention the infamous activities of the “Spur Posse” in Lakewood, California. This “posse” was composed of older male high school athletes who had created a competition of sorts among themselves. It seems that they awarded points to members of the posse in accord with their “scoring” behavior. “Scoring” meant that they had sexual relations with the women, and members had focused on the same women for sex on multiple occasions—the so-called “easy lay” women. In some cases, the women were in their early teens, while members of the posse were 18 or older. Their scheme led to national publicity in the Spring, 1993, when the local police arrested four of the posse and charged them with rape. The charges later were dropped, and members of the posse then began to travel the national television talk show circuit bragging about their exploits. They argued that the women were entranced with them because of their good looks, athleticism, and general popularity. They suggested that sex with them represented a pinnacle experience for these women. They also contended that the women wanted to have sex with them essentially for the same reason—bragging rights among their colleagues. Women interviewed regarding the posse members’ behavior, however, said that the men had led them on—with the possibility of establishing a close relationship—in order to have sex with them and score points. Those women interviewed indicated that the sexual relations they engaged in with the men had been encouraged by the men and that they had not consented to the men’s requests for sex. The local district attorney chimed in with her 158

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 2:00 PM Page 159

I N C E S T

assessment that although the men’s behavior was reprehensible, it did not meet the test conditions for statutory rape, or forced sexual relations; hence, the rape charges had been dropped. She implied that the evidence indicated the women’s conduct in the sexual activities was such that the males’ activities could not be deemed criminal. A psychiatrist commenting on the posse’s activities said that the men were exhibiting pathological narcissism in their exploitation of others, and that the women who participated may have done so in order to be accepted and to enhance their chronically low levels of self-esteem. Whatever ultimately comes of the “Spur Posse” story, it stands as an extremely troubling commentary on the socialization of many men.

INCEST There is no other darker aspect of close relationships than is that revealed in familial sexual abuse, or incest. Incest violates a person’s basic sense of trust and security. Incest violates a person’s sense of meaning in living. Incest robs a person of youthful vitality and causes a premature “maturing” both of mind and body. Incest affects one’s whole life, perhaps as no other event or sequence of events can. In this discussion, one can only survey some of the dynamics of incest. In no way can we begin to explain its occurrence. Most often, incest is perpetrated by men, usually fathers, grandfathers, stepfathers, or brothers. However, women and to a lesser extent men also have been sexually abused by mothers, grandmothers, or sisters. Although the data for the incestuous abuse of men are scant, Orbuch, Harvey, Davis, and Merbach (1994) conducted a study involving a survey of a small sample of men who had experienced incest. Their recovery had been less successful than was the case for a similar group of female incest survivors. The males’ reports suggested that the burden of going public and seeking help may be greater for men than women. It is not as common to encounter incest survivors among men than women, and most service agencies are accustomed to the incest-related issues women bring to them. In this culture, in which men are expected to be strong and resilient, the male incest survivor often feels a great loss of esteem and vulnerability for other environmental stressors. One of the most powerful, yet succinct, first person accounts of incest ever written is Elly Danica’s (1988) book entitled Don’t. Danica, then in her 40s, described how she was sexually and physically abused by her father from very early in her life well into her 20s. In the following quotation, which reflects the terse sentence structure of her presentation, she spoke of the terror of the long ordeal she had experienced: How you live only night? Easy. Twenty-five years of darkness. Not easy. Hate as a companion. Nobody believes me at 18. Twenty. Twenty-three. At 25. Useless. Again. I vow to leave town with my hate. I vow to look for sunshine. I see a shrink. Another shrink. Another. Finally a woman. Compassion. Now hate has sewn my lips down, stitched them to my teeth. I can no longer speak. Twenty-seven. Twenty-nine. Paralysis of the will. . . . Always useless. To Everybody. Even to myself. Useless. (p. 12) Danica’s sense of isolation and despair at having no protection from her father are revealed in the following lines: I yearn for someone to save me. Yearn for pity. There is no help. My grandmother is a continent, an ocean, away. I try to tell my teacher at school. She says: “You are subject to your father in all things. He is your lord as Jesus is your lord. He would 159

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 2:00 PM Page 160

9 .

D A R K

S I D E

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

do no harm or wrong. He is right in all things. If you are punished or hurt it is for your own good. If he is too rough it is because he loves you. Pray to Jesus for comfort . . .” There is no comfort so I pray for martyrdom. At least if I were dead somebody would know. If I were dead it would be over. (p. 15) The foregoing passage illustrates what has been found repeated in work with incest survivors in this area (e.g., Harvey, Orbuch, Chwalisz, & Garwood, 1991). Survivors often feel isolated and lack confidants with whom they can share their most malignant secrets and from whom they can gain support. If they go to one parent regarding another parent’s abuse, they sometimes encounter a conspiracy of silence. The other parent says, “It did not happen. You are imagining it.” Or, if they go to a parent regarding a grandparent’s or a sibling’s abuse of them, they also may encounter an admoninition to keep quiet, lest the family name and reputation be ruined in the local community. Usually, incest victims are quite young (sometimes even infants) when the incest starts. Thus, to then encounter a wall of resistance and hostility represents a second onslaught against their feeling of trust and safety. They may simply “hole up” in their minds because they sense there is no one to whom to turn. What is essential to early recovery from incest is the act of confiding and strong support from others. We have found that incest survivors report that their close relationships later in life and other forms of adaptation are enhanced if soon after the incest occurred, they were able to gain the support of empathic and helpful others—whether they were authorities, family, or friends. Danica finally was able to get her message out and, in fact, to scream powerfully about her own situation. She said in the end of her book: I have finally kept the promises I made to myself when I was very young. Some day I would write this story and when I did, then and only then would I be able to like and respect myself. And I have kept both promises. I wake one day to find the “victim” self gone (though it is neither as simple nor as easy as that). I find instead a woman with her eyes and her heart open, strong, hopeful, and more determined than ever before. (p. 98) Danica’s message of hope was achieved only via her expression of her pain and her feeling that in writing her book, she did something positive about it. As argued by Harvey, Weber, and Orbuch (1990), this recovery approach is a potent one for anyone to adopt who has suffered major loss. What we have seen in the United States in the last decade is a whole movement devoted to alerting unaware people to the possibility that they might have suffered incest when they were very young. We will return to this movement at the end of this section, but now we want to sketch some of the characteristics of the perpetrator of incest and some of the effects it has on the survivor (and here we wish to recognize a student–colleague Jennifer Danielson, who pulled together much of this material from various sources and gave a speech on it in one of our close relationships classes). There is a pattern to incest when the survivor is quite young. In a common scenario, the father begins early to “groom” the daughter to accept his affection. He crosses boundaries that remain intact in normal father–daughter relations and confuses role identity for the young person. This grooming process moves on toward gaining the trust of the daughter and making her dependent on the father. At the same time, the father may try to alienate the daughter from her mother and her friends, thereby creating a sense in the daughter that

160

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 2:00 PM Page 161

I N C E S T

she is isolated in a cocoon with her father. Early on, she probably intuitively feels that his advances are confusing and not right. Later, as she approaches puberty, she more clearly recognizes his advances as violations of her self and wrong, as well as possibly horrifying and/or disgusting. All along, the father has “groomed” the daughter for more adult sexual activity. He bribes her with gifts and feigned support and tells her how important she is to him. He has instigated the practice of them watching one another dress and of being nude in one another’s presence. As she begins to feel that the behavior is wrong, the father may threaten her with withdrawal of his love and support if she tells anyone. In this manner, the astute incest perpetrator may essentially imprison his victim within insuperable psychological walls. All the while, her feelings are being numbed. She may learn to accept his sexual advances by dissociation. She may “go away” in her mind during sex acts, or may put herself in a trance so that she will not feel the physical and psychological pain. If discovered, the perpetrator of incest usually is quite defensive. Of course, he may contend that the story was all made up. Or, if he admits to having engaged in the sexual activity, he may argue that the daughter was a “slut” who seduced him. He also may suggest that he only fell “victim” to his daughter’s advances because of his poor sexual relationship with his wife. More generally, what is the male perpetrator like? He may seem quite normal to the outside world—even a “fine upstanding member of the community.” Psychologically, however, he often is an isolated person who tends to be rigid, paranoid, immature, and lacking in self-esteem. In addition, he is defensive and externalizes the responsibility for problems and mishaps on the outside world. What about the effects of incest on the survivor? She or he has major trust problems in intimate relations. This characteristic usually is foremost in any attempts to relate closely to others. “Can I ever trust a man [or woman] again” may be the thought that the survivor maintains for many years, especially if s/he does not “come out” and seek help—whether professional help, a support group’s assistance, or the confidence of a wise, knowledgeable close friend who can be there for and empathic with the survivor. The person who has kept her or his dark secret for many years likely has had a variety of psychological (e.g., depression, suicide ideation) and physical (e.g., eating disorders, drug addiction) maladies over that period. S/he also experiences periodic PTSD-like flashbacks of the sexual acts with her or his father or relative, especially at times when s/he is trying to be intimate with her or his spouse or lover. Even if they marry, survivors often report feeling little closeness, empty, lonely, and paranoid toward others. This sketch does little justice to the depth of despair the survivor has and will feel after a period of violation such as that described before. Probably, no words can adequately describe the anguish, despair, and pain felt by someone who has been sexually abused by a parent. The foregoing discussion brings us back to a final issue. Can we believe people who after many years are beginning to recall instances of sexual abuse early in their lives? Led by celebrities such as Roseanne Barr and Oprah Winfrey, many people in the late 80s and early 90s publicly reported that they had been the victims of incest early in their lives. They have done so, they say, both to take another step toward personal recovery and to help others who have kept similar types of secrets and who have suffered in the process. Well-known books advocate such reporting and coming to grips with one’s past. For example, journalist Harriet Webster published Family Secrets in 1991, a book that persuasively argued that the confessing of dark secrets usually is a step toward healing (cf.

161

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 2:00 PM Page 162

9 .

D A R K

S I D E

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

Pennebaker, 1990). Perhaps the foremost book in this genre was published by Ellen Bass and Laura Davis and is entitled The Courage To Heal (1988). It essentially offers people the symptoms of incest in later life and encourages them to remember the actual events and by recalling and talking about them to begin to heal. This latter book, in particular, has been critically analyzed as providing too general a profile of the unaware adult who may have been an incest victim many years earlier. Critics such as psychologist Carol Tavris writing in the New York Times Book Review (January 3, 1993) have contended that the profile could apply to almost any adult. In her analysis, Tavris went on to discuss the strong evidence that although people think they are remembering facts, rather they often show major distortions in their recall and that, in an unaware manner, they can virtually make up of some event or set of events Such is the power of “reconstructive memory” and the mind’s ability to be imaginative. Indeed, several court cases in the 1990s pertained to criminal charges brought by individuals against parents and other relatives whom they now have alleged perpetrated incest against them when they were young. In such cases, the juries must try to fathom the truth, while recognizing the issue of reconstruction that of which people are capable. In the end, at the minimum, the movement to bring incest out into the open undoubtedly has been a positive movement. For too long, it has been covered up and hidden in the closet of secrets each family and community possesses. Whether the charges of incest that are made are always true is a difficult question. Alleged perpetrators may be unfairly found guilty in some of these situations. That is why the counter-movement to challenge the memory of those who make the allegations is a reasonable reaction in the interests of judicial fairness. We believe that the research to date on incest survivors will stand the test of further scrutiny. Although all of the details recalled by survivors may not be correct, why should we question the general recall of an event by a person who is anonymously taking considerable time and obviously exerting great pain to write about something as personally horrifying as incest?

PORNOGRAPHY With the Internet, and pornography associated with it, playing a large role in many lives, an argument is emerging about the impact of pornography on close relationships. This argument is that highly graphic pornography in movies, videos, the written word, and photographs often demeans and degrades women. Further, the argument goes, the relationships between men and women are adversely affected when men have become addicted to pornography. Essentially, such addiction influences men to view women only as objects for sexual gratification and deemphasizes loving and caring communication as fundamental to intimacy between the sexes. As reported in a March, 1993, Chicago Tribune piece by Mark Wukas on a Chicago conference on pornography, there are vocal women scholars and analysts of contemporary relations between the sexes who believe that pornography has a negative effect on relationships and how men view women. Feminist writer Andrea Dworkin argued: “Men use sex to hurt us . . . Pornographers use every attribute a woman has. They sexualize it, then they find a way to dehumanize it and they sell it. And they sell it to men who get off on it” (March 21, 1993, Chicago Tribune, Sect. 6, p. 1). A further argument about the perils of pornography is that children and underage minors invariably find and examine pornography materials when parents have such materials 162

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 2:00 PM Page 163

D I V O R C E :

L O S T

L O V E

around the house. James Check, a psychologist at York University in Toronto, reported at the Chicago conference that 90% of a sample of teen boys, age 14, and 60% of a sample of teen girls, age 14, have seen pornography on video at least once; 33% of the boys and 2% of the girls indicated that they regularly watched pornographic videos. As important, Check indicated that 29% of the boys reported that pornography was the most useful source of sex information, including school, parents, teachers, and peers, that they had available. He also found that 43% of the boys and 16% of the girls indicated it was “maybe ok” to hold down a woman and force sexual intercourse if she had gotten him sexually aroused; only 35% of the boys said it definitely was not ok to force this type of intercourse, while 71% of the girls said it definitely was not ok. As adults, we all have First Amendment rights to view pornography. Too often, censorship is promoted by groups who have a strong political or religious position but little strong evidence on pornography’s effects to share. No doubt many well-functioning couples would subscribe to the value of degrees of pornography in facilitating their sex lives. At the same time, anyone who advocates any substantial use of pornography must be aware of the questions of whether the material degrades women and whether the material will be seen by minors and will have deleterious influences on how they view women and sexuality. Parents of young children have a special responsibility in this area. Finally, in this debate, it should be recognized in this debate that women, too, make considerable use of pornography. What about violent pornography? Just like violence on the television and movies, it most likely does not do the world any good, and in particular does not lead to an enhancement in human relationships. Whether it is a causal factor in contributing to sex crimes or violence in close relationships is unclear. Surely, though, at the minimum, as famous sex criminals such as John Wayne Gacy (who raped, tortured, and killed many young men in Chicago in the 1970s) have acknowledged, viewing violent pornography likely serves as a catalyst for action for those who are disposed to violence through other influences. So much of the pornography issue for the couple in a close relationship involves their individual and joint interpretation of the pornographic material. If they do not believe that it demeans women and that it is positive for them—or that it simply does not matter much in the context of all that does matter—they likely will not be adversely affected. As with all relationship issues, this one deserves a lot more discussion between couples than it typically receives. A final point is that there are many illusions in pornography. Similar to the illusions in romance novels discussed in the chapter on sexuality, the pornographic material that men so often become enamored of usually imparts to them only a modicum of truth. It does not convey a lot of the reality of physical bodies—their true colorings, shapes, smells, and so on. It romanticizes what this culture views as highly positive and what men from the earliest find mysterious and off-limits about sexuality.

D I V O R C E : L O S T L O V E M AY TURN JEKYLLS INTO HYDES We have saved for last a brief discussion on destructive behavior associated with divorce and dissolution. This category hardly is a pure one because often preceding the divorce are years of abuse and battering. Further, we have provided considerable discussion of divorce and dissolution in the chapter on this topic, including the potentially destructive 163

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 2:00 PM Page 164

9 .

D A R K

S I D E

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

aspects of custody fights and affairs. Nonetheless, more discussion is necessary here because the darkness of close relationships sometimes is revealed starkly at the time of divorce proceedings, or after nonmarital breakups, and immediately thereafter for some period. Some of the “low-lights” of divorce/dissolution situations have included: 1. In the early and mid-1990s, Woody Allen and Mia Farrow engaged in a bitter custody battle in which Farrow accused Allen of sexually abusing two of her children. Farrow made the accusation after finding photographs of her oldest adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, showing her nude in Allen’s bedroom. Allen was acquitted by a medical panel of the abuse charge pertaining to his relationship to their 7-yearold daughter, Dylan. He admitted having begun a love relationship with Soon-Yi Previn starting when she was 20. That relationship continues in a married form, and both the daughter, now in her 20s, and Allen, now in his early 60s, have said they are very much in love with one another. 2. In 1992, a lawyer confessed to bursting into a courtroom and gunning down a prosecutor and another lawyer in Ft. Worth, Texas. He was angry because a jury had awarded his ex-wife custody of their son. The two persons shot, however, had no relation to the custody decision. This incident was not the first in which people have been killed in the courtroom in divorce cases in the 1990s. As attorneys dealing with divorce have said, family law is the most volatile and potentially violent of any situation facing an attorney. 3. “Good Morning America” host Joan Lunden complained in 1993 about the alimony she must pay her former husband Michael Krauss and said he should get a job. In turn, Krauss sued for custody of their three children and complained that Lunden went to bed at 8 a.m., leaving him alone to get fat on snacks. 4. In a divorce and custody case that Texas Monthly billed “The meanest divorce in Texas” (October, 1992, issue), Charles and Carolyn Smith, both wealthy and from prominent Houston families, fought for a decade over custody of their two children. In this decade, the boys were kidnapped by both parents on multiple occasions, and continuous legal battles were waged. Texas Monthly writer Skip Hollandsworth called the warfare “. . . a classic Greek tragedy, with all the characters eventually brought down by their own rage and need for revenge” (p. 138). As of October, 1992, Charles Smith had custody of the sons—despite a Texas court’s order that he turn them over to their mother—and had fled to Cuernavaca, Mexico to start a new life with his boys and new wife there. 5. Every year for the past 2 decades, horror stories have emerged from couples’ attempts to divide property in the context of divorce proceedings. In these situations, people often have to sell valuable possessions and their homes that they worked many years to own. In a February 15, 1993, USA Today article on these divorce battles, a Chicago divorce lawyer mentioned two experiences that stood out in his memory. In one, an ex-wife destroyed her husband’s 200-odd pipe collection by throwing them in the fireplace. In another, a “very timid” guy bought a Cadillac Eldorado and hired a blonde with a 42-inch bust to sit in front of his wife’s house and honk the horn for a half-hour at a time. The lawyer noted that in the latter case, a settlement that normally would take 60 days to resolve this time took two-and-one-half years because of the ex-wife’s anger about her ex-husband’s behavior during the case. 164

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 2:00 PM Page 165

C O N C L U S I O N :

T H E

F U T U R E

O F

D A R K N E S S

As was discussed in the divorce chapter, the “divorcing period” is a time in which people often act irrationally. It is a crazy time in which people are capable of any number of destructive acts toward their ex-partner, children, friends, and toward themselves. It is a time in which one’s emotions often swing back and forth between severe depression and ecstasy. They often feel that they have no control over their lives and that everything they worked to achieve in a relationship, family, and home is being wrenched apart. Another 1990s movie, “The War of the Roses,” vividly depicted the deterioration of a marriage, a period of confusion and chaos in the lives of each member of the couple, and then an ensuing battle over property that, eventually, led to the destruction of most of the property and the violent deaths of the couple. Having recognized the craziness of this period as a key dynamic in the destructiveness that occurs, we would quickly point out that craziness still is no excuse. There really is no justification for what adult individuals think up to do to hurt others whom they once loved. We could go on for pages in describing the pain people can inflict on one another in divorce and dissolution situations. The greatest loss in these situations, however, often is felt by the children. Many children become considerably poorer as a result of divorce and even to a greater degree when child support battles rage on in the courts. Beyond the poverty is the psychological damage. What they see their parents do in these situations may influence how they react later in the context of their own relationship difficulties. For a good percentage of children involved in divorce situations, the unhappy baggage of their parents’ battles remains a lasting legacy in their memory. The divorce alone may have been traumatic for the child. For the child to then see her or his parents wage cruel warfare against each other over custody or property may create enough psychological damage to last the child a lifetime.

CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE OF D A R K N E S S I N C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P S A corollary of the early section in this chapter on festering problems in society is that destructiveness in close relationships mirrors what can be seen on a larger level in the world and in relations among nations and groups of people. To the extent that the major problems languish and defy ready solution, so do more microscopic problems found in the close relationship, or in the minds of people engaged in closeness. We mentioned earlier in discussing the frequency with which people murder their exlovers that we as a society may be becoming insensitive to reports of such events. As Stalin is reported to have said about killing, when one person is killed it is a tragedy, but when a million are killed, it is simply a statistic. The developers of the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, which opened in the Spring, 1993, understood well Stalin’s logic. They created a very personal, living entity that forces people to see and feel pain at a personal level. For example, the visitor can obtain an identification card upon entering the museum. This identification card is of a person who died in the Holocaust and whose birthday is the same as that of the visitor. Then, at various points in the sequence of museum displays, the visitor can update what was happening to the kindred spirit whose I.D. they hold. Such a sensitizing type of experience would be helpful for all of us as we try to understand the events that have taken the lives of so many in domestic violence situations. No doubt, most 165

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 2:00 PM Page 166

9 .

D A R K

S I D E

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

of us, who have not personally experienced similar horrors, are becoming inured to so much violence in the news. Thus, we as a distantly witnessing public are increasingly unable to empathize with the pain and loss that real people behind the numbers and black words on white paper feel. The irony of Americans proclivity to kill other Americans was brought home in a recent column by Chicago Tribune writer Bob Greene. In his May 11, 1993 column, Greene indicated that he had heard from Mark Drummond, a lawyer in a Midwestern town, who had an idea. The idea was that Americans set one day aside and pledge not to kill each other that day. Similar to “The Great American Smokeout Day,” designed to reduce smoking, this day would be designed to reduce killing. In 1991, there were 67.6 homicides a day in this country, or a total of 24,700. As Greene said, “If some foreign nation were doing this to us . . . the response by this country would be swift and unrelenting” (Section 2, p. 1). But it is us—Americans murdering Americans daily—in part because we are accustomed to killing and feel apathetic about it; it has become too much an accepted way of life in this country. Gender conflict was one dynamic that has been implied frequently in our survey of destructive close relationships. The fact that some males are so disposed toward violence has led to major feminist arguments about deficiencies in how men are socialized. This fact also has led psychologist June Stephenson to suggest that men are not cost-effective and should pay a greater proportion of taxes than females, because males are responsible for most of the crime occurring in this country. Crime costs the nation about 300 million dollars each year. She argued that males should pay a $100 direct tax to redress this part of the public debt. She said to Chicago Tribune writer Barbara Brotman: “It’s a user fee . . . It is men who use the criminal justice system almost exclusively” (May 2, 1993, P. 2E). Many men have reacted to her proposal as another instance of male bashing. Attorneys have noted that there is no notion of social jurisprudence that supports retribution from a group of people for acts committed by specific individuals who represent that group. Although this debate is being carried out somewhat with tongue-in-cheek, it reflects the vigor of dialogue between the sexes regarding public policy approaches to violence in society. We do not believe that we can be very optimistic that activities, such as those of the “Spur Posse” in California or deadly confrontations in the bedroom and courtroom, will recede in their incidence in the 21st century. There is much hope, however, in the debate and discussion now occurring in the public regarding these activities. The “Spur Posse,” by and large, has been a target of young and old commentators, alike, in pointing to what is wrong with the way young people are educated by parents and other socialization agents to engage in intimate relations. Another major development is the greatly increased number of people who have been “in the closet” for most of their adult lives because of incest, but who have come out in recent years to try to heal and to confront their perpetrators. The increasing extent to which college classes are being offered and books written on these topics is unprecedented. One can only hope that we as humans learn from this dialogue how to become advocates and practitioners in our own lives and develop relationships of kindness and gentleness. We need to learn to value these qualities of action because they not only enhance others, but they also enhance our own mental health and well-being. We all have difficulty in “putting ourselves in the shoes” of a survivor of some grim, violent tale—especially if we have never personally experienced such a plight. We

166

01-070 C09 pp4 9/13/01 2:00 PM Page 167

C O N C L U S I O N :

T H E

F U T U R E

O F

D A R K N E S S

can study these events forever in college classes and not know firsthand the feelings of terror instigated in homefront violence. Perhaps a field trip to the local morgue to view the consequence of some lover’s violent outburst would bring the message closer to home for young and old people alike. In the midst of conflict and anger in our close relationships, we need to discipline ourselves and our emotions to recognize that there will be a tomorrow and maybe a resolution to our hurt. We need to become mature, wise lovers early enough in life to recognize that our pain and humiliation regarding rejections and lost close relationships will recede. We will heal. We need to turn the violence we feel at our moments of greatest anguish into motivation to learn from our mistakes and to work more diligently to create positive close relationships in our lives. Even in the middle of close relationship dissolutions, we need to keep in mind that we once loved this person—and may do so again in another way someday—and that it would be best for all concerned if the ending can be handled with dignity and gentleness.

167

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 169

10 DISSOLUTION OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS The sorrow of the lover is continual, in the presence and absence of the beloved: In the presence for fear of the absence, and in absence in longing for the presence. The pain in love becomes in that the life of the lover. —Sufi master Hazrat Khan (in Welwood, 1990, p. 75)

Their last night together was like any one of a thousand others, in many respects. He set the alarm, and she put the cat out. There was the sudden compulsion to reconsider. They found themselves standing at the top of a high dive, scared to jump off and too tired to climb down. There were others lined up behind them, pressing and nudging, making the leap seem inevitable. There on the purgatorial platform, they clung to each other for the last time. It had never seemed so important to be together. For years, they had not had this much in common (June 1, 1983, article “Only scars are shared in a friendly divorce). —Rheta Johnson, Dallas Morning News

These quotes address the fear, existential angst, and ambivalence that are at the heart of the dissolving process in close relationships. The topic of this chapter is that of loss of close relationships or marriages via the decision to separate, terminate and/or legally divorce. Jerry Seinfeld once said on his long-running sit-com that the reason men whistled and honked at women on the street is that they did not have any better ideas about what to do. The same point may be made about dissolution in the early 21st century. As we see in this chapter, we do not have great ideas about what to do about the high and sustained divorce rate, nor about the many dynamics of divorce that are ingrained into the modern mind as it considers the ingredients of successful relating (Harvey & Omarzu, 1999). As part of our quandary about the rampant nature of dissolution in many parts of the world, an interesting new approach to separation was proposed by Lee Raffel (1999). Raffel, a marriage and family therapist, reports having some success with what she calls “controlled separation.” This idea is designed to help couples establish firm, agreed-upon rules to step back and gain perspective about whether they want to continue their relationship. Obviously, this approach should be tried only by couples who already are on the brink of deciding to divorce. Controlled separation involves these 12 points, that are mutually agreed upon and signed:

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 170

1 0 .

D I S S O L U T I O N

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

1. Time limit, such as 6 months. 2. Living arrangements, who moves out and when? Or do they try the “both in-house” separation scenario? 3. Whether to consult legal counsel—means going forward with early divorce step, because it costs a lot even to consult divorce attorneys. 4. Counseling. Do they go for counseling together, or mediation at this point? 5. Finances, how do they divide up their financial resources at this point? Same for dividing up home properties. 6. Dating, do they date others? 7. Confidentiality, do they keep this plan secret from others for the present? 8. They also agree not to terminate this plan without mutual agreement. Viorst (1986) described a number of “necessary losses” we all will experience in life. We will lose our youth. We likely will lose our sexual virginity. We will part company with many friends and acquaintances over time. We likely will lose prized possessions and material property. We may lose our financial assets. We all eventually will lose our health. We all probably will lose a close, romantic relationship at some point due to death, drifting away, movement away, dissolution or divorce, or a mutual parting of ways. We may even lose many close, romantic relationships. Not all of us will experience divorce personally, but in light of the frequency of divorce, most of us will either experience it personally or indirectly through the effects it has on others close to us. Sometimes, it is almost as difficult to be a mom or dad and watch your son’s or daughter’s divorce unfolding as it is to experience the divorcing process yourself.

THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE IN A DIVORCING WORLD The dissolution process often exacts a heavy toll of psychological pain, and possibly physical and practical devastation, on the couple as well as any children or close relatives such as parents. Thus, this chapter must also be about loss and grieving. The words of Khan at the beginning of this chapter are applicable for most types of major loss, from death to separation and divorce. Many of us who teach in the relationship field have seen a great increase in cynicism and anticipatory grief about loss in relationships of many young people about the stability of marriage. Many students have been in families and directly experienced a divorce, or sometimes multiple divorces and/or dissolutions when a single parent dated and broke up with different lovers. Many have had siblings and friends who were married for only a few years and then divorced. Most of them have had their own troubles in developing and maintaining stable, romantic relationships. They are aware of a term that spread in the media in the 1990s called “starter marriages,” which refers to the marriages of young people who stay married 2 or 3 years, do not have kids, and then divorce. The idea of a starter marriage is like a starter home, which people eventually leave for something better. There are no easy answers to this dilemma of faith in marriage. Some policymakers now are thinking that legislation may provide an answer and have enacted laws aimed at strengthening marriage. Louisiana and Arizona were the first two states to enact covenant marriage laws. Such laws provide alternative routes to regular marriage contracts and

170

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 171

D I V O R C E :

A

F A D I N G

S T I G M A

make premarital counseling required and then make divorce more difficult to obtain than is presently true for “no fault” divorce laws that exist throughout the United States. For example, the covenant marriage law requires that conditions for divorce include such events as infidelity or physical abuse, and even then require a longer wait until the divorce is granted. Many opponents of this new law have argued that it will create another era of mud-slinging and spying by detectives at divorce time, given the more stringent conditions for divorce. Thus far, it appears that few people are choosing the covenant marriage alternative. We in the United States are a marrying and divorcing society. As we enter the 21st century, during the last 3 decades of the 20 th century, the divorce rate rose to approximately 1 in 2 recent marriages (i.e., marriages begun in the last 10 to 20 years). Alarm about the rate of divorce existed for much of the 20 th century. In 1950, when the divorce rate was a fraction of what it would become by the 21st century, a special issue of The Annals of the American Political and Social Science entitled “Toward Family Stability” noted the alarm that had existed for over 2 decades about the burgeoning divorce rate in the United States. Will there ever be a time when there is no concern about the stability of the marriage institution? In the last few decades, our attitudes about divorce have been tilted toward believing that divorce often is the answer. Thornton (1989) provided a powerful attitudinal survey datum on this point. In 1962, when a sample of young mothers were asked whether couples with children ought to remain together if they could not get along, one-half said they should. Yet, when these same women were asked the identical question in 1985, fewer than one in five said they should. Why? Had the world of marriage, sacred vows, and human commitment “gone to the dogs” in that time interval? Maybe. But perhaps in the intervening 23 years, these women had learned a lot about the difficulties, and even hopelessness, of some close relationships. Many of these women were in relationships that dissolved. Some of the relationships involved physical abuse. There are worse states than dissolution and divorce. Human degradation such as that experienced in a truly abusive relationship is one of them.

D I V O R C E : A FA D I N G S T I G M A The course of true love never did run smooth and, as we have seen, it is especially bumpy for the Formerly Married. Unlike the young, who come to each other relatively empty-handed, the divorced man and divorced woman come with all the acquisitions of the years—their individual histories, habits, and tastes, their children, friends, and chattels. Love can be a rickety vehicle, loaded with so much of life’s baggage, and the trip back to the world of the married is often interrupted by slowdowns, halts, and backsliding. (Hunt, 1966, p. 268) These were the words of well-known family sociologist Morton Hunt in the 1960s, just near the point at which the divorce rate in the United States began its steady ascent to the level of 40% to 50%, the rate that characterized the divorce trend during the last 3 decades of the 20th century. There remains truth in Hunt’s remarks in the 21st century. The “formerly married,” as he called them, do bring along the baggage of a 747 jumbo jet, but so do a lot of people who never have been married. Further, Hunt’s thesis of issues faced by the formerly married centered on the stigma they faced in society.

171

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 172

1 0 .

D I S S O L U T I O N

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

Divorce was not a routine part of life in the 1950s and 1960s. Hunt interviewed divorced persons of varying ages and discovered that they operated as if they were in an underground culture—half-hidden and possessing its own rules and mechanisms of bringing people together. This subculture had to be created to make divorced people feel less like outcasts or motherless children. Indeed, the times have changed, with divorce more the norm than the exception, and with approximately one-half of the families in the United States being families reformed after one or both partners were divorced. In the early 21st century, the stigma of divorce is mostly gone. After a dazzling wedding in 1981, the “perfect couple” Prince Charles and Princess Diana of England separated in 1992. Because of the potential implication of divorce on the question of succession of who ascends the British Throne, such a landmark event as this dissolution of the “perfect couple” shows how common separation and divorce have become. This couple endured excessive media attention as their marriage crumbled quickly over the course of the decade. As English tabloids recounted many details of their conflicts and likely extramarital ventures, it became clear to all that this marriage was no fairy tale and would not have a fairy tale ending. Their marriage was a marriage between two probably ill-suited people, and it fell victim to a passage of difficulties that are part of the everyday world of most humans in our time. Divorce not only has less stigma associated with it in the early 21st century, it is even fashionable in many circles to have been divorced. As one illustration, people who are single in their late-30s sometimes are viewed as having less questionable relationship histories if they were married and divorced earlier. The line of inquiry among observers of such a person often goes something like this: “Why isn’t he married? Is there something wrong with him?” The stigma of divorce in its harshest form went away in a short quarter of a century of revolution (or evolution?). Yet, the hurt, the long-term pain for participants, and the brutality of the legal aspects of divorce have not abated with the lessening stigma of divorce. The divorcing time is, as Weiss (1975) suggested, a time of craziness. The antics of people involved in long-term marital or relationship breakdown are sometimes beyond belief. One of the most common mutually enacted acts of strangeness is the tendency for these tormented individuals to regularly have sex during their separation. Weiss found this activity to be common among his separated sample, regardless of level of hostility in the separation. Why would sexuality, presumably an act of kindness and care for another, occur at such a time? Mainly because these two people have been sex partners previously, and in fact may have liked the sex part—it is just they could not stand the partner on other grounds. At this time, complete termination of sexual activity is difficult, but it is very problematic to quickly try to find a new sex partner (although that is commonly done). Thus, the otherwise hostile and rejecting partners may find that they still have this need in common. Even with the fading of divorce stigma, our vernacular still focuses on “failure” whenever the topic of dissolution is under scrutiny. Divorce and close relationship dissolution are not happy human events, but it makes no good sense to refer to them as “failed” relationships. That not only reverts back to the stigmatic view of divorce and dissolution, it dehumanizes the parties involved—as if some “succeed” and some “fail.” Certainly, mistakes are made by humans involved in relationships, and the mistakes often are centrally involved in whether their relationships continue. However, we do not

172

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 173

N O N M A R I T A L

D I S S O L U T I O N

A N D

D I V O R C E

have precise standards for success. It could as well be argued that many people who stay together in highly distressful close relationships “fail” more than do those who get out of such relationships.

THE EMOTIONAL DIVORCE A major loss such as a close relationship dissolution or a marital separation and divorce initially diminishes the self (Harvey, 1996). Such an event may reduce one’s dignity, will or resources. By definition, a close relationship dissolution, including a divorce, takes psychological and physical resources from the principal parties concerned, including any children involved. Probably more potent than the loss of physical resources is the loss of emotional resources. As has been argued by Vaughan (1986) and Spanier and Thompson (1987), the most meaningful step in the dissolving sequence is that of the emotional divorce. This is the time at which one, or rarely both, partners define the relationship as dead in their minds. Once that decision has been made in marriage, the relationship may go along for a short period or many years as legal. Psychologically, however, it has ended. So, even as we have defined a close relationship in part by one’s understanding, we also will define dissolution first as a matter of understanding. Whether or not they are physically separate, a dissolution has occurred when one partner’s understanding that a close bonding exists no longer coincides with the other partner’s understanding. Next comes exiting behavior, which can be quick and explicit or slow and implicit. Levinger (1992) wrote a valuable commentary on loss of a close relationships. He noted that the extent to which one feels that a close relationship’s ending is a loss (or a deprivation in personal resources) depends on several factors. These include: How close (involving, interdependent) was the relationship? Did the relationship end suddenly, or was the ending more protracted (as when an individual is dying slowly from a terminal disease)? Levinger posited that when a dying person expresses a clear desire to stop living, it helps his or her loved ones too to accept the demise. Did the loss involve a lengthy period in which partners could withdraw and possibly explore new options? As will be discussed in the grief chapter, Levinger also suggested that loss by death is different than loss by separation or divorce. The key differences are that death is irreversible and also may have occurred due to physiological reasons such as heart disease; such reasons are quite different from ones that involve a person’s intention and motivation to end a relationship.

C O M PA R I N G N O N M A R I TA L DISSOLUTION AND DIVORCE It might be thought that divorces, by definition, are more difficult for people to deal with than are nonmarital dissolutions. We have little evidence comparing the emotional and practical effects of the endings of different types of relationships. We do know, though, that many nonmarital divorces can be excruciatingly painful. In fact, as Orbuch (1988) suggested, nonmarital dissolution may be as painful, or even moreso, than divorce because in society it usually is not officially recognized as an experience that involves great pain— which it readily can involve in the case of lovers who terminate their relationship after an

173

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 174

1 0 .

D I S S O L U T I O N

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

extensive period of being a couple. This pain can be found even among college students who lose a close relationship after only a half-year or so (Sorenson, Russell, Harkness, & Harvey, 1993). College-aged couples may not have invested many years together and have major assets to divide and custody decisions to make. Nevertheless, they likely go through many of the steps of grieving that are encountered by persons who had been married many years. In fact, people at all ages feel pain, confusion, and sometimes despair at the loss of closeness with others. In a “Fresh Voices” column in Parade Magazine, April 25, 1993, the topic posed for high school students was “Rejection in Dating—Is It Better to Hear From Somebody Else?” One male, age 16, said: “When a girl says you could be friends, that’s like the kiss of death” (p. 21). A 17-year-old Victor noted still another way one knows a relationship has ended when he said: “All of a sudden, the phone calls stop—you know she’s sick of you” (p. 21). As will be discussed in later, one assumption regarding dissolution is that the initiator fares better after the relationship has ended than does the one who gets the message. The old line, “I just want to be friends” is usually received as if it means rejection, or definitely a desire on the part of the sender not to get close, or closer, to the target of the message. Rejection is hard for all concerned. That is why people frequently use euphemisms about continued friendship to try to moderate the effects of the bad news. Recovery after marital or nonmarital dissolution frequently involves similar steps. The total experience often involves these steps: shock or surprise at the decision of other to end the relationship; denial that it really is happening; an outcrying that may involve quickly trying to find a new mate, or indiscriminate, frenzied dating and sexual activity for a period; and then gradually recovery. Recovery is effected in all types of loss circumstances only after the mind and body have a time to regroup and is facilitated greatly by the person’s diligent work to combine staying active and hopeful with going over the details of the relationship, what went wrong, and what to do and expect the next time. At some early to midpoint in the adaptation process, confiding in good friends is essential to recovery (Harvey, Weber, & Orbuch, 1990; Pennebaker, 1990).

M Y T H S T H AT H I N D E R T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F L A S T I N G C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P S As we approach the topic of why dissolution is so common in close relationships, we need to consider common myths in the culture that likely hinder the development of strong marriages and close, loving, romantic relationships in general, including the following (derived from varied sources, including the authors’ collective work in this field for the last 2 decades): –Love conquers all. –Love leads to marriage. –Love is dying or dead if one is attracted to others. –Love and sex will be stable over the course of a relationship. –With love in a relationship, partners will know one another’s thoughts and feelings. –Love means never having to say, “I’m sorry.” –Love never changes.

174

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 175

T H E

P R O G R E S S I O N

T O W A R D

D I S S O L U T I O N

–Marriage partners will meet all needs. –Marriage gives us an identity. –Marriage makes us feel good about ourselves. –Relationship/marriage is an antidote for loneliness. –Good relationships/marriages come naturally. –All our love, affection, security, and sexual needs will be met in marriage. –You don’t marry the family (on the contrary, both partners are the product of generations of socialization, family rituals and implicit rules, as well as genetic–biological predispositions). –Children cement the marital bond (although people may stay in relationships because of the presence of children, there is strong evidence that the birth of the first child diminishes marital satisfaction (Glenn, 1990). An obvious component of many of these myths is simplicity and “black and white” reasoning. As was argued in chapter 1, such logic does not go a long ways in helping us understand close relationships nor implement our close relationships effectively.

THE PROGRESSION T O WA R D D I S S O L U T I O N There likely are at least as many perceived scenarios that eventuate in the dissolution of a close resolution as there are people who have encountered dissolution in their lives. In some instances, the dissolution process deterioration is slow and halting. In others the progression is up and down, including periods of separation and the resumption of living together or “being a couple.” In still others, the progression is as swift as a bullet. This latter type of progression is most interesting because it is most puzzling, at least to the person being left. It is as if, “out of the blue,” one partner in an otherwise functioning/satisfactory relationship decides that s/he wants out and will take the steps to get out. Of course, this particular type of progression may seem as if it is “out of the blue” to the person being left. To the other partner or a knowledgeable outsider, the progression may be more gradual and systematic in how it plays itself out. This discussion of what people sense to be the transition trajectory of a dissolving relationship leads to the question of how similar their sense is to the reality. What do they think the causes were versus what were the causes? We do not have enough knowledge of the process of deterioration to know the answer to this question. What is needed is more work that involves prospective sampling of young marrying couples, follows them over an extended period—presumably involving the instance of separation and divorce on the part of some of the sample. We have some fledgling but promising work along this line (e.g., Fincham and Bradbury, 1987; Huston & Vangelisti, 1991), but mostly we have retrospective report data on what happened. There is much value in studying people’s perceptions, or retrospective reports. They matter greatly to the couple and should matter to the investigator, as well. At the same time, we must be cautious in trying to validate their reports as compared to knowledgeable others’ reports and any other sort of evidence that exists about what happened in the course of the relationship. An important early study of dissolution with college students was conducted by Hill, Rubin, and Peplau (1976). These investigators found that for over 100 relationship

175

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 176

1 0 .

D I S S O L U T I O N

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

breakups, students tended to sever their relationships at natural points of transition (such as graduation or winter break). Further, it was found that the partner who was less emotionally involved in the relationship was the one who usually initiated the breakup (with women more often initiating the breakups). Reasons cited for the breakups included: poor communication, physical abuse, unsatisfactory sex, boredom, financial difficulties, and outside affairs. One of the most interesting analyses of the progression toward dissolution was developed by Vaughan (1986), a sociologist, in her book Uncoupling. The research Vaughan reported involved collecting retrospective reports from 103 women and men who were separated or divorced; no former partners of the respondents were included. Across her sample, Vaughan found evidence for various stages in the relationship’s dissolution. She proposed that “uncoupling” involves: 1. “secrets,” or the breakdown of frank communication in one or more areas of the relationship; 2. “the display of discontent,” whereby the initiator, in particular, begins to define negatively one or more aspects of the previously positive relationship; and 3. a transition from one’s role as a “partner” to a more ambiguous role of “independent person,” while trying to cover up one’s leave-taking. Because of the value of Vaughan’s work as an analysis of the sequence of dissolution, let us consider the progression of “uncoupling” in more detail. In the “secrets” stage, one of the partners, the initiator, develops a deep unhappiness with the relationship. This phase is rather quiet and unilateral. The initiator broods a lot, go through life’s paces mulling alternatives, and eventually begins to let out her or his discontent. The initiator may not be able to fully articulate the major complaints with the relationship but begins to show anger, perhaps blowing up over small matters. The initiator also may show various forms of passive–aggressive pulling away behavior such as perfunctory sexual behavior or “forgetting” to wear her or his wedding ring. At some point, for some people, outside potential romantic relationships began to develop. Indeed, the appearance of potential romantic outside partners on the scene may have been the major secret that then led to other secrets such as the initiator’s making an invidious comparison between the outsider and the present partner (e.g., regarding how much easier it is to talk with the other person than it is to talk to one’s partner). The outsider is a “transitional other” with whom one may discuss the problems in one’s relationship and perhaps form some type of fledgling relationship in its own right. That is, the outside activity may involve movement toward romantic or sexual relations or flirting with a directionality toward sexual relations. In Vaughan’s sample, respondents who reported such outside activities also sometimes reported guilt, which then often led to further passive aggressive behavior toward the spouse or partner. Why? Because if one can make the partner take actions that clearly are violations of the relationship, then one’s own guilt about personal violations can be lessened. Vaughan told of a 26-year-old man, living with a woman for 4 years, whose account fit well this pattern: I could never have left Julie. She was so vulnerable, I just could not do it even though I didn’t love her anymore. But I started disappointing her in lots of ways. I realized I was becoming someone that I knew she couldn’t like. . . . (p. 101)

176

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 177

C O R R E L A T E S

A N D

C A U S E S

O F

D I S S O L U T I O N

Eventually, the partner who is being left clearly gets the message, and the conflict escalates from that point. The couple may go back and forth regarding staying (or getting back) together. But the “dye is cast” in the early going of the secrets and their related behavioral patterns. With some initiators, the “secrets” are not affairs or possible affairs, but rather other forms of discontentment. They, too, are secrets that may continue on to further secrets in the form of outside relationships.

C O R R E L AT E S A N D C A U S E S OF DISSOLUTION As suggested before and discussed more fully by Berscheid (1994), theory and research on the dissolution process and related variables has produced no certain package of factors always involved in dissolution. Rather, a “kitchen sink” of factors has emerged, as well as scores of theoretical conceptions of how they are related to dissolution. Gottman (1994, 1995) has produced some of the most coherent theory and research on dissolution. However, even his work is lacking in the prospective component mentioned before (that would involve following couples closely over time to know more precisely what is happening along the way to their demise). Later, we will describe some of Gottman’s ideas and other ideas that represent the state of the art in work in the close relationships field on dissolution. Factors that have been associated with dissolution are so numerous that no comprehensible list is possible. However, I have attempted to represent some of the most commonly theorized factors and most commonly mentioned factors when people are asked about why they ended their relationships. Table 10.1 presents this list along with portions of a list collected by Sprecher (1994) in interesting research on the “two sides” of break-up in dating relationships. In all probability, her list has relevance for committed, close, romantic relationships and marriages, as well. Other factors and sequences that have been implicated as part of the dissolution process include: 1. personality—with such variables as serious depression experienced by one of the partners, Fincham, Beach, Harold and Osborne (1997); a partner’s low self-esteem (Murray, Holmes, MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998); and neuroticism (Kurdek, 1993); 2. negative affectivity and negative reciprocity, as shown in psychological and psychophysiological measures (Gottman & Levenson, 1992; Levenson & Gottman, 1983); 3. withdrawal by the male partner followed by hostility by the female partner (Gottman, 1995); 4. demand by the female partner and withdrawal by the male partner (Christensen & Heavey, 1990); and 5. women’s greater physiological responsiveness to their male partner’s affect than to their own, with male negative behavior stimulating conflict, negative reciprocal emotions, and adverse immune functioning (Kiecolt-Glaser and colleagues, 1993, 1996).

177

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 178

1 0 .

D I S S O L U T I O N

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

TABLE 10.1 Frequently Noted Factors in Relationship Break-down and Factors Reported for Breakups of Dating Relationships • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

growing apart in attitudes and interests (or never being sufficiently similar to begin with) inability to give emotionally and be expressive of personal feelings involvement with third parties, as in affairs paying too much attention to one’s career and too little to one’s close relationship economic difficulties that stress people’s physical and psychological resources to deal with relationship issues (e.g., after Hurricane Andrew devastated Dade County, Florida, in 1992, the divorce rate jumped nearly 30%.) feeling constrained to pursue one’s career or lifetime dreams by a marriage feeling overly controlled by the other, such that people cannot be “themselves” and pursue what makes them happy physical or psychological abuse no longer being physically or sexually attracted to one’s significant other the difficulties of caring for children and how that responsibility may adversely affect relationship needs failure to understand other’s perspective and taking other for granted the weakening effect of religion on maintenance of marriage “no fault” divorce laws (that first began in California in 1969) and their role in making it easier to get a divorce and lessening the stigmatization associated with divorce

Reasons Cited by Ex-partners in Dating Relationships, with all Listed Producing Inter-couple Correlations

Reasons Referring to the Couple or Interaction • We had different interests. • We had communication problems. • We had conflicting sexual attitudes and/or problems. • We had conflicting marriage ideas. • We had different backgrounds. • We had financial problems or conflicts. • There was emotional abuse. • There was physical abuse. Reasons Referring to External Factors • We were living too far apart. Reasons Referring to Self • I was more involved than my partner. Reasons Referring to Partner • My partner desired to be independent. • My partner became bored with the relationship. Adapted from Sprecher, 1994.

178

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 179

G O T T M A N ’ S

“ L O V E

L A B ”

R E S E A R C H

In trying to pinpoint the causes of dissolution, it is most helpful to study the perceptions of both members of a relationship. My colleagues and I did that in the mid-1970s (Harvey, Wells, & Alvarez, 1978), and we were struck by both the divergence of perception that often occurs at times of major conflict and by the people’s inability to correctly perceive their partner’s understanding of what was happening. Indeed, more recent work (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe & Jacobson, 1985) has painted a clearer picture of the importance of mutual understanding, divergences in understanding, and recognition of such divergences as powerful elements in conflict and eventual separation. Often, there is a complex web of understanding surrounding a close relationship and major events in its history. Within these understandings reside much of what determines how successful the relationship becomes. Further, and as important, if couples are flexible regarding their understandings, they can better revise misperceptions and converge more in understandings of important issues that are key to whether the relationship survives (Harvey, 1987).

GOTTMAN’S “LOVE LAB” RESEARCH As previously noted, Gottman (1994, 1995) has done some of the most systematic research on relationship dissolution processes. He has invited couples to live in his “love lab,” an apartment geared for studying verbal, nonverbal, and psychophysiological responses of couples in various situations. By videotaping parts of the couples’ interaction and obtaining psychophysiological and verbal report information, Gottman claims that he can predict divorce for 90% of the couples who participate in this research. In fact, some early participants who indeed did divorce challenged him to develop intervention approaches to complement his success in predicting divorce—a challenge that Gottman and his therapist wife now have tackled with a similarly ambitious program at their Seattle Institute. Gottman’s conception of relationship conflict argues that the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”—factors so labeled because of the damage they can do to a close relationship—are the factors that often contribute to dissolution. These “Four Horsemen” are criticism, defensiveness (that includes even rehearsing defensive thoughts such as “I’m not going to take this any longer” in one’s mind), stonewalling (clamming up about hurt feelings or motivations for acts), and contempt (which can be obvious or subtle, such as a rolling of the eyes that one’s partner would not mistake for a more benign sign). In the magazine New Woman (July 1997), a wife tells about attending a workshop for couples experiencing problems held by Gottman as part of his Seattle Marital and Family Institute. The woman and her husband are in their 30s with a young child. Although the couple is quite successful overall, the relationship is showing signs of crumbling in the time devoted to one another and in the degree of distance that is intruding on the couple. The wife notes that her husband is unhappy with their sex life since the birth of their child, while she is unhappy with the husband’s lack of recognition of and empathy for her difficult job in caring for a toddler and the household. She says that they have encountered increased episodes of fighting, defensiveness, and each “leaving the field” to get away from the tense times and underlying issues. They recognize their problems, though, and have gone to Gottman’s workshop because of his reputation as a scholar and practitioner. She also notes that her husband basically is quite loving and predisposed to Gottman’s techniques that do not involve a lot of “talk therapy,” in which people discuss childhood wounds and the like.

179

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 180

1 0 .

D I S S O L U T I O N

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

She goes on to briefly outline what Gottman often asks couples to do in his controlledintervention setting, including: role-playing and games such as “Love Maps,” a board game in which couples are asked questions about their partner’s likes, dislikes, fears, and behavioral tendencies; selecting 3 adjectives from a list of 60 that best describe what a person appreciates most in his or her partner; having psychophysiological recordings of heart rate, for example, taken of each partner; and having each partner observe and listen to the other during the couple tasks. The wife–narrator notes that the games and other tasks were very helpful. For example, she says that they both learned that they knew a lot about one another’s private thoughts and feelings in the Love Maps game; they were reassured in how accurate they could be on matters that require interest in and empathy with a partner in order to learn the content of these thoughts and feelings. They also learned that their heart rate declined significantly from the beginning of the session (with the input from Gottman’s research that heart rate usually increases during fights or distancing activities). In general, although the workshop was helpful, the narrator suggests that she and her husband still have many issues to work through on their own in order to reach a point at which they could be satisfied with their attempts at renewal. Heart-rate considerations (referring more generally to physiological arousal) are important to Gottman. He recommends that during fights and tense moments couples take breaks of at least 20 minutes. Such time-out breaks allow their bodies to calm down physiologically. Gottman emphasizes that time-outs should not be used to rehearse how one will “get back at” a partner or counter a partner’s earlier points. Gottman believes that a heart rate of less than 95 beats per minute is optimal for these relationship interactions. Other central ideas in Gottman’s approach are the following: 1. Early in their relationships (as newlyweds, for example), couples should “take no guff” from one another. This early interaction pattern is believed to set the tone for the long haul of the relationship. 2. Couples should know how to get out of highly distressful episodes. Couples can exit and maneuver by changing the topic, gossiping about other couples, using humor, stroking the partner with a caring, loving remark, backing down, noting the common ground that underlies their positions, and in general showing by comments and nonverbal signals that one respects and cares for one’s partner and his or her viewpoint. 3. Couples should focus on the positive in interactions; Gottman believes that happy couples make five times as many positive statements to and about each other and their relationship than negative statements. 4. Overall, Gottman emphasizes the countless small acts that establish the climate of a relationship that matter most—not necessarily the specific acts taken during times of conflict. These small and sometimes barely discernible acts (e.g., acknowledging what a partner has said, making eye contact that reflects attention and care in conversation) go a long way toward creating a savings account of good will that then will serve the couple well in difficult times. More recently, Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and Swanson (1998) compared several models of predicting marital happiness among newlyweds and concluded that most couples who

180

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 181

W H O

I S

M O S T

O R

L E A S T

D I S T R E S S E D

are most satisfied figure out a way to gently raise issues, complain, fight, and de-escalate negativity that so often builds up in conflict. Based on their research with 130 newlywed (within the last 6 months) couples, they also indicate that the relationship interaction is the most satisfying when the husband learns to accept influence from his wife (who in effect has a better sense of relationship balance—an idea that Jesse Bernard, among others, suggested years ago). In making this proposal, Gottman and colleagues take issue with a wellrecognized model for treating conflicted couples proposed by Jacobson and Christensen (1996) involving acceptance therapy. Acceptance therapy emphasizes empathy and active listening. Gottman et al. interpret their own data as not supporting this empathy—active listening approach. They suggest that acceptance therapy involves more potential confrontation than the couple can assimilate. They propose a model of gentleness, soothing, and de-escalation of negativity; in their suggested pattern for de-escalation, negativity by one spouse is followed by neutral affect by the other. They conclude by suggesting that the therapist concentrate on the husband, mainly in trying to induce him to de-escalate his negative affectivity.

THE QUESTION OF WHO IS MOST OR LEAST DISTRESSED Vaughan (1986) analyzed evidence so as to make much of who appeared to initiate the breakup. The initiator clearly was the person in charge of the events unfolding. This person also was the person feeling the best about what was happening—maybe not super happy, but glad that soon she or he would be free. This person was already beginning to undergo the necessary identity transformation from that of being in a couple to being single, or perhaps a member of a different coupling. The initiator also tended to make these further moves toward what Erving Goffman (1959) once called “cooling the mark” (i.e., roughly defined as getting the person who has been exploited in some way to calm down and not take unkindly to what has happened): 1. focusing on the negative qualities of the partner; 2. indicating a belief that the relationship was unsavable from some earlier point to the present; 3. trying to convince the partner that the relationship was/is unsavable; 4. telling other people the story of the demise of the relationship—making it public, thus strengthen one’s commitment to the ending; 5. possibly seeking transitional other (s); and 6. beginning the process of grieving or mourning. Each of us who has been in a long-term relationship likely will mourn its loss. Initiators just start sooner according to Vaughan. On the other hand, Vaughan found that the person being left often was “out in the cold without a clue” from the start. This person’s life was caving in, and she or he really did not understand why. Many of us have been in this position. It is one of life’s worst conditions because we feel that we have no control over something that meant a great deal to us—the other’s feelings toward and decisions about us. What we often do in such

181

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 182

1 0 .

D I S S O L U T I O N

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

situations is make it worse. We get angry and tell the person to be gone right away; then we apologize and plead for the person to come back; then we waiver in our statements between bravado and pitifulness. The truth is we often are out of control. The control is sitting there in the other’s hands and being enhanced as we flail against the odds that the relationship was over sometime back when our partner developed the secret that he or she wanted out. We may start to analyze and recognize aspects of the relationship as reflecting that development. Yet, that does not make us any happier. We still are losing, pardon the metaphor, our right arm, and there is no way to sew it back on. We feel abandoned to whom we were strongly attached. Robert Weiss (1975, Marital Separation) in his classic study of separating and recently divorced people defined separation distress as, “. . . a response to intolerable inaccessibility of the attachment figure” (p. 42). Sure, if the person who initiates the breakup is clearly apparent to friends and family, that person may catch more heat about why the relationship has to end. Compared to the one being left, the initiator has a great head-start toward restoring self, establishing a new identity, gaining control over his or her life, and developing a new close relationship. Does it follow, then, that we who worry about whether our relationships will end should be “quick draws” in deciding whether we get out first? No. A more rational style of relating is mutual retreat, if that must happen. A couple who discusses their relationship issues generously and regularly can more likely achieve mutual initiation than can a couple who cannot freely and regularly discuss these issues. It should be clear from the reiteration of Vaughan’s findings about the initiator that his or her aim at a certain point is to “cover one’s butt.” There is a lot of defensiveness on display. The initiator is not necessarily being morally wrong in this approach. However, the behavior will hurt the other to a degree that is unnecessary if a more open style of relating is adopted early on. And if it could not be adopted, why was the relationship pursued further in the first place? Vaughan’s strong emphasis on initiator versus the person being left probably does not do justice to the complexity of many endings. As Weiss (1975) eloquently argued, based on his interviews with individuals in the organization “Parents without Partners,” the matter of who actually got the dissolution ball rolling usually is a complicated matter: There do seem to be differences in the impact of separation on those who define themselves as leavers and those who define as left, but the differences seem to be more nearly in the character of the resultant distress than it its intensity [meaning that each will suffer more or less to the same degree]. “In most separations . . . [the] marriage became intolerable for both partners; somehow one partner rather than the other decided finally to call it quits. Sometimes husband and wife alternated in the initiation of preliminary separations. . . . Sometimes a spouse who had been unwilling to accept responsibility for ending the marriage behaved so outrageously that the other spouse could not go on with it. And sometimes a husband or wife who had insisted on separation later had a change of heart and wanted to become reconciled, but the other spouse now refused. In all these circumstances the identification of the one spouse as leaver and the other as left oversimplifies a complex interactive process. (p. 63) Weiss went on to note that when there is a more clear-cut leaver versus left in the breakdown sequence, the leaver may have some advantages but also incurs some major costs. 182

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 183

A F F A I R S ,

A D U L T E R Y ,

A N D

B E T R A Y A L

Chief among those costs in Weiss’s sample was that of guilt. He found that such individuals may have experienced harsh reactions from outsiders such as friends of the couple. Further, the leaver sometimes started to question his or her own ability to stick to a commitment and to meet the other’s emotional needs. It should be remembered that Weiss’ evidence came from the early 1970s, a time when the stigma of leaving another person in a marriage, at least, likely was more substantial than it has become over the last 2 decades as separations have become so commonplace. Chip Brown writing in the January, 1993, issue of Glamour magazine provided another interesting perspective on who experiences the most distress when a close relationship ends. He said: . . . as there are two roles in any breakup—the passive part of the one who is left and the active part of the one who leaves—so there are two sorts of accompanying pain: the agony of loss and the distress of guilt and doubt. And in the long run, the first may be easier to bear. Here, I think, is why: The pain of loss heals more quickly and completely than the pain of guilt and doubt does. Loss is loss. When someone leaves you, however much it hurts, nothing’s to be done but endure it; once you accept that you have no control and can only embrace what’s inevitable, you can go on. Guilt and doubt, on the other hand, have a tendency to fester. You look at yourself in the mirror and see the agent of someone’s unhappiness: Was it worth it? Did you make the right choice? Were you being selfish? Will you regret your decision one day in the future and have no one to blame but yourself? (p. 163) Brown went on to note that he had learned to be less consumed by the need for control in his close relationships and to disagree with W. H. Auden’s line, “If equal affection cannot be, let the more loved one be me.” Brown noted that there is much irony in loving and losing: The person who takes the bigger chance by loving too much or too quickly, and who then experiences great heartache if the relationship ends, may learn much from this experience and later may attain considerable tranquility about the ending. Whereas the person who is more reserved about giving love and who moves first to end the relationship may learn little and be beset with the “drip, drip, drip of regret and doubt” (p. 180).

A F FA I R S , A D U LT E R Y, A N D B E T R AYA L A full chapter could be committed to this important topic. We already have seen in the previous chapter that much of the violence perpetrated by one human being toward another is directly related in close relationship conflict and embitteredness. People have a tendency to get themselves caught up in complicated love dramas that often have tragic, longlasting results, especially when there are victims (as there usually are) who feel cheated and betrayed. Headlines such as the following are common: Love Triangle Ends in Death Wittenberg, Wis.—Pretty and smart, Lori Esker was class president when she was in high school. But friends say she was devastated when her romance with a handsome young farmer broke up. 183

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 184

1 0 .

D I S S O L U T I O N

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

Now she’s in jail, accused of strangling the woman he planned to marry. (October 4, 1989, article in Iowa City Press-Citizen) All available evidence suggests that affairs and adultery are very common in our world. They have been well-studied in the literature of marriage and divorce (e.g., Hunt, 1966). For centuries, men have been the primary instigators of affairs. They still may have a lead over women in this area, but the difference between the sexes apparently is becoming smaller. The data on the extent to which affairs occur during marriage varies and are subject to respondents’ trying to give researchers what they think they want to hear—or simply the tendency to exaggerate/downplay behavior that may or may not be construed as involving an affair. For example, does an affair always involve sexual intercourse? Probably not, emotional involvement, lusting, and passionate embrace over a period of time with a partner outside the primary relationship likely would be seen as constituting an affair. Or, a couple might have a stumbling, halting experience of sexual intercourse on one brief occasion, but never again engage in sexual or emotional sharing. Is it not possible that such a one-instance that was not taken with any gusto would not be seen as involving a full-blown affair to some? So, as with other forms of sexual and related behavior, we at least need to be careful regarding what it is we are talking about when we say a couple is having an affair. In general, though, the best statistics we have show a rather high percentage of men and women participating in affairs. For example, in a 10-year study of 600 adults, married or living together, Lawson (1988) found that men still cheat more than women. She found that while 25% of the women had as many as four affairs, 40% of the men had as many as four. But the women are coming up in the percentages. Sixty-six percent of the women and 68% of the men in first marriages had at least one affair. Lawson’s figures are high in light of typical estimates—with the percentage of women having affairs generally estimated to be between 25 to 50%, and between 50 to 65% for men. Also, given that Lawson’s data were collected before the AIDS epidemic became such a salient factor in sexual liaisons, her data also may be somewhat inflated beyond what one would find in the 1990s. Nonetheless, whatever percentages one uses, affairs are common whether in marriage or in close relationships that do not involve marriage. When do affairs occur? Whereas affairs may occur at any point during an ongoing close relationship, they are more likely to happen at watershed points, both in the history of the couple and in the individual’s own history. Such points would include: the so-called “7-year itch” time. This maxim suggests that after a period of marriage or close relating that is quite significant, then one or both partners may begin to consider the “green grass” just outside the fence and may begin to stray at that point. Usually, relatively young married people in their late 20s or early 30s must endure this “itch” period. Another major watershed is the individual’s reaching what he or she perceives to be mid-life, anywhere from 30 to 60 seems to cover this period. If one has been married/close relating for a long time but is unhappy at that point, affairs become more likely to move from the imagery of the mind to the actual occurrence of behavior. Even people in relatively happy relationships may be more prone to consider an affair then, than at some other personal historical moment. Finally, it appears that affairs are not as likely to happen when people are having a difficult time battling outside forces such as the duress experienced for many in trying to make a living or in battling health problems. Ironically, it often is after a couple has

184

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 185

A F F A I R S ,

A D U L T E R Y ,

A N D

B E T R A Y A L

succeeded in a major battle with such an outside force that an affair begins then in the security and presumed comfort of a more tranquil time (Pittman, 1990). Why do people have affairs? There is a typical laundry list that includes: revenge toward one’s partner for some alleged wrongdoing, including his/her affair; boredom with the primary sexual relationship; frustration/deprivation with the primary sexual relationship; curiosity; feeling self-esteem enhancement, or more attractive, masculine, and so forth, because of the other’s desire for you. These are just reasons that get mixed with the many complex details of a particular love or lust story. As has been emphasized before, they may be more excuses than true causes. But they are there in the causal repertoire, nonetheless, and must be accorded stature when we try to understand how people think and feel in these situations. Sociologists, historians, and demographers (e.g., Bailey, 1988; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983) often have emphasized the role of women’s greater involvement in the workplace, especially during World War II, as a key historical event in the evolution of a high incidence of affairs in the United States. The idea was that women, like men before them, would sometimes conclude that they desired more freedom of sexual behavior, as well as the other freedoms they had struggled to attain (Ehrenreich et al., 1986). Shirley Barnes, in a 1999 article in the Chicago Tribune (“Married for Keeps,” “Family” section, pp. C1 & C4, August 8, 1999), interviewed several therapists who indicated that they are increasingly seeing clients who began affairs in the workplace. They suggested that many people are unaware of the need for boundaries at the office and that physical touch and warm physical gestures can be readily interpreted as desire for intimacy and lead to work colleagues to slide into more significant forms of affection. This line of behavior may occur at times when people are spending considerable time at work, home is associated with kids, their needs, and various domestic duties, and spouses are taken for granted. Many people who write in to Cheryl Lavin’s “Tales from the Front” column in the Chicago Tribune address hurt related to affairs: Ray: “I told my wife I forgave her, but I haven’t. Behind every word I say to her is another one: ‘Why’?” Sarah: “My husband cheated on me two years ago, but the hurt never goes away. It’s like my insides dies. . . . I can’t wait until we’re both 85 so then maybe I can relax in our marriage.” (November 19, 1988, “Tempo” Section) At issue in the continuing hurt is perception of other’s trustworthiness. It may have been permanently damaged. As one woman reported in a USA Today survey of readers’ experiences with affairs: My husband had an affair nine years ago, for about six months, after my first child was born. I can’t trust him anymore. I am worried sick whenever he is late from work. (woman 34, reported in USA Today, November 1, 1988) People often cannot anticipate how hard they will take the discovery of an affair by their close other (Kayser, 1994). They sometimes may have pushed the other toward having an affair, often in the context of guilt because they have had, or are having, an affair. Then, when their close other’s affair becomes known to them, they may fly into a rage and/or become depressed to an all-time low in their psychic existence. Why is their reaction so extreme? For men, it may be a wired difference as Buss (1994) suggests. Or, there

185

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 186

1 0 .

D I S S O L U T I O N

O F

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

may be a socially scripted role for such situations to not be able to forgive their partners for such engagements—even if they themselves have previously had affairs. For both women and men, it is probable that they underestimate the extent to which their emotions may take over during this period and blunt out any kind of rational reasoning (Gottman, 1994; Kiecolt-Glaser and colleagues, 1993, 1996). Feelings of betrayal often are associated with the finding out about affairs. Jones and Burdette (1994) have argued there are numerous types of betrayal in close relationships, with affairs and adultery representing one major class of such betrayals. In general, perceived violations of relationship understandings are seen as betrayals and may involve a continuum of types of behavior, from making fun of one’s partner in front of others at a party to plotting to put a murder contract out on one’s partner. Finally, are there words of wisdom to share regarding those who want to learn from or heal from affairs? For the person starting an affair, beware! As Rothman (1991) noted, that person should keep in mind that his or her new affair may be subject to the same rules of deterioration that dimmed the flame of the primary relationship. “One day, your new lover will also be boringly familiar—that is, if you stay together long enough” (Rothman, 1991, p. 109). Rothman also raises the specter of if you end up marrying your new lover, why should he or she believe that you will be trustworthy—or vice versa? That surely is a daunting question for newly bonded people who get together in an affair. We should not be too moralistic, however, as the outward strain toward other people simply is intrinsic to the human condition. People want to “affair-proof ” their marriages and close, romantic relationships. However, there likely is no way, other than continued work to make one’s primary relationship stronger. The imagery of “green grass” on the other side likely be part of our mental makeup to our dying day.

THE GOOD DIVORCE AND D I V O R C E M E D I AT I O N Although there may be no such thing as a “good divorce,” Ahrons (1994) made a strong case for beginning to see divorce as normal in our society and determining how to make it a better outcome, especially for any children involved. Ahrons argued that families with children continue to be families even after divorce. She interviewed divorced couples who had developed into what she referred to as “cooperative colleagues” who were continuing with effective parenting and related family activities, even while establishing new relationships and families. She argued that as a society we should not treat divorce as failure, or divorced people as deviant. Ahrons’ work is reinforced by a study of 100 divorcing families by Stewart, Copeland, Chester, Malley, and Barenbaum (1997). They also argued that conceptions of divorce in the minds of many people (including therapists) are too negative and that couples can develop the perspective and means to cooperate in the divorcing process and later coparenting of children. They emphasized positive transformations of the family after divorce and suggested that families always have some type of transformation ongoing. Stewart et al. found that such variables as openness to feedback, material resources, regular routines, safety insurance, and cooperation in planning facilitated the coparenting process and the resulting positive growth of children.

186

01-070 C10 pp2 9/13/01 2:01 PM Page 187

C O N C L U S I O N S :

D I S S O L U T I O N

A N D

D I V O R C E

Central to the good divorce is cooperation at the time of separation regarding custody of children and division of resources. Mediation is a short-term, problem-focused intervention carried out by psychologists, attorneys, and others (who may be certified by the state in which the mediation occurs) that can greatly assist a divorcing family in equitably separating resources and planning for the future (Emery, 1994). Mediation concerns mainly how to farily separate material resources, although it can address custody and other issues. Unlike therapy, the mediator may establish firm limits regarding the exploration of emotional issues. Mediation is a step that can contribute much to the good divorce and lessened feelings of hostility and regret in the long run.

CONCLUSIONS: THE FUTURE OF DISSOLUTION AND DIVORCE Unfortunately, no highly optimistic script can be written in the early 21st century for the future of divorce and dissolution. The evidence about the incidence of divorce suggests that no diminution of the high divorce rate of recent decades is on the horizon for the near future. Now, second and later marriages are more apt not to continue than has been true at any point in history. All of the factors that we recognize as potent in contributing to divorce and dissolution still are operative. Further, other factors such as those associated with economic difficulties likely also will contribute to dissolution trends. People may be frustrated with their work opportunities, or the lack thereof; they may move frequently to find work and may even leave their families behind to try to improve their work opportunities. In terms of education, due to the influence of university classes, intense coverage in the media, and word of mouth, people beginning in their teens are increasingly aware of problems associated with close relationships and marriage. Throughout the last 2 decades, there has been a call for enhanced education on relationship functioning beginning at early adolescence (Harvey, 1995) and on how personal growth needs to accompany relationship growth (Jacobsen & Christensen, 1996). Another positive thread in this picture is the greater sophistication of the American society (and people in the Western world in general) in dealing with close relationship loss. We have more support groups and counseling services available than ever before. These support activities stretch across socioeconomic levels. Divorce, separation, and death support groups such as “Parents Without Partners” that was established in 1957 and that now has over 250,000 members, contribute greatly to addressing people’s social and practical problems. The Internet is loaded with support/complaint web sites regarding nuances of dissolution. These support group activities do not make the hurt and damage go away, but they do allow the individual to vent and confide his or her hurt and to learn from and be supported by others who have survived similar circumstances.

187

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 189

11 GRIEF AND RECOVERY Dear Mom, It has been 10 years since you and dad divorced. I used to think why after all these years would I begin to tell you how I feel about the divorce. . . . I was old enough to realize that you two weren’t happy together, but the divorce and move seemed to happen so quickly. I felt one day I was excited to begin jr. high with my friends, and the next to be boxing up stuff and moving. . . I wish now that I would have had a little more guidance. . . The divorce made me grow up fast, almost too fast. I was bitter for a long time for having to work so much during high school and not having the opportunity to be a “normal” kid. . . I am grateful that you and dad remain friends and that you never talked negative about him. . . I have learned a lot from your divorce and I realize now that I am normal for still being affected by the divorce 10 years down the road . . . —21-year-old female student in the first author’s loss and trauma class, letter as part of a class journal on loss, used with writer’s permission

These excerpts from a letter by a daughter to a mother about the mother’s divorce a decade earlier gives a glimpse of the profound loss experience many children of divorce feel, sometimes for much of their lives from the point at which the divorce occurs. This chapter is about grief. Many books on close relationships may cover the material of this chapter in their treatment of divorce and dissolution. The reader already will have seen part of the lead-in to our discussion of grieving in chapter 10 on dissolution. The present chapter is about the aftermath of dissolution, the grief that a person experiences in the loss by death or relationship dissolution of a loved one, and recovery from such a loss. Are not death and dissolution quite different experiences—replete with different psychological dynamics? Often, they are. Death brings with it a finality that dissolution may not bring, as ex-partners often continue to argue about custody of children and other matters. The finality of death may ultimately be a relief to the mourner, especially if there was suffering in the end or the possibility of a long period of decline in the quality of life for the person who is ill. It also may create angst if the mourner feels that there was much unfinished business between her or him and the person who died. Dissolution, on the other hand, may have finality as when partners split never to interact again. An assumption of this chapter is that although divorce and dissolution may be different in many ways, the death of a loved one and the dissolution of a very important close relationship share much in the extent to which a profound grief occurs. If the mourner is to successfully deal with either experience, it is essential that he or she confront the loss and diligently work toward adaptation to the new realities it has created. The first order of business is to present our model of dealing with major losses. As teachers and researchers both of relationship and loss phenomena, we have used this

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 190

1 1 .

G R I E F

A N D

R E C O V E R Y

account-making and confiding model of coping with severe stressors with great success for over 2 decades. It was reported first by Harvey and Weber and colleagues (1986) and then more fully by Harvey, Weber, and Orbuch (1990) and Orbuck (1997).

A N A C C O U N T- M A K I N G - C O N F I D I N G M O D E L I N C O P I N G W I T H L O S T R E L AT I O N S H I P S Figure 11.1 presents a model for dealing with major losses, including dissolution and death of a close other. It is an idealized model in the sense that not all people, by any means, go through each of the stages proposed, nor do those who do go through many of the stages necessarily go through them in the order proposed. Nevertheless, such a model is important because it shows common reactions, and this model has proven useful to many people dealing with significant loss (Harvey, 1996, 2000). This model is discussed in some detail in Harvey, Weber, and Orbuch (1990) and was initially developed as a revision of a model proposed by Horowitz (1976). The steps in this model are described in the following sections.

E A R LY R E A C T I O N S T O L O S S : S H O C K , NUMBING, OUTCRYING As can be seen from Figure 11.1, the early typical reactions to a major loss include the initial shock, being numbed, an outcry for help, and possibly a period of denial and intrusion of thoughts and images about the loss. People often say they cannot believe the loved one is gone. They cannot sleep at night, or their sleep is fitful—filled with shreds of dream-like images of the beloved one. In this state, their minds appear to be fighting against the inevitability of the loss. During the day, they frequently experience flashbacks of images of the loved one and regret that they did not have enough time with him or her, or that some important personal communication with the loved one did not occur—that is, there was unfinished business usually regarding some past event in which there was a major problem between them. This early period may last for days, weeks, or months; if it goes on for years, the grieving person likely needs to seek professional help. The numbing of the mind during the early phase is a natural occurrence. It is as if the mind and one’s total self are programmed to shut down (possibly with the aid of tranquilizers) for a period to let the loss sink in (Raphael, 1983). Then, the next steps in grieving can occur. An experience that is related to the outcry is that of yearning and a literal searching for the beloved. Parkes (1970) identified these elements of the yearning and searching: • restless moving about and scanning the environment • thinking intensely about the lost person • developing a perceptual set for the person, namely a disposition to perceive and to pay attention to any stimuli that suggest the presence of the person and to ignore all those that are not relevant to this aim • directing attention towards those parts of the environment in which the person is likely to be found • calling for the lost person

190

191

Intrusion Intensified accountmaking

Working Through

Completion

Identity Change Behavioral expectations in line with account

If result is positive (e.g., confiding to caring, empathic, helpful others), go on to further account-making and confiding toward others

Completion of story Acceptance Filing away mentally without great anguish Possession of coping skills Enhanced mental and physical health (enhanced feeling of controllability)

End

Psychosomatic response (e.g., hypertension)

Failure to Work Through

Prolonged grief/anxiety Difficulty coping with current or future loss

Failure to Complete

Repetition of stress Maladaptive response pattern

Failure to Learn/Adapt

Possible Negative Consequences of Failure to Engage in Account-Making During Later Stages of Sequence

Early Attempts At Confiding

Middle Continued/ initial accountmaking involving flooded states (distraction, obsessive reviews)

If result is not positive (e.g. confiding attempt is not received with empathy and caring by others) may retreat to earlier stage, especially that of avoidance or denial

Denial Early stage of account-making possibly involving escapism (avoidance, isolation)

Outcry

Involving emotion, expression (panic, exhaustion, despair, hopelessness)

Start

Copyright 2000 from Give Sorrow Words by J. H. Harvey. Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis, Inc. http://www.routledge-ny.com

Involving shock (feeling overwhelmed, numb)

Traumatic Event

Sequence

FIG. 11.1 Revision of model in Harvey, Weber, and Orbuch (1990).

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 191

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 192

1 1 .

G R I E F

A N D

R E C O V E R Y

These observations by Parkes about one’s compulsive yearning for the lost love refer to daunting moments that have been manifest on several occasions in my life. They have etched themselves in my memory both in times of loss by death of close others and dissolution of close relationships. They are dark, frightening moments that once gone, you never want to return. But you know they will. Loss will recur. It is simply the scheme of things. Raphael (1983) reviewed evidence suggesting that continued intense bereavement may be fatal. It has been found, for example, that there is an increase of almost 40% in the death rate of widowers over the age of 54 during the first 6 months of bereavement. Suicide is also a hazard during this early period for the deeply grieving person. Raphael reported national data suggesting that the suicide rate among a large sample of widows and widowers was 2.5 times higher in the first 6 months after the loss than in the fourth and subsequent years. Thus, it is critical that the person who loses a close other soon in the grieving process begin confronting the loss. We treat that process in-depth later.

INTRUSION OF IMAGES AND THOUGHTS The experience of intrusion of images of and thoughts about one’s lost other is illustrated in the following excerpt from an article about former basketball coach at the University of Illinois, Lou Henson whose son, in his late 20s, was killed in an automobile accident in late 1992: Last Thursday afternoon in Evanston, a few hours before his Illinois team played Northwestern, Lou Henson picked up a program to examine the Wildcats’ roster. His veteran coach’s eyes are trained to look for heights, weights and experience, the critical basketball facts. But as Henson scanned the lineup he couldn’t help notice that forward Cedric Neloms was born on Nov. 20, 1972. Nov. 20. The date stopped Henson cold. That’s the date, seven weeks ago, that Henson’s son, Lou Henson Jr., died in a car crash on a highway not far from his parents’ Champaign home. “It just popped out at me,” Henson said. “Things like that come up all the time.” It comes up every Wednesday night, for that was the day of the week that the younger Henson made his home coaching debut at Champaign’s Parkland College. It comes up late every Friday night, for that is when the younger Henson crashed his car. It comes up at 2 a.m. every Saturday—when Henson may still be up watching a tape of an opponent—for that is when the knock came on the door of the Henson’s house. (Chicago Tribune, January 11, 1993, Section 3, p. 1, article by Andrew Bagnato, “Henson fights grief by looking to No. 600”) Lou Henson is not alone in being unable to run away from these intrusive symbols of the loss of someone so close. He likely will experience these intrusions and even voluntarily reflect on such images and ideas about his son till he himself dies. That is one of the greatest curses of the human mind and memory. Is intrusion, or voluntary reminiscing, detrimental to the grieving process? No, though it may forever bring with it a feeling of regret and pain. A Holocaust survivor, now in midlife, said about the constancy of intrusion of thoughts of the horrors of losing his relatives and friends and fleeing the Nazis as a 13-year-old in Germany: “I dream about it. I think 192

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 193

T H E

W O R K I N G - T H R O U G H

P R O C E S S

about it, day or night . . . It is always with me” (Winter, 1992, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Newsletter, p. 2, comment by Arnold Lorber). Reminiscence is a most private form of mental/emotional activity and occurs mainly when we are alone—and we need to seek out times to be alone to allow it to occur. Neeld (1990) suggested that reminiscence allows us to maintain an inventory of the key images of ourselves from the past and, therefore, permits us to keep a thread of continuity among them. She further contended that reminiscence helps us realize that the past has not disappeared and to develop goals for the future in light of past events.

THE WORKING-THROUGH PROCESS “Your glory is your story.” (Franklin Greenwald [1991] Greeting Card) It can be seen in the previous model that two of the most central ways of dealing with major loss are engaging in the activities of account-making and confiding in close others about the loss. Together, these activities perform the critical working through and completion of the grief process. Let us now summarize briefly each of these concepts.

The Account Accounts are people’s constructions of stories, or narratives, about important aspects of their lives, such as their major losses and successes (Harvey et al., 1990). Accounts usually contain the account-maker’s understanding of the beginning, middle, and end of some event or sequence of events. They also frequently contain a set of actors, acts, and behind the scenes activities. So, in a sense, an account is like a theatrical production—with front stage, back stage, actors, lines, and so on. But, make no mistake about it, the theatrical production created in one’s account usually is a drama—that is meaningful as life itself. We have as many accounts as we have major events that require our understanding. We may work on these accounts for years, and still they likely will remain incomplete— perhaps waiting for a last significant bit of the puzzle of why something happened to fall into place before we die. We often work on our accounts in our minds, privately.

Confiding People frequently communicate parts of their accounts to others, to gain their perspective, present ourselves in a certain light to them, or simply share our experience with them (Bochner, Ellis, & Tillman 1997). This part of the adaptation to loss process is as crucial as is the making and reviewing of the account in one’s own mind, and perhaps one’s record or diary. The social interaction process involved in confiding can be a healing process independent of what is said and done. These other key persons in whom we confide are our confidants. They usually are our closest friends, or soul mates. They are people whom we trust and whose shoulder or ear we value. The process of sharing parts of our accounts is called confiding (Harvey et al., 1990). It has been repeatedly found that people are quite vulnerable human beings if, at times of major loss, they do not have confidants in their lives (Harvey et al., 1992). How important is a good confidant to us in our day-to-day lives? Probably there is no form of human social contact that is more facilitative of nurturing and healing than is the 193

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 194

1 1 .

G R I E F

A N D

R E C O V E R Y

act of confiding. (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis (1993). The act, however, cannot be directed toward just anybody. Sometimes we confide in professional counselors or ministers. That step may serve the purpose of confiding. Yet, the true friend on whom we can depend to care and listen with patience and offer advice or input, if desired, is likely to be more durably invaluable as a support for most people. In the sanctity of a confiding friendship, souls can be bared and healing and nurturing can be found. Neeld (1990) suggested that the type of confiding interaction that is most helpful after a major loss focuses on problem solving—especially after the grieving person has had sufficient time in the beginning to experience catharsis (i.e., a purging of the emotions) and cry out about the loss. She emphasized the value of confidants who understand the necessity for change and even some risk-taking, and who know that progress will not occur in a smooth, straight line. The concept of working through presented in Figure 11.1 refers to the more specific acts of account-making and confiding to try to understand and cope. Completion refers to the state of feeling that one’s understanding is relatively complete—you understand the event or events as best you can and are ready to suspend, for the present at least, the quest to understand further. The final stage of identity change will be expanded upon later, but it should be noted that it is based on the belief that we often will change our selves in dramatic ways when we suffer great loss.

“Opening Up” James Pennebaker (1990) has written an important book entitled Opening Up, that documents many negative psychological and physical effects associated with the failure to confront one’s pain, hurt, and confusion resulting from vital losses and transforming experiences in our lives. Opening up is a lot like working through, and emphasizes the value of confiding behavior. In Pennebaker’s conception, it is imperative that people examine carefully their motives and logic in selecting a confidant and in carrying out extended confiding. Too much self-disclosure may overburden the confidant. Further, Pennebaker noted that the confidant must be careful lest the discloser’s problems be internalized and also become those of the confidant. Pennebaker had some quite specific advice to offer those who have experienced romantic breakups. He suggested that the psychological time span both for romantic love and grief shows periods of intensity, plateau, and assimilation. He also suggested that the course for grieving after a breakup runs approximately 18 months, give or take a few months depending on individual factors. Compared to Pennebaker’s (1990) position, the account-making–confiding model (Harvey et al., 1990) gives more emphasis to the contents of confiding and to the value of private reflection (often in the form of account-making) that forms a foundation for the confiding acts. Also, research evidence does not support a specific length of time for adaptation to major loss. In fact, many people may be affected by their losses and work on them for a lifetime after the losses occur. What has been shown is that grief and adaptation are highly variable across people and situations. In addressing how long one should grieve, several scholars, including Raphael (1983) and Wortman and Silver (1989), have suggested that there is no fixed endpoint of mourning during the first or even second year. There may be many endpoints in the mourning process, as the mourning person cycles and recycles, sometimes, through his or her idiosyncratic grieving process.

194

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 195

G R I E V I N G

P R O C E S S

A N D

N A T U R E

O F

L O S S

O b s e s s i n g A b o u t Ve r s u s C o n f r o n t i n g a L o s s Another program of work in this area of loss that bears considerable similarity to Pennebaker’s research has been carried out by Wegner (see Wegner & Wheatley, 1999, for a recent review). Wegner is a student of social memory and has made particularly important contributions to our understanding of obsessive memory. Obsessive memory is like rumination about a lost love. In this type of memory, we cannot get the lost other out of our minds. For example, a man who has been suddenly and unexpectedly left by a woman after a long-term close relationship for months may find himself musing about why she left him and thinking of her possibly in her new love relationship. However much he knows that he has to move beyond her, he may feel compelled to entertain these thoughts and continually slip back to them when he is not alert to how near they are to his mental consciousness. Wegner (1989) claimed that one of the contributors to such rumination is thought suppression. That is, people shunt aside an unwanted thought, but the thought does not go away. Wegner argued that thought suppression only worked for a short period. He contended that the key to eliminating such thought processes is habituation. Wegner reasoned that by refusing to think about the failed love, people prevent themselves from getting used to the idea. Thus, his recommendation is that every time the painful memory resurfaces, instead of suppressing it, the individual should think hard about the lost love. Try to come to grips with the pain of dashed expectation and disappointment. Go ahead and get obsessed. Do it “big-time” and by so doing, it will start to diminish itself—or so argued Wegner. He stated that by dealing with the idea openly over a period of time, the idea (i.e., that you have lost her/him) will start to lose its grip on you, or its mystique. It may even become boring, but whatever the reaction, you will get used to it. Wegner (1994, 1997) refers to this approach to dealing with obsession “ironic processes of mental control.”

THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE GRIEVING PROCESS AND THE R E L AT I V E N AT U R E O F L O S S The life story of every human being is a variation on the theme of loss through death—of every pet, every friend, every loved one, until, sooner or later, the self, too, is taken. —Herbert and Kay Kramer, Conversations at Midnight, (1993, Morrow), partly a journal of thoughts kept by Herbert Kramer in his final year of life No doubt, the loss of our closest others is the greatest loss we can endure, whether that loss is by death, divorce, or nonmarital dissolution. Such a loss probably is more imposing to our minds than losses we will experience with and about ourselves, such as the loss of health or failure in some important endeavor or rejections by others. As the poets often have observed, even our own death inspires less fear and trepidation in most of us than does the prospect of losing those on whom we depend most for our nurturing and will to live. Frankl (1959), in his gripping depiction of how people tried to cling to life in Nazi concentration camps, told of how he was able to endure, to some high degree, by thinking

195

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 196

1 1 .

G R I E F

A N D

R E C O V E R Y

of past loving scenes between him and his dear wife—whom he did not know at that time already had been killed by the Nazis. Frankl’s book reinforces the idea that to write about one’s loss is to take an important step to recover from that loss. There are many other examples of such writings, some of which are described in this chapter. One of the most touching may be found in C. S. Lewis’ (1961) A Grief Observed. In this little volume, Lewis presented his notes written in the aftermath of the death of his wife after a 4-year marriage. His marriage to his wife, Joy Davidman, a poet, was particularly satisfying, with both persons being highly devoted to one another and feeling blessed because they still were in pain from former marriages. As one reviewer said, “The author has done something I had believed impossible—assuaged his own grief by conveying it . . . “ (Anne Freemantle, forward to A Grief Observed). Lewis said about his wife, “Her absence is like the sky, spread over everything” (p. 11). He said about their happiness in the context of her dying hours: “It is incredible how much happiness, even how much gaiety, we sometimes had together after all hope was gone. How long, how tranquilly, how nourishingly, we talked together that last night!” (p. 13). Lewis also offered the following insight that is telling about how others may react to one who is in mourning from losing a loved one: “To some I’m worse than an embarrassment. I am a death’s head. Whenever I meet a happily married pair I can feel them both thinking, ‘One or other of us must some day be as he is now’” (p. 11).

I N T H E A F T E R M AT H O F DIVORCE/DISSOLUTION One of the most salient effects of the onslaught of divorce in the United States is that divorced people are staying single in larger numbers and for longer periods than ever before. Census Bureau statistics indicate that for people in the middle-age years between 40 and 54, about 1.5 million were divorced and still unmarried in 1970 (see Amato & Booth, 1997). By 1991, that figure had risen to 6.1 million (3.6 million women and 2.5 million men). The number of divorced and remaining single people is rising because of a number of factors. For women, one well-publicized demographic factor is that there likely are fewer men eligible for marriage from the age of 40 and up than there are women who are eligible. On the average, women outlive men by a little less than a decade. More men are incarcerated than are women. Other reasons for women staying single in their middle-aged years are more social psychological in nature. Women frequently have well-established and nurturing social support networks of confidants and friends (Matthews, 1986). These networks buffer them from some of the adverse effects of single life, such as the brooding loneliness that sometimes affects men who become single during this stage of life. Women are more independent financially now than they were 2 decades ago. They often can support themselves in this passage without assistance from a man and his resources. Women also do not define themselves in terms of their husband’s career and values in the same way that they did in the past. Psychologically, one of the most important reasons for women’s staying single is their desire for freedom. As one 50-year-old woman recently said after her divorce, “I could do anything I wanted for the first time in my life . . . It was so good feeling free” (told to Jane Gross in an article in the Chicago Tribune, December 20, 1992). The abiding complaint among women divorcing after many years of marriage is that the husband was 196

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 197

D E C I D I N G

T O

R E M A R R Y

overly controlling. Close relationships with men who do not believe in equality and freedom of expression has become a challenge that many women are not willing to accept in today’s world. When we turn to why men are staying single in large numbers after divorce, a different profile of reasoning emerges. Most important, men may be less willing converts to single life. Still, once they are in this state, they may not readily find women whom they want to marry. One of the reasons often cited by men for delaying remarriage is the major cost in assets and emotional resources involved in getting divorced. Some men feel that they lost unduly in the divorce decisions regarding property and/or custody of children. They feel “burned.” Giler and Neumeyer (1992) reported on work showing that younger men in their 20s may be especially crestfallen and humbled by divorce. These young men may see divorce as a major blow to their normal progression toward becoming fathers and having families. Yet, such reasoning also suggests that these young men will quickly try to remarry and will not remain single very long. Whether they are ready for remarriage is another story! As we saw in chapter 2 on gender, various scholars have marshaled strong arguments to support the idea that men need marriage much more than women need it. As men grow older, even those who have enough money often search diligently for partners because their social support system is not as strong as is the social support system of friends and confidants for women. Men may have lots of “drinking buddies,” but they often lack the type of emotionally involved confidants that women have. These confidants are invaluable when people need to unload their burdens and engage in healthy catharsis regarding their losses.

DECIDING TO REMARRY What about those who decide to remarry? Millions do. In 1980, of 45 million married households in the United States, 9 million were of remarried partners; that number now has doubled at least. At the same time, the percentage of second and beyond marriages ending in divorce has been on the order of 3 out of every 5 in the last decade. Thus, the possible wisdom of Samuel Johnson’s famous line, “Remarriage is the triumph of hope over experience.” Very few people intend to stay single when they divorce, or after the dissolution of a long-term, nonmarital close relationship. What they want is a new partner who has all the good qualities the first one did not have. Or, they may want most someone who does not have the negative qualities they perceived in their first partner. Thus, people remarrying usually are saying, “I want a better marriage than the one I had before.” They also may be more realistic regarding what is possible and what issues may transpire in a marriage given different circumstances. But Johnson’s cynicism is well-taken. There usually are many issues left hanging from the first marriage. The sooner the second go-round, the more salient the baggage from the first. Children and custody of them often is at the top of the list. New partners each may bring children from other marriages to the new home, and hence there has to be a blending of people, personalities, habits, rules, and expectations for how this new amalgam of people will behave with one another. Still other problems include the ex- husband’s having to pay large child support payments to his ex-wife; thus, money may be tight for the

197

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 198

1 1 .

G R I E F

A N D

R E C O V E R Y

new family, and this fact may be exacerbated by a decision to increase the new family by having more children. Emotional baggage carried over from the first marriage is common and also impeding to the new relationship. Many therapists and commentators in this area suggest at least a 2-year gap between marriages in order to mute some of emotional and practical difficulties deriving from the ending of the first marriage. A period of counseling may be helpful in addressing emotional residue. One of the problems that may carry over is continued emotional attachment, usually experienced by just one of the ex-partners. Such attachment may continue for years beyond separation or legal divorce. Problems in joint-custody arrangements regarding how children are treated are common. Children often are caught between warring ex-partners who want revenge and who try to use the children to spy on their ex-partner and his or her new lovers. An axiom of analysts of remarriage is that people remarrying have to be very careful lest they repeat similar patterns in the new marriage that were problematic in the first marriage. An excessive drinking habit, staying away from home after work, excessive criticism of one’s partner, nagging, excessive rigidity and control orientation, inability to express feelings, flirting with or actually having affairs with others represent such patterns. It takes a lot of caring about and desire to change them to actually change them. Many people would do almost anything to make a second, or later, marriage work. At the same time, many people know that they would be quick to end a second marriage if they see signs that clearly indicate the emergence of problems similar to those they experienced in the first marriage. Furstenberg and Spanier (1987) suggested that the psychology of the remarried person who spots trouble is, in effect, “I’ve survived divorce before and I will again. I do not intend to put up with this very long.” One of the respondent’s in Furstenberg and Spanier’s study echoed and elaborated on the attitude of preparation to terminate a second marriage if certain problems arose: I think we also went into our second marriage with the attitude that if she woke up one morning and said ‘I’m not in love with you anymore (or) it’s not the same for me anymore—I’ve met someone else,’ I’d say, ‘God bless’ without any animosity. I would try my damndest [to make the marriage work] and hope that he would try the same way, but if we couldn’t work it out, then we wouldn’t stay together . . . it’s a little different from what I thought the first time. I think the way you look on . . . the next relationship—you know, that these things can be terminated—that’s a matter of historical record, so there’s an illusion that’s gone. (p. 192)

G R I E F O V E R R E L AT I O N S H I P L O S S A N D H E A LT H The effects on the psychological and physical health of the partners and their children often are powerful and long-lasting (sometimes positive—relief from an abusive relationship, but more often negative). One of the most debilitating aspects of divorce is the legal activity of officially splitting up assets and resources, and determining custody when children are involved. These proceedings, by definition, usually are highly adversarial and may be protracted for years. For example, in 1992, in one New Jersey suburb of New York City, contested divorce trials were backed up to the point of many 3-year delays from the 198

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 199

G R I E F

O V E R

R E L A T I O N S H I P

L O S S

A N D

H E A L T H

point of filing to the point of the trial. One outraged woman who was married for 23 years, separated 6 years ago, and filed for divorce 3 and one-half years ago said: “This is my life we’re talking about . . . It interferes with my social life. If I tell a gentleman I’ve been trying to get divorced for so long . . . he’ll figure I’m some sort of lunatic” (as told to Bethany Kandel, USA Today, February 20, 1992). The effects of divorce on an individual’s health read like a grocery list. The divorced have excessive rates for suicide, depression, mental illness, physical ailments and illnesses, and mortality (Stroebe & Stroebe, 1986). It is critical to remember, though, that most of these relationships are correlational in nature. That is, we do not know for certain that divorce caused the problems noted. Conceivably, other problems such as financial difficulties precipitated the divorce, which, in turn, contributed to the other problems. Nonetheless, the findings that divorce are associated with major psychological and physical problems recur so often that they cannot be readily dismissed. The impact of divorce or dissolution is enhanced by certain situational factors. Parkes (1972) argued that a sudden or unexpected termination of the relationship was especially hurtful. Also, Parkes noted that people who shared domestic and major practical tasks in a relationship are better able to cope, and less devastated, when divorce or dissolution occurs because they have become less dependent on other. The same likely holds for emotional independence. If an individual is highly dependent on his or her partner to meet emotional needs or to have friends and a social network, that individual is likely to be impacted much more harshly by the termination of the relationship than is the person who is less dependent on the other. Why is divorce or dissolution so devastating? First, it robs us of our innocence. Each of us has the aspiration for our marriage or significant relationship to continue “until death do us part.” Thus, that expectation is dashed. The result often is a hard knock on one’s selfesteem, sense of control over major events, and feeling of competence in close relationships. We also tend to compare with others whom we perceive to be engaged in solid relationships. Such social comparison makes more salient our loss and the possibility that we never again will experience such stability and hope. Beyond these blows, the person who loses a partner also loses the emotional support and companionship that usually go along with such relationships. Even in sadly deteriorated relationships, partners may not recognize the extent to which they were attached and, thus, may be bewildered by the bereavement at the loss of this attachment (Harvey, 1996, 2000). After all, many partners have been together since they were quite young people. They often have gone through many adversities together. These experiences create an attachment, even if the marital interaction quality is poor and becoming poorer. Finally, there is a great loss of social identity attendant to divorce and dissolution. We no longer are Joan’s “significant other,” “John’s wife,” or “Mary’s live-in partner.” We have become known in these relationship identities by our friends and family, and somehow the outside world has to learn that the identities no longer hold. The ending of the relationship necessitates an identity change in our minds as well as the minds of those with whom we regularly relate. Depending on how much we wanted this role and wanted to continue in it, the necessity to change can be daunting. Yet it has to be done. The sooner the newly single person can recognize the need to change his or her life, as by becoming involved in support groups and working on self-improvement, the sooner the recovery will be complete. Our society, fortunately, now is more primed for the occurrence of divorce and in that priming may assist the person experiencing it firsthand. The high frequency of 199

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 200

1 1 .

G R I E F

A N D

R E C O V E R Y

divorce has led to outsiders exhibiting more sensitivity, or caution, in how they view someone’s close relationship. Too often, we all have been floored to discover that some longterm, seemingly well-functioning relationship no longer exists.

G R I E F, D E P R E S S I O N , A N D V I V I D MEMORIES OF VIVID LOVES GONE BY Related to the grieving involved in divorce and dissolution and to health in general is the idea that people will continue to have many poignant and sometimes haunting memories of their past loves. These memories may intrude unexpectedly when we encounter stimuli that remind us of the lost one. They also may occur in dreams about other or in conscious images and feelings about the past relationships. For some, these vivid memories appear to be a part of the continued grieving process, in that they still have not totally come to grips with the physical absence of the other in their lives. Some continue to obsess about the loss, however, and do not engage in the grieving and resolution processes that are necessary to effectively live one’s life and fully participate in future close relationships. Let’s look briefly at some research on this topic. In one study, Harvey, Flanary, and Morgan (1986) found that women (who were mostly in their late 20s through early 40s) reported more vivid memories of their past loves than did men. The method involved asking respondents to recall their most vivid memories of events occurring in their most significant past close relationship. A “vivid memory” was defined as a picture-like image or thought that is life-like, striking, and evocative of strong emotion. The respondents in this study had been involved both in nonmarital and marital relationships lasting at least 2 years, and the length of time since the relationships ended averaged almost 3 years (Table 11.1). As can be seen in Table 11.1, highly vivid memories tended to be of first meetings, first sexual experiences, critical conflict episodes near the end, and ending events. Although both pleasant and painful memories surfaced in respondents’ reports, unpleasant memories were more commonly reported. Harvey et al. also found that women tended to exhibit more depression regarding the loss of these past loves than did men. It was as if many of these women continued to pine for their past loves and experienced related depressive episodes—even though at least 2 years had passed since the relationships had ended. In a related study, Ross and Holmberg (1992) hypothesized that women pay more attention to the emotional aspects of interactions with lovers and spouses and hence should report more vivid memories of key past events in their relationships than should men. A strength of this study is that both members of 60 ongoing-married couples participated in the research. The method involved asking spouses to tape-record descriptions of their first date together, a shared vacation, and an argument between them. They subsequently assessed the clarity of their own recall of each event. As expected, women reported more vivid memories than did their husbands. Women also attributed greater personal importance to the events, reported reminiscing about them more often, and expressed more affect in their event descriptions than did their husbands. Later, observers of each couple’s reports also judged women’s recall to be more vivid. Overall, these two studies converge in suggesting that women report, and presumably remember, more intense, vivid, evocative memories of events in their past close relationships than do men. Why? Is it because, as Ross and Holmberg imply, women have learned 200

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 201

G R I E F ,

D E P R E S S I O N ,

A N D

V I V I D

M E M O R I E S

TABLE 11.1 Vivid Memories of Vivid Loves Gone By Beginnings Met him at a bar when I noticed he had a New York Yankees jacket on and I was interested in finding someone driving to New York (my home). I introduced myself and spent the evening talking to him and exchanging phone numbers. The first time we slept together I was living alone in a little house in a tiny town in the middle of nowhere. We stayed in bed for fourteen hours—it was wonderful. Our first (almost) sexual encounter, we were at a retreat and in the kitchen, and people kept walking in. It was rather amusing; it was ludicrous. I met him at a small party given by our apartment manager. It was like in the movies— our eyes kept meeting across the room as we sat in a circle and got to know each other. When the party was over, we both managed to saunter out the door at the same time. He invited me up to his apartment—I remember sitting in his bean bag chair and listening to the Eagles sing, “The Best of My Love.” Special Occasions (Both Pleasant and Unpleasant) First time he told me how he loved me. . . considering he was a married man. Some birthday. Father absent, no note, no message. Returned late the next evening with makeup on his shirt. Said he was on a business trip. Very rushed, no time to phone. Emotion: anger, disgust. Seeing him after relationship ended—very poignant memory of the way he looked. Being raped by him when he was drunk. Trip to Colorado the year I became pregnant. Trip was fun and special because we had just found out the news. Going to the divorce lawyer’s office. . . moving out of the apartment. August 15, 1964, date we intended to marry. I dream of her as if we were still together and wake up sad to realize it’s not true. Receiving the “letter” January 21, 1978 Beginnings of The End Being with my parents and him at a restaurant and watching him leave the table and realizing the relationship was going to end. I can see the clothes he was wearing and the way he walked. I remember waiting up for him to come home to my house after work. I ended up feeling resentment after too many hours spent worrying. Confrontation with girlfriend and husband. Stated he did not love me. . . that he loved her. . . no sense prolonging our relationship. (Continued)

201

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 202

1 1 .

G R I E F

A N D

R E C O V E R Y

TABLE 11.1 (Continued)

Endings I remember the time I caught him throwing rocks at my car. He took someone else home in front of me. He decided to go to graduate school elsewhere. He came to my house to talk and we made love. It was the only time I cried in front of him—as I told him goodbye. Our final interaction was an angry goodbye in the car when I was moving away. Time seemed to stand still for a long time. We were lying in bed at the end of the weekend. We both were aware that the end was upon us, but we had waited until the end of his visit to talk about things. I remember lying there stiff with the sun streaming in the window, telling him what I wanted from a marriage and how I doubted he was willing to fulfill that expectation. I lay there wanting him to say I was wrong, but knowing that he wouldn’t. He just turned, looked at me sadly, and said “You’re right.” Adapted from Harvey, Flanary, and Morgan, 1986, pp. 267–268.

to link closely in their minds critical relationship experiences with strong feelings? Is it because women pay more attention to critical events in relationships than do men? Or, is this result mainly due to women’s openness to recall and report such memories as compared to men’s openness? We do not know the answers to these questions. This area of work is fascinating in its implications about gender differences in close relationships and the role of emotion and imagery in the memory of relationships.

THE EFFECTS ON CHILDREN This topic is in the news regularly and has received much attention in the last two decades. At holiday times, children may experience some of their greatest feelings of loss because of split families, continued conflict between ex-partners, and the children’s own divided loyalties. Special consideration of children’s needs during these times is an important obligation for divorced parents. As one counselor told the Chicago Tribune (December 24, 2000, p. C2): “I’m preaching the same sermon I was 20 years ago . . . and I am still astonished that people don’t get it . . . Before you do anything for Christmas, you need to get in your child’s skin and then make a plan. Because what you do now is going to forever influence the way they look at the holidays.” Children of divorce is a prime, timely topic because in the early 21st century, Census Bureau data indicate that at least 50 to 60% of the children in the United States will spend some period of time before they reach 18 in a home in which divorce is occurring. Onethird or more of the children in this country will live in a blended family by the time they reach 18. Statistically, it has been found that parental divorce is strongly associated with adult children’s divorces (Amato & Booth, 1997). The types of reported negative effects of divorce on kids are diverse and numerous. An August 1999 news story (AP wire story) suggested that teen boys who have had limited or

202

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 203

T H E

E F F E C T S

O N

C H I L D R E N

negative interaction histories with their fathers often in connection with divorce are at higher risk for smoking, drinking, and illegal drugs than are teen boys with strong relationships with a single mother. As college teachers, we have seen and heard about the impacts of divorce on college students for over 3 decades. College students frequently report on the “war of the roses” in their own families, bitter struggles regarding money, new dating partners, wrongs such as infidelities at the time of their parents’ breakups, and the like. There is an abundance of literature on intergenerational transmission of divorce. Factors such as education, income, family and social support systems, and individual attitudes and expectations have been implicated as behind this transmission process (Feng, Giarrusso, Bengtson, & Frye, 1999). For example, children of divorced parents have been found to have lower income and educational attainment, to marry at younger ages, and be more likely to cohabit prior to marriage (Furstenberg & Teitler, 1994). Research reports such as that by Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1982) and books such as Wallerstein and Kelly’s (1980) Surviving the Breakup, and Furstenberg and Cherlin’s (1991)’s Divided Families and have provided data and perspective on the effects of divorce on children. Scholars and studies differ on how impactful divorce can be on children. Hetherington et al. found that while there was initial turmoil in the lives of the children, their lives had become more normal by the second year after divorce. Wallerstein and her colleagues found that as many as one-half of the young men and women they studied entered adulthood as worried, underachieving, self-deprecating, and sometimes angry people because of their parents’ divorces. Wallerstein and Lewis (1998) reported on a 25-year follow-up longitudinal study of children and adolescents whose families had separated and divorced. The respondents were followed with regular interviews beginning with the decisive separation. Wallerstein and Lewis were reporting on the youngest respondents in the study (now in their late 20s and early 30s). They found that the respondents’ earliest memories when the divorces were occurring were abandonment, terror, and loneliness. Adolescence was marked by early sexual activity and experimentation with drugs or alcohol. The respondents’ early adulthood also was marked by less resources for college funding, fears of intimacy, and strained relationships with their parents, particularly their fathers. A more recent presentation by Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee (2000) created quite a media frenzy. In this book, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, Wallerstein and colleagues reported on their 3 decades of research with children whose parents were divorcing in the 1970s. For these 131 children of 80 California families, a small and not-so-random sample of the 1 million children whose parents divorce each year, the data showed tremendous flux in their relationship lives over the years from the point at which their parents divorced. Wallerstein et al. indicated that these individuals from divorcing families spent much of the early adulthood negotiating relationships. Many were not married, nor interested. Many did not want children. But most importantly, Wallerstein and colleagues argued: “The myth that if the parents have a poor marriage the children are going to be unhappy is not true” (p. 23). They argued that children do not care if parents sleep in separate beds if the household runs well and if the parenting holds up. A “good enough” marriage without violence or martyrdom or severe mental disorder will do for the children. That is, the children from such marriages will transit through their own adult relationships with much less turmoil than will children from even happily divorced families. Indeed, the divorce may be the solution for the parents’ problems and the cause of the children’s problems.

203

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 204

1 1 .

G R I E F

A N D

R E C O V E R Y

Of course, this evidence and the related argument stirred the passions of many critics. Writing in Time (September 25, 2000, p. 82, “Is Divorce Getting a Bum Rap”), author and columnist for the Nation Katha Pollitt argued: America doesn’t need more “good enough” marriages full of depressed and bitter people. Nor does it need more pundits blaming women for destroying “the family” with what are, after all, reasonable demands for equality and self- development. We need to acknowledge that there are lots of different ways to raise competent and well-adjusted children, which—as, according to virtually every family researcher who has worked with larger and more representative samples than Wallerstein’s tiny handful—the vast majority of kids of divorce turn out to be. We’ve learned a lot about how to divorce since 1971. When Mom has enough money and Dad stays connected, when parents stay civil and don’t bad mouth each other, kids do all right. The “good enough” divorce—why isn’t that ever the cover story. Other scholars, including Furstenberg and Cherlin, do not believe that the evidence is that clear regarding the potency of impact on children. They have argued that the people whose divorces have been studied may have had severe problems well before the divorce. Most of the people studied to date have been involved in counseling and have agreed to answer questionnaires and participate in research as part of the counseling process. Scholars such as Furstenberg and Cherlin have suggested that stronger evidence exists to support the view that the long-term harmful effects of divorce occur only for a minority of the children involved. They have admitted that many young adults likely retain painful memories of their parents’ divorce. It does not follow, however, that these memories will impair these adult children’s marriages or lives in general. Such theorists have argued that if these children’s parents had not divorced, they might have retained equally painful memories of their parents’ conflict-ridden marriages. Furstenberg and Cherlin (1991) have proposed that whenever there is trouble in a marriage, children will suffer and that it is not particularly helpful for parents to stay together to alleviate their children’s suffering. These researchers found that children who live with two parents who persistently quarrel over important areas of family life show higher levels of distress and behavior problems than do children from disrupted marriages. Beyond this point about conflicted relationships, there is evidence that in comparison to their peers from intact families, some children show enhanced levels of functioning in areas such as maturity, self-esteem, and empathy following divorce (Gately & Schwebel, 1992). Why do some children blossom in these ways after their parents have divorced? Divorce may place responsibilities on the children (e.g., care-taking of younger siblings) that they are experienced enough and otherwise ready to handle. Success in being responsible, in turn, may enhance their self- esteem, as well as sensitivity to others’ problems. Further, children who learn that they can rise to the occasion during the adversity of divorce may develop a general kind of strength and courage that will assist them when they encounter problems later in life. Young kids deserve to be listened to when adults are considering the impact of divorce on children. Consider these reports from a 1992 Parade Magazine survey of kids’ views: Allison [age 15]: ‘When you decide to get a divorce, definitely tell the kids, “We’re not doing this because of you.” [kids’ beliefs that they are to blame for their parents’ problems are common]. And be very honest with your kids about what’s going on.” 204

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 205

T H E

E F F E C T S

O N

C H I L D R E N

And don’t use your child as a middleman, like, “Tell your dad that I say to send the child support right now.” I tell my mom, “Just talk to Dad.” I hate being in the middle. Because then my dad will say ‘Well, tell your mom I’m not gonna . . . unless she. . .” That’s happened so much, and I’ve gotten so mad about it with both of them that now they do call each other directly.” Sometimes, during a divorce, a parent thinks that everything’s okay and, “Oh, Allison’s just adjusting fine.” But you should give your kids extra attention because all this fighting is going on, and you wonder if they still love you just the same.” Jacey [age 14]: . . . Sometimes my father will say, “Why’d your mother let you go to this by yourself?” He still wants to have the same authority that he used to have when I lived with him. And when I’m with my dad, my mom still wants to be able to say, “Make sure you wear your earmuffs.” Don’t make your kids feel guilty about talking about the other parent’s house or about things you’ve done together. Because the other parent is still part of the kid’s life. (Parade Magazine, p. 5, January 26, 1992) There are many other issues associated with the impact of divorce on children, including: Does type of custody (joint or sole) make a difference in the child’s adjustment? Does type and quality of visitation for the noncustodial parent affect children’s progress? Do different blendings of stepfamilies help or hurt adjustment? The answer to such questions is inevitably “It depends.” It depends on a host of factors such as whether the parents in a joint-custody situation or the custodial parent, when only one has custody, have made arrangements to provide security, nurturing, and understanding for their children at the same time that they are dealing with their own postdivorce issues. It depends on how wellfunctioning blended families are and whether or not they have figured out ways to enhance both the group’s as well as the individual’s level of satisfaction in connection with the family experience. Parents’ recognition of children’s feelings and their need to adjust and move on in new directions with their lives is an essential step in this process. As Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) said, “Even though the children may still regret the divorce and continue to wish that their parents had been able to love each other, some of these children may nevertheless grow in their capacity for compassion and psychological understanding” (p. 316). We believe that this conclusion holds as strongly in the early 2000s as it did in 1980, notwithstanding the latest work by Wallerstein et al. (2000) on the unexpected legacy of divorce. Wallerstein and Kelly may have underestimated the growth that is possible for the children of divorce. Not only may the experience teach them about some of the issues of marriage and close relationships, but it also may give them insights about their own close relationships at that time and later in life. The evidence is unclear that children of divorce end up experiencing more debilitating marital problems themselves. If at a relatively early age, children are forced to witness destructive anger and hostility on the part of their parents for a substantial period—whether or not separation and divorce occur, they probably will be severely hurt. It is likely that at the minimum, they will be psychologically damaged by such experience. Then again, such children may recover over time with the help of good friends and confidants and counseling and may use their experience and perspective to contribute to stronger interpersonal relations on their own part. Many children will experience their parents’ divorce at later ages, when they can better assimilate the reasons, and many also will not be so adversely affected because the parents are thoughtful about their feelings and relatively civil in how they carry out their divorce. Parents and children alike 205

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 206

1 1 .

G R I E F

A N D

R E C O V E R Y

should consider perusing this literature on the effects of divorce and be willing to seek counseling when necessary. Any way you look at it, divorce is a major loss for children, and parents should be alert to the need of the child to engage in the types of grieving and recovery steps associated with such losses. Amato and Booth (1997) conclude from their survey research that only one-third of marriages with high levels of conflict end in divorce. They suggest that there are broad negative impacts on children of divorce, and that too many parents are unnecessarily getting divorced—even though grounds such as hate and discord do not exist. They say that children sometimes benefit from divorce if parents are constantly quarreling. For the majority of marriages ending in divorce that they studied, the parents were getting along fairly well. Thus, divorce in such marriages may contribute to children’s increased psychological distress and lesser ties with kin. These effects, therefore, are not necessary if the marriage could have been readily salvaged. Amato and Booth speculate that Americans are leaving “nonconflicted marriages” earlier because of their acceptance of divorce, unrealistic expectations regarding marriage, and for a virtual “kitchen sink” of reasons. Amato (2000) pointed to the important protective factors that affect whether children or adults suffer unduly adverse reactions to divorce, including: for adults—education and employment, support from a new partner; for children—active use of coping skills, support from family and friends, and access to professional help.

CONCLUSIONS AND AREAS NEEDING FURTHER RESEARCH The topic of loss of close others is one that will affect all human beings. We all will lose close others to death, dissolution, and people’s frequent movement for jobs and other reasons. It is a fact of life. Theories of loss and coping in dealing with dissolution have become more elaborate in the last few decades. All of these theories suggest that the processes of working on loss are lifelong, difficult enterprises, but there are no good options. We can be stoic and endure loss and continue to endure the impact of loss over time. However, effective work on loss very likely will require the types of working through, account-making, and confiding discussed in this chapter, Pennebaker and associates (e.g., Petrie, Booth, & Pennebaker, 1998) have shown that thought and feeling suppression may have significant deleterious effects both on people’s psychological and biological functioning. As described in this chapter as well as chapter 11, we have a responsibility to recognize the major impacts that dissolution of adult relationships has on children. Wallerstein and colleagues have alerted us to the many destructive effects the so-called “children of divorce” may experience over the years. Ahrons’ (1994) reasoning about the “good divorce” represents some of the most useful thinking in contemporary literature on mitigating the negative effects of dissolution on children. One of the most salutary conclusions of major loss and the ensuing period of deep grieving is that the individual who has suffered much has much to give back to others. The psychologist Erikson (1963) argued that a great need but also challenge facing each person as we move along in life is to try to give back some of what have learned to others, especially to generations who come after us. He called this contribution generativity and suggested that it specifically referred to guiding and promoting the next generation. 206

01-070 C11 pp5 9/14/01 12:38 PM Page 207

C O N C L U S I O N S A N D A R E A S N E E D I N G F U R T H E R R E S E A R C H

There are many directions for future work on the effects of lost close relationships. We have little cross-cultural evidence on how people cope with the loss of significant others. Do people in all cultures rely on the types of processes discussed in this chapter, such as confiding, to the adapt to the loss of close others? Probably not. Even within Western cultures, people have expressed grief in different ways in different historical periods. A powerful analysis of how people grieved in 19th century in the United States is contained in Rosenblatt’s (1988) book entitled Bitter, Bitter, Tears. Rosenblatt examined hundreds of tattered, dusty diaries written by persons who had been left behind by close others venturing West and by persons who had lost significant others to death—often at a very early age. He found a tremendous degree of venting of emotion and pining for the lost other. He also focused attention on the extent to which diary and record-keeping were part of the grieving reaction by people in this culture in the 19th century. We also have too little theory and research on how people assimilate losses in their lives over their histories. The research by Harvey, Flanary, and Morgan (1986) and by Ross and Holmberg (1992) only begins to skim the surface of questions about how memory, thought, and feeling are interconnected in our individual stories of close relationships and the loss of such relationships. It is likely that these interconnected effects have long-term implications in our future relationships, unconscious life (as in dreaming), and psychological and physical health. Bereavement is a universal and integral part of our experience of love. It follows marriage as normally as marriage follows courtship or as autumn follows summer. It is not a truncation of the process but one of its phases. (C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed, p. 59)

207

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 209

12 PASSAGES: LIFESPAN RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGES Everything they know they know together— everything, that is, but one: their lives they’ve learned like secrets from each other, their deaths they think of in the nights alone. —Archibald MacLeish, “The Old Gray Couple”

What web is this Of will be, is, and was? —Jorge Luis Borges

People change and forget to tell each other. —Lillian Hellman

This chapter is quite different for a book on close relationships. It concerns mainly change over time in a close relationship and secondarily how such change relates to individual change. There have been only a few scholarly works devoted to the probing of individual changes and passages across large segments of one individual’s life, much less the life of a couple in a close relationship. Gail Sheehy’s (1976) Passages, a well-known book for the general public about change in the individual, influenced the title of the chapter and are discussed herein. Two books on change by Daniel Levinson (1978), entitled The Seasons of A Man’s Life, and Levinson’s (1996) companion The Seasons of a Woman’s Life, also contributed to the analysis. Levinson and his colleagues presented ideas that reflect most of the stage models that are common in thinking of distinct life course passages. They reported results from an investigation of 40 men and, later, 45 women and the changes in their lives between their teens and midlife in their 40s and 50s. Levinson’s samples, therefore, were small and quite narrow along many dimensions. Yet, the work has been very influential as we very much need this type of lifespan analysis. Levinson concluded that people’s lives have different concerns at different points in time and development. He came to the conclusion that women go through the same sequence of eras as men, and at virtually the same ages. Levinson also concluded that the lives of men and women are different because of “gendersplitting,” his term for the habit of human societies to assign male and female tasks such

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 210

1 2 .

R E L A T I O N S H I P

P A S S A G E S

as child care or providing a living. These observations ended with the 1980s women’s sample and may be outdated by transformations in the meanings of gender as we enter the 21st century. Similar to Levinson’s analysis, Erik Erikson’s (1950) writing on identity and psychosocial states of development of the individual will contribute to our later discussion of how individual and relationship change are interrelated. Unfortunately, however, only a smattering of theoretical analyses and even less empirical work exist on how couples in close relationships change over extended periods of time. What are the main questions we will address in this chapter? What is the value of conceptualizing “passages” as part of couples’ and individuals’ lives? What are some common passages for close relationships that last over an extended period? What are the points at which close relationships are most vulnerable to major conflict? What individual passages interact most powerfully with the passages of couples to influence the course of a close relationship?

D E F I N I T I O N , R AT I O N A L E , A N D C AV E AT S Definition and Distinctions. What is a passage in a person’s lifespan? For our purposes, a passage will refer to a distinctive cycle or season in the life course. It is a segment of time and events that differs significantly from previous or subsequent segments. For example, just as it seems reasonable to speak of individuals’ mid-life passage (and the related “mid-life crisis”), similarly we may speak of couples’ “middles,” to use Levinger’s (1983) term. Events happening in a couples’ middle segment (roughly after several years of the existence of a close relationship) often differ markedly from events transpiring at the time of meeting and making a commitment. How long is a passage? It depends. Focusing on the individual and not necessarily the couple, Levinson (1978, 1996) suggested that new developmental tasks come along rather regularly in life and that no cycle can last more than 7 or 8 years. He originally proposed the concept of “life structure” and its evolution on the basis of his study in the late 1960s of 40 men in their mid-life period. Describing “life structure” as the underlying pattern or design of a person’s life at a given time, Levinson suggested that it mediates between the individual and the environment and that its intrinsic ingredients are aspects of the self and of the social world. One can imagine a period of 7 or 8 years as about right when, for example, referring to adolescent and young-20s dating prior to the next cycle of marriage. However, the pinpointing of 7 or 8 years is fairly arbitrary. One also can imagine, for example, that an individual’s mid-life might readily be conceived to stretch from the age of 30 to the age of 60. Certainly, vastly different developmental tasks may be encountered at each of those extremes; yet, the central activities that define the self (such as “being a happy and loved wife, mother, and successful novelist”) may begin as the individual feels finally like an adult in her or his 30s and continues pretty much the same identification process for 3 more decades. How does the idea of a passage relate to developmental change in the organism? As we see during the course of this chapter, they are related but only loosely so. Developmental theories also pertain to change over time. The most important distinction is that developmental theory applies mainly to individual lives; whereas, as implied by writers such as

210

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 211

D E F I N I T I O N ,

R A T I O N A L E ,

A N D

C A V E A T S

Sheehy and Rubin, the passages-like concept may include changes in relationships between two or more people. Developmental theories generally emphasize the interaction of biological and social determinants of change. In one influential developmental argument, Kligel and Baltes (1987) theorized that there are normative ontogenetic and age-graded influences, such as puberty, that most people experience at a predictable stage of life. They also posited that there are less normative influences that occur in a less predictable way with respect to a person’s life stage. We would suggest that the types of passages that affect close relationships involve elements both of normative and age-graded change (e.g., the likely dissipation of sexual interest, on the part of one or both members, at some point late in life for the couple), as well as unpredictable aspects (e.g., whether a couple will experience a midmarriage turning point). We have referred to “scripts” on a few occasions in this book, and the reader may be wondering about how scripts and passages differ. By “script,” we mean a set of actions and ways of thinking and feeling that people learn as part of their socialization about how to respond to particular social situations. We may say, for example, that people who are in the throes of marital separation often behave as if they have a script for how to disengage from others, how to try to minimize their positive feeling for others, and how to move on with their lives. Scripts are like ruts in a muddy road; they keep you moving along a certain path when you encounter situations that are stressful and/or that do not stimulate your creative thinking about how to handle them. Passages may contain various social scripts. The divorce script we mentioned previously is a common part of the middles cycle of many couples’ lives. Somewhere in the range of 5 to 10 years into a marriage when the members of a couple are in their late 20s to early 40s, they likely will encounter both a mid-life set of issues for themselves as individuals and for themselves as a couple. They may react in quite scripted ways as they negotiate this passage. Or, somehow they may stay out of the “ruts” and find their own unique solutions. It is important to note that we do not wish to provide either a positive or a negative valence for the ideas of passages and scripts. They mainly are descriptive terms that hopefully will help us better understand the skein of human lives. In speaking of scripts, Hulbert (1993), writing in the book she edited with Schuster, Reflections on The Lives of Women, made an interesting point about women having less clear scripts about how to lead their lives than men. She said: Men have had a relatively straightforward ‘script to follow; career progress provides obvious benchmarks of attainment in comparison to peers. Until recently, the script for men has been so clear-cut that men generally have not had to construct their lives consciously through the young-adult years. By contrast, women of every cohort have consciously had to consider how to fit together their own abilities, interests, and values, their changing networks of relationships, the changing gender-role norms and expectations, and the changing structure of opportunity. Women have constructed and reconstructed their lives more actively while moving through the young-adult years. As a consequence, they seem to arrive at midlife with a stronger and more integrated sense of self than men do. (p. 429) We agree with Hulbert’s argument and have contended in chapter 2 on the female-male dialogue that males in their youth must become more prepared to engage in this constructive experience if they are to have satisfying close relationships and family experiences.

211

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 212

1 2 .

R E L A T I O N S H I P

P A S S A G E S

Just as young women have done considerable work on their “possible selves” and how such selves fit into different life courses, young men increasingly are on the spot to become likewise reflective. For both sexes, there is a great need for flexibility in how one constructs intimacy in the context of other life tasks. That need is enhanced the more quality on all dimensions people want in their lives.

W H Y I S T H E PA S S A G E S CONCEPT USEFUL? Why do we need the concept of passage in studying close relationships? Our answer is that this concept keeps our focus on the process of change that is omnipresent in a human life and a close relationship. Perspective is a critical capacity for human welfare. Perspective on self and relationships can be developed best by becoming a careful student of history and the evolution of human affairs, both in one’s own and others’ lives. We can learn about ourselves and others by listening to, interacting with, and observing people at all ages and stages. The idea of a passage suggests connections among different points. To be able to connect these points in our understanding of humans, we need to use a lens of analysis that examines not only an individual’s behavior and life at a certain point in chronology and psychological time, but also that examines diverse people’s behavior and lives at different times and stages of development. The changes observed in an individual’s life and relationships may bear resemblance to changes others have experienced. Thus, the idea of a passage sometimes implies a norm, indicating how people generally have behaved, thought, and felt at a particular point. Focusing on passages makes clear our emphasis on the individual and close relationship as dynamic, ever-changing entities. We perhaps forget too often in trying to analyze human lives and their close relationships that they are not static; what we understand well today may change drastically by tomorrow.

CRITICAL PERIODS, TURNING POINTS Both developmental- and passages-like conceptions embrace the ideas that there can be “critical periods,” or “critical life events,” “turning points,” “milestones,” and “watersheds” in individuals’ as well as couples’ lives. These ideas pertain to the experience of some powerful influential event, such as the death of a loved one or failure in a business venture. Why these events are so powerful may vary from person to person and couple to couple. They may be markers for the start of passage-like periods in an individual’s life and/or in a couple’s relationship. Not every passage has a significant critical life event, but many do. Valerie Bentz (1989) wrote an interesting book entitled Becoming Mature that argued that people use turning points in their lives such as broken marriage plans and health crises to become mature. She referred to these turning points as “axial events,” or those that change a person’s history and life course. Bentz’s ideas were based on autobiographies from and interviews with 53 women, who were mostly in their late 20s and older. They were questioned about major influences in their development. Much of the focus of the women’s commentaries was on the “unfinished business of childhood,” or unresolved conflicts with their parents and other significant persons in their early years. Although it is not clear how Bentz determined the maturity level of her respondents, her final conclusion res212

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 213

C O M M O N

P A S S A G E S

I N

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

onates with one of the themes that has been expressed in various chapters in the present book. She wrote: The ghosts and spirits of childhood haunt and inspire us throughout our lives. In order to become mature, it is important that we rid ourselves of the ghosts of immature parents and others. The women in this study have broken significant ground in doing this in their own lives. They found that by remembering their childhood, and by writing about it and discussing it with others they could catch up with some of these ghosts and exorcise them . . . (p. 249) What frequently defines a turning point, or axial event, is that it comes out of the blue and shakes to the core our taken-for-granted world. It is the type of event that makes us say afterward, “Every minute that we live is precious and should be treated as such.” It is an event, such as the sudden loss of a loved one, that stops us dead in our tracks and stirs our emotions in ways that are unpredictable and uncontrollable. It then lives on in our memories and our most self-revealing stories and the images and symbols that populate those stories.

Caveats to the Passages Conception. There are crucial caveats to acknowledge early in our discussion of passages. By segmenting a life in some analytic way, we likely are not doing justice to the enormous variability that individuals and couples exhibit. Further, by segmenting these entities in terms of passages, we may be implying that there is little flexibility for movement away from what is normative. Should we imply such inflexibility? Certainly not every couple, for instance, experiences major relationship conflict near some middle point (sometimes corresponding to the birth of a first child). Many do and many do not, enough do to treat this “early-middle” period as one to watch. Again, though, such treatment should not be seen as affirming the belief that there is a lock-step sequence to the development of conflict in couples. A final point is that the idea of passages may suggest a certain order of change. Couples and individuals may jump across segments that others have experienced in a serial fashion. Couples and individuals may reverse the sequence that others have shown.

C O M M O N PA S S A G E S I N C L O S E R E L AT I O N S H I P S Passages-type analysis of relationship events is often presented in the popular literature. It may be presented in the form of what to beware of at various points in a relationship. As an illustration, let us consider a recent analysis presented by Dr. Georgia Witkin in the April 4, 1993, issue of Parade Magazine. Dr. Witkin suggested that there are eight major life cycles in a close relationship (she wrote mainly of marriage) that correspond roughly to the number of years that the relationship has been ongoing. Witkin’s first phase is “Year 1: The honeymoon.” In this period, she contended that intimacy means sex for most couples. Frequency and intensity are high, and most couples say they are satisfied. Witkin said that gender-driven divergent communication and intimacy styles become evident during this period: “She wants more emotional intimacy with their sex; he wants more experimental sex with their intimacy. She wants to talk about feelings; he wants to talk politics” (p. 12).

213

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 214

1 2 .

R E L A T I O N S H I P

P A S S A G E S

Thus, Witkin’s description of this critical early period is a lot like Rubin’s (1983) discussion of what awaits young married people, as was discussed in the female-male dialogue chapter. It will be recalled that Rubin believes that early on, the female member of a new couple often encounters the male’s reluctance to be emotionally expressive and to listen to her “troubles talk.” In the second period, which Witkin labeled “Years 2 to 5: A balancing act,” the couple is faced with the challenge of balancing self-disclosure and privacy, invasion, and isolation. She argued that during this cycle, some couples pull each other so close and share so many secrets that they suffer claustrophobia. She offered a special caution about the powerful self-disclosure process: “Your fantasies about others and past exploits may be forgiven but never forgotten. Be guided by consideration and respect for your partner’s feelings— and by common sense” (p. 12). The third period was labeled “Years 5 to 10: Finding time.” In this cycle, daily life becomes especially hectic, and subtle but crucial processes may begin that will be problematic for the relationship a little later. This period frequently involves parenting and all the work and time that go into this role. It also may be a time in which one or both partners tries to juggle a fast-paced career with the emergent family needs. Witkin advised couples to be particularly devoted to giving time to intimacy during this cycle. She espoused viewing intimacy as an island of pleasure that may act as an antidepressant in the midst of life’s many stresses. She advised against making sex demands, but stressed the need to allot time for one’s partner and showing affection. In the fourth period, referred to as “Years 10 to 20: Beware of Boredom,” Witkin suggested that the routine nature of a long relationship may come to be its downfall. It may come to involve little intimate sexual activity. She suggested that sexual activity may be re-invigorated during this period by “trying teen sex” (or making out in the backseat of your car), or “romantic sex” (which might involve building a fire and cuddling on the rug in front of it). She noted that women probably would have to help men achieve this new atmosphere, or relearn the fun of foreplay. Witkin defined the fifth period as “Years 20 to 30: The dangerous decade.” In this cycle, romantic interest may begin to climb again, partly due to the “empty nest” syndrome. Couples may rediscover each other romantically when, finally, the kids presumably are launched into the world. Also, during this period, Witkin posited that the affair may be a peril for the couple. She noted that the male, in particular, may experience a mid-life crisis during this time and seek reassurance about his aging faculties through the vehicle of an affair. “Years 30 to 40: Renewal” was the sixth cycle described by Witkin. She said, “These can be wonder years, because a second childhood—a time to play together—is possible” (p. 13). She goes on to argue that emotional intimacy during this time may be more expressive, honest, and sensual. Witkin described a seventh cycle as “Years 40 to 50: Too much togetherness?” These are the typical retirement years, when people frequently complain of being together too much and getting on one another’s nerves. She suggested that they should negotiate some “breathing room.” As with all of the other periods, Witkin contended that sexuality should be a regular, normal part of this period. Witkin’s eighth cycle was described as “Years 501 . . . and many more! She argued that emotional intimacy during this period may literally keep you alive. It stimulates morale, mental stability, and is associated with better nutrition and health care. To get this 214

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 215

C O M M O N

P A S S A G E S

I N

C L O S E

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

far, Witkin noted that many surveys suggest becoming “good friends” along the way is crucial. Witkin’s article should be of value to many couples. It is based more on common wisdom than it is on research evidence. But such a basis is fine given her objective of alerting people to the major sequence of cycles and issues that couples may experience. What is wrong with Witkin’s analysis? One major difficulty with this particular abbreviated statement of her advice is that it really does not help couples figure out how to ascend the ladder of closeness across time. Her brief portrayal leaves the couple in the first period, for example, in an isolated existence in which each partner does not know how to meet the intimacy needs of the other. Her statement aptly presents the gender dialogue dilemma. but points toward no positive change process. Just one such process would be the male’s learning to be more appreciative of thoughtful emotional expression to his partner, because he gains personal release from such an experience while at the same time giving her more emotional satisfaction. A related problem is that many of us never will experience that many years with the same romantic partner. With the divorce rate having been around 50% since the mid1970s, mid-life people who have divorced at least once, but who are now remarried, likely will not reach their 50th anniversary, the “golden anniversary,” with their current partner. They simply will not live that long. Some who may have remarried quickly in the 1970s have a shot at this outcome, but their number is low compared to the many who will experience at most 20–30 years with the same partner. What about younger couples in their 20s? If they are lucky, they may make it to the “dangerous decade” and then the “renewal” decade, to use Witkin’s terms. But we have no reason to believe that the divorce rate and common relationship problems that are central to why it is so high will dissipate during the next couple of decades. So, realistically, they too may experience divorce in their lifetime and get only so far up the ladder Witkin described. Aside from the frequency of divorce issue, Witkin’s analysis is illustrative of the sequential quality of many portrayals of passages. It does not take into account the movement back and forth that couples may experience. Young couples, for example, may move quickly from their honeymoon phase into a dangerous period in which midrelationship type events, such as the possibility of affairs, are experienced. In fact, couples may readily move through all of the stages that Witkin posited well before the 50-year mark. They also may repeat some of the stages in that same shorter period. Further, psychologically, a couple may point to a day or a week in their relationship that was so difficult and ripe with potential calamity that it seemed like a year to them. The realities of the early 2000s are such that many couples are dual-careerists. They may not begin raising kids in their 20s—they may wait until their 30s or even 40s to begin this process. Thus, they may be only halfway through child-rearing when they encounter their third decade together. Beyond this point, many couples do not have children of their own. They may adopt children, but whether they do or do not, their lives together likely will reveal different dynamics from those who have children. For the couple with kids versus the couple without kids, major differences are likely during any of these periods in terms of their time to spend with one another and their general satisfaction with the primary close relationship. Rubin (1983) noted that the preponderance of research evidence suggests that the couples without kids are more satisfied with their close relationship than are couples with kids. However, this type of generalization does not do justice to the many nuances of how children affect relationship satisfaction. 215

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 216

1 2 .

R E L A T I O N S H I P

P A S S A G E S

For example, “without kids” may mean that a couple has raised kids already and that the kids are out of the household. In such a case, the couple may be free for the first time in a long time to travel and do things that they could only dream about while their kids were being raised. For couples who never had kids, they may feel regret and that they missed out on something important in their lives. Or, they may be quite content with their fate of never being parents. There are many other factors that we understand only in part that likely mediate the effects of kids on relationship satisfaction. Witkin’s analysis did not begin even imply that there are countless uncharted depths to the issue of how children, parents, and parental relationship satisfaction are interrelated. In conclusion, as is true with many popular statements on the seasons of a couple’s life, Witkin’s advice is overgeneralized and not sensitive to the many conflicting realities of the present time. Yet, at the same time, it is a useful—not likely to be dangerous— treatment of the progression in the lives of some couples. It also is a positive, upbeat statement, and as such, it likely helps people consider positive adjustments that may be made in their relationships.

S P E C I A L PA S S A G E S A N D R E L AT E D D I L E M M A S F O R Y O U T H AND YOUNG COUPLES A 1984 UPI headline screamed out, “Loneliness Haunts ‘New Generation.’” Based on a 1984 book by Megan Marshall entitled The Cost of Loving (Putnam), this article suggested that many young women in their 20s who grew up with women’s liberation and sexual liberation were finding life lonely. This loneliness derived from buying into the liberationcareerist orientation of 1980s women and the new responsibilities associated with their greater opportunity for work, different lifestyles, and sexual diversity. This piece went on to indicate that many women were deciding that they preferred more traditional approaches to be relationships, including being a housewife and facilitating the man in his career. In part, this reasoning was based on these women’s fears about getting involved in a career and missing out on starting a marriage and family in their twenties. They also were worried about the apparent shortage of available men for marriage (see discussion of this issue in the chapter on meeting others). In the early 21st century, we doubt that the thesis of that 1984 report holds for a great many women in the United States. Career development and the satisfaction of work, not to mention the frequent need for dual career incomes to make a living, are deeply embedded within young women’s mind-set about their futures. Certainly there are some who have given up the “rat race” to stay at home and be mothers and housewives. But the movement away from this role has been very significant in the last 2 decades. Such a reality influences greatly the passages both for young women and men of the 1990s. Those passages continue to reflect the dilemma of trying to be successful in work as well as in relationships and the strain of this balancing act. This is a time of vast “cultural sea changes,” as they were described by Washington Times writer Suzanne Fields in a March 25, 1993, article portraying the turmoil and uncertainty facing the young in the 1990s. For American teens, this historical period is associated with high rates of poverty, drug use, suicide, crime and homicide, sexually transmitted disease, and unwanted teen pregnancy. A few of the special passagelike issues confronting youth and young couples will be discussed later. 216

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 217

S T R U G G L E

T O

A C H I E V E

S E L F - I D E N T I T Y

STRUGGLE TO ACHIEVE SELF-IDENTITY People who are dating and forming close relationships in their adolescent years and early 20s face some special cyclic events. This period can be an especially troubling period for a couple because it represents such a major transition point in their lives. Young people at this stage may just be beginning to cut their ties with their families of origin. They often are concerned about school, college, careers, and most of all their own self-identity and major goals in life. Thrust into the middle of what can be chaos already is nature’s plan that people in this age range begin to date seriously and to make their first moves toward mating. Their biological readiness often is far superior to their psychological readiness for mating. Yet, try they will. Sheehy (1976) wrote that love at age 18 is largely an attempt to find out who we are “by listening to our own echo in the words of another” (p. 96). Teens often become obsessed (see below) with their lovers and smother them in possessiveness. Such a tendency is directly related to insecurity about self and fear of the changes soon to come as they leave home and try to make a life of their own. In an influential book entitled In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (1982), Carol Gilligan argued that young women often confuse identity with intimacy, defining themselves through relationships with others. So often, a common passage for relatively early teen marriages (when the partners are 17 to 19) is composed of the steps of getting married (usually without their parents’ approval), having a child within a year or so, having major marital problems, and being divorced within 3 to 5 years. These “more experienced warriors” still in their 20s then begin the process of recycling the mating game, a process that will be described more fully later. Sheehy (1976) described the teen marriage as so often like a “jailbreak marriage.” It involves a fleeing of parents and their rule in the teenager’s life. Thus, by marrying so early, these young people are trying to get out of the home and may only vaguely have a strong conception of the person they are marrying and what it will be like to spend a good portion of one’s life with that person. Not every young couple is that young when they marry. What if they get more experience and wait until the national average point of about age 24 or 25 to marry? Will they avoid the common quick divorce passage often experienced by married teens? They surely have better odds, but even if they are older and more experienced with close relationships, the complexities of the relationship times are such that they still have a lot to learn. Recall the many issues discussed in the meeting chapter about readiness for a close relationship. We would venture an overly general hunch that the best biological– psychological readiness for marriage does not take place until one has had a lot of experience dating, considering marriage (including doing and talking about intimacy and what it means to achieve closeness), maybe living briefly with someone. Most individuals likely would not be able to develop this level of experience until they had reached, at least, their mid- to late-20s. You hear people say that they do not want to wait much longer because they desire a family and want to be relatively young parents. Reasonable enough. However, if they rush it too much in terms of experience and age (or perhaps simply are not very lucky!), this passage likely will pose great early heartbreak. A question that cannot be answered is that maybe this type of heartbreak cannot be readily avoided by people’s listening to and watching their parents relate (assuming their parents have a good relationship), reading 217

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 218

1 2 .

R E L A T I O N S H I P

P A S S A G E S

relationship books, listening to marital counselors, and so on. It may be avoided only after movement into a more middles-period when one hopefully is much wiser about close relationships.

O B S E S S I O N I N T E E N A N D E A R LY L O V E High on the list of passage-like events that some young couples experience is a scenario involving: A young man and woman, each neophytes in the love arena, begin dating around the age of 17. They engage in sexual activity; and then one of the partners will want to break off the relationship after a certain period—say 6 to 8 months. However, the person being left may desperately want the relationship to continue. He or she may feel that life is not worth living if the other person leaves the relationship. He or she may threaten to do harm to other or commit suicide, if the erstwhile lover does not return. Sometimes young people in what they perceive to be hopeless situations do kill themselves or others (as we will see in the chapter on the dark side of relating). How is young, obsessed love a passage? It is a passage because it happens often when young people do not have much experience in dating and relating and may cherish the presence of someone special in their lives to make them complete and give them stability. This obsession problem is acutely difficult for teens experiencing their first “major love” and who, for a variety of reasons feel that they do not have options for other possible mates. The psychology is one of uncontrollable loss. The insecure young person has not developed the resiliency that usually comes through experience in dating in order to withstand feeling that only dire options exist. The type of insecurity that is at the heart of major obsession will pass and change to security mainly if the young person takes the loss as a challenge. It must be seen as a useful push to work on self and continue to develop personal identity and higher goals of accomplishment as an individual. The person has to recognize that just as this cycle may have had to be a part of his or her dating experience, it is also true that other passages will occur and that, with learning and patience, he or she may perceive more control during the next trying times. Easily said, right! Somehow, though, the individual needs to hear that he or she can use powerful loss as a motivator and that “there always are other fish in the sea.”

LOVE IN ONE’S 20s Whether or not marriage is involved, close relationships in one’s 20s are crucial catalysts in people’s quest to achieve success in their work and personal life. Sheehy (1976) discussed the illusions of the 20s regarding close relationships. Men and women at the age often project their needs onto the person whom they love. They invent their version of the loved other. The man may view his partner as like a mother when he needs mothering and in the next instant a child requiring his protection, as well as a beautiful seductress who proves his merit and potency. He may also see her as his therapist (with whom to discuss his problems at work) and the guarantor of some degree of his immortality through the bearer of his children. Similarly, the young woman may create a pretty prized male partner in her dreams. Despite evidence to the contrary, she may construct him in her mind as

218

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 219

L O V E

I N

O N E ’ S

2 0 s

a likely-to-be-very successful, growth-oriented, sensitive, caring, sexy, dependable person who will take care of her intimacy needs and who will always be there when she needs him. Both the male and the female may view self as without question “in love.” As Sheehy and other commentators have noted, however, couples at this stage need to be wary lest their love is more lust and a hunger for approval than an in-depth appreciation of and respect for other. Sheehy said that such illusory expectations, which are common in one’s 20s (or at any age, for that matter!), may be necessary to give us a sense of excitement and willpower to overcome all of life’s obstacles. Alas, as we grow wiser and older at the same time, we learn to compromise a lot of our expectations and to take a much more realistic look at ourselves and our partners. People in this passage also may feel caught between their goal of becoming independent and the quest to find someone with whom they can have great intimacy and on whom they can be dependent to a degree. This conflict may be especially difficult for women who want careers but who also want a husband and a family. We saw in the female-male dialogue chapter, the diversity of solutions people are trying out in order to resolve this conflict. In the main, though, the only good answer is to not compromise unduly in one’s goals and to “try to have it all” or “a large portion thereof” through balancing acts between career and family. One of the most interesting observations emerging from Levinson’s (1978, 1996) study of the evolution of young men’s and women’s lives related to his conception that to be successful, a person needs a dream. The dream involves one’s hopes for career success (“How far do you want to go in the corporate world or in the world of politics?”) and how one links those hopes with domestic pursuits, such as marriage and a family. How do young men and women in their 20s achieve their dream? Levinson and his colleagues isolated two major mechanisms to dream-fulfillment. One was having a mentor in whose shoes one follows and learns “the ropes” of his work. Second, the young person needs an anchor in his or her personal life. The best anchor is a “loved close other” who will help define and carry the dream and create a life within which the dream can have a place. Sheehy (1976) made this observation about the critical role women have played in helping men fulfill their dreams: If women had wives to keep house for them, to stay home with vomiting children, get the car fixed, fight with the painters, run to the supermarket, reconcile the bank statements, listen to everyone’s problems, cater the dinner parties, and nourish the spirit each night, just imagine the possibilities for expansion—the number of books that would be written, companies started, professorships filled, political offices that would be held, by women. (p.157) Gladly, a new day has arrived for many women in the 21st century. Some husbands do stay home and/or attend to many of the types of chores mentioned by Sheehy. The term “house-husband” came into being in this country only in the last 2 decades. Judge Ruth Ginsburg, 1993 appointee to the United States Supreme Court, pointed to the importance of her husband’s taking care of many of the domestic aspects of their life together as a key factor in her professional success. Increasingly, couples are figuring out ways to “have both their cake and eat it too” in the realm of family and career needs. It takes creativity but there now exist many successful models.

219

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 220

1 2 .

R E L A T I O N S H I P

P A S S A G E S

S P E C I A L PA S S A G E S A N D R E L AT E D DILEMMAS FOR “MIDDLES COUPLES” The middles is a frequently-discussed passages period (in part because of the wellpopulated “baby boom” generations that are in transit now). Authors such as James Hollis, in his book The Middle Passage (1993), Ross Goldstein in his book Fortysomething (1990), and William Bergquist, Elinor Greenberg, and Alan Klaum, in their book In Our Fifties (1993), have reflected this quest to depict what people can expect in the broad spectrum of time from around age 30 to age 65. Levinson (1978) found that 70 to 80% of the men he interviewed found the mid-life transition around age 40 to 45 to be tumultuous and psychologically painful, as most aspects of their lives came into question. Similar results were reported by Levinson (1996) for 40ish women in the 1980s who were ending eras as housewives and going into the labor force, sometimes forced to do so by divorce. What events characterize the middles period of individuals’ and couple’s lives? Biological changes include the aging of the body and its faculties, a diminution of many of athletic skills in which people often take pride, and menopause in women and a related reduction in reproductive capacity in men. Social changes often include the transition of one’s children to or toward adult status and independence, beginning of the role of grandparenting in many cases, greater travel and exposure to other peoples and places, and the beginning of a period in which the deaths of relatives and friends become salient to the individual, who begins to give greater attention to personal mortality as well. Further, somewhere in mid-life, we often become most curious about our roots and why the way we are, as we increase our reflective and retrospective activity. In the middle period, many of our early expectations about the course of our lives may be revised. We become aware, as never before, that most things we once thought were critical are not that important. Losses may begin to pile up in our lives at this point. Yet, we also may have developed more patience and greater equanimity in dealing with whatever comes our way. In her autobiography, Changing, Liv Ullmann (1976) wrote of finally feeling such equanimity in her mid-life after recovering from a stormy love affair of 7 years duration with Ingmar Bergman. She said: “Many of my dreams were never to be fulfilled, but I had found what I had never dreamed of; reality can be magnificent even when life is not” (p. 197). Goldstein (1990) discussed the considerable burdens many people in their 40s and midlife in general feel in financing the education of their children and increasingly in contributing to the welfare of aging parents. Such burdens come at a time that these mid-life individuals may be just getting student loans paid for and some degree of occupational and financial security. Goldstein described how the competing demands of work, children, and aging parents on mid-life couples has given rise to the term “the sandwich generation,” because of the pressures of trying to juggle these demands. Concomitants to this stress include little free time for parents and children to interact and learn about one another’s lives and for the adults to engage in nurturing and intimate activity, and adolescents who sometimes resort to drugs—as do their parents—as a means of coping with their own heavy agenda of change. Probably the greatest burdens fall on the wife in a dual-career relationship. Unless the couple is diligent in allocating the home responsibilities, the wife may fall prey to trying to be the caretaker for husband, children, and parents, not to mention trying to continue to advance her career and personal interests. She may succeed for a time in being “superwoman,” but in the long run, she may lose herself and her health in the process. 220

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 221

“ M I D D L E S

C O U P L E S ”

These burdens of midlife have contributed to many people’s state of acutely high depression. As Seligman (1988) has argued, there often is a great loss of hope and faith among people at this stage. At this point in time, logically, it might be thought that people should be at the height of their creative powers and optimism for making their worlds better. Ironically, though, many are not; many have been crushed by the weight of stressors such as divorce, death of spouses or children, and financial disasters. Similar to Bellah et al. (1986), Seligman contended that this epidemic of depression will not be relieved unless people learn to reduce their quest for material possessions and quick gratification of their needs and redirect their energies toward facilitating the lives of others—toward giving to their families and communities. Why are affairs so common in the middles cycle for couples? Hollis (1993), arguing from a psychoanalytic perspective, suggested that affairs often are carried out by people who are trying to deal with unfinished business from their earlier developmental passage. He contended that the undeveloped agitates the unconscious until the person acts (or “acts out”), with an affair as one outcome. We think that there is some truth to that. It is a form of grieving for and attempted resolution of that which has not been fulfilled in one’s life. But as is noted in the next chapter on dissolution, affairs just as likely can happen for other reasons, including: the quest to fulfill needs for intimacy not being fulfilled in the marriage; boredom in one’s marriage or a “flash of chemistry” coupled with the justification that “you only live once”; being on the road traveling with another person and feeling lonely for companionship or affection. It sometimes does not take much for an affair to occur, especially with women and men working closely together for many hours each day. The fact of an affair does not necessarily imply that the individual engaging in it is uncommitted to the primary relationship. He or she may want the experience but not want to make it a habit. Affairs usually do not make primary relationships stronger. They may be a sign that the primary relationship is in trouble. The middle years appear to be a time that this particular form of lightning strikes often and quickly for some. Hollis may be right, but we all are psychologically incomplete in many ways. Thus, we need some more exacting formula for who will versus who will not engage in affairs and under what conditions. What we want to discuss next about the middle period are some illustrative passagelike events and issues that are commonly experienced in the middles years. Again, the idea of a turning point, or axial event as described by Bentz (1989), is particularly apropos to the changes people experience during this long passage.

Major Loss—A Child We start with the experience of a major loss, because they begin to occur more often in our lives in our middle years. One of the most daunting experiences that some couples encounters is the loss of a child. To use Blieszner and Mancini’s (1992) term, such a loss is one that is out of the normative sequence. By that, they mean that we do not expect that our children will die. In the normal course of events, we do expect to lose our parents, but not our children. The loss of a child may serve as a catalyst in which other, previously latent, problems emerge for the couple. One such scenario is that the loss staggers each parent, who must then struggle to address his or her own individual healing. At the same time, they need to recognize that the relationship itself may be on the line. They cannot hole up and grieve without regard for their partner and how their individual grief affects their relationship. As we discuss in the last chapter on grieving the loss of a close relationship, it 221

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 222

1 2 .

R E L A T I O N S H I P

P A S S A G E S

may be particularly disastrous if one person tries to block out expression of feeling about the loss. Typically, the male may withdraw and, perhaps trying to be stoic, act as if he is moving on with his business and life in a normal way. As he is being withdrawn and silent, the female may desperately seek a confidant for her feelings. If the male partner is not there at this critical point, the relationship may suffer a fatal blow. What would be most helpful would be for both members of the relationship to feel that they can confide in one another, and do so during this grieving period that may last for the remainder of their lives—but most powerfully for a period of a few years.

THE LOSS OF ROMANTIC R E L AT I O N S H I P S A N D B E G I N N I N G A G A I N The separation and divorce passage is a quintessential middles passage. It is well-scripted, too. In abbreviated form, the passage goes like this: Young couple just out of college gets married and begins a dual career life; young couple has a male child the third year of marriage and a female child the fifth year of marriage; young couple hits 30; young couple has conflict over a litany of issues, including the wife’s concern that her husband was having an affair when she was pregnant with their second child; young couple—not so young anymore—tries counseling, but to no avail; young couple decides to try “trial separation” in their eighth year; the trial fails; wife files for divorce; a custody battle ensues; finally, wife and husband agree that a semijoint custody arrange, in which the husband has the children in the summers, would be best initially; ex-wife and ex-husband have been renewing their dating activity since their “trial separation”; after dating a dozen or so women, some of whom are ten years younger, ex-husband meets a woman five years younger at work with whom he begins to live, and then marries in the second year past divorce; after dating three or four men at work, ex-wife also meets someone a little older than she is and to whom she has been introduced by friends; ex-wife and new lover get married in the fourth year past divorce; each ex-spouse now forms part of blended family with their jointcustody arrangement and the different custody arrangements of the new people whom they marry; each now is in her or his mid-thirties; they have come a long way! Consider now the following comments from Becky, a 31-year-old woman (taken from John Kotre & Elizabeth Hall’s, 1990 Seasons of Life) who is describing her decision to leave her husband. This commentary fills in some of the psychological detail for the general markers provided in the previous scenario. I think I was just trying to get across how desperate the situation was. Finally, one night in the middle of a terrible fight, I left home. I went to my girlfriend’s house and stayed there for two weeks. I had made the break and I had no intention of going back. Bill didn’t know where I was. Didn’t have a phone number to get in touch with me. And I had nothing. (p. 230) Bill and I were in love. We couldn’t wait to get married. I thought he would provide for the family and I would stay home and bake cookies and make homemade bread. . . . It wasn’t like that. . . . Probably two months into the marriage I had thoughts about leaving [but she didn’t and two years after the marriage, they had a boy, followed by a girl a year and one-half after that] . . . “I stayed home and Bill became the provider for the family.

222

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 223

T H E

L O S S

O F

R O M A N T I C

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

Neither of us was happy. We considered a divorce, but we chickened out when we started to feel what it would be like to split the family up. [After spending two weeks at her girlfriend’s house, Becky and her two children moved to an apartment] Somebody lent me an air mattress, and I slept on the floor for a couple of months. I remember the kids being real sick during that time. It seemed unreal that my life could go from being so comfortable—you know, it was a normal married life when we weren’t fighting—to only having two rooms and no food and no money and no idea of where I was gonna go or what I was gonna do. Not even a way to wash the clothes” (p. 230). I totally lost my identity. I never could understand what that meant before, now I did. I mean, one day I was Bill’s wife. I was married, he was working. We’d been looking to buy a house. His family was such a big part of our lives, and all of a sudden they were gone, for me and for the kids. . . . I started to realize that I was actually going through a grieving process, and all of this was normal. . . So that helped, and I think it was then that I started to recover . . . (p. 232) In Kotre and Hall’s discussion of this divorce passage, they noted that Becky and her kids have stabilized their lives, although she is not dating much yet. Bill is helping with child support, and they have a friendly relationship. Becky is going to college and optimistic about their future. Bill, though, has been seeing other women, but he is not yet thinking of remarriage. Becky noted her difficulty in seeing her ex-husband with other women: “There’s been a couple of times when it’s really hard for me to see pictures of him with them. He looked happy, you know?” (p. 234). Now let us turn to another account of a woman at a somewhat later point in this regrouping phase after divorce. This woman tells of the apprehension of starting to take the actions to try to develop a new close relationship: As I sat in the bathtub shaving my legs, I thought, “Is this what life has come to? Pretty pathetic.” I had decided to try a singles get-together, and tonight I was going to take the plunge—I, who had always thought of these gatherings as a last resort, only for losers. I had been divorced more than three years before and had dated off and on— romantic adventures or awkward mismatches—but nothing of substance. About a year after my divorce, I decided I needed to take a look at how I was going to live as a single person. I decided to go to graduate school. I could have stayed nearby. A more exciting option was a school 2,500 miles away. I decided to go with my feelings. But the end of my first year of graduate school in social work, I was quite different from the child bride I had been in 1966. Then, if you didn’t have marriage plans by the senior year in college, you were pitied. I returned to school in 1975. Times had changed. I felt a wonderful sense of accomplishment in my new independence, and I felt excited about possibilities. I savored the privacy I had living alone. I had returned home to a private part of myself I hadn’t experienced since I was a teenager. . .

223

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 224

1 2 .

R E L A T I O N S H I P

P A S S A G E S

But now, a year later, I also felt ready for a new relationship. And this time I knew what I wanted: a companion, a best friend, someone who would be there if I needed support, someone who shared my interest in camping and traveling. “Am I crazy?” I wondered, as I entered the room on campus where the Fridaynight singles gathering took place. I felt more comfortable when I learned that we would meet in discussion groups first; dancing was scheduled later in the evening. . . . [she goes on to tell about noticing at the dance a thin, bearded man with a sensitive face sitting at the edge of the dance floor] I walked over and asked him if he would dance. “No,” he said. “Why don’t you sit down here on the floor with me and we can watch people.” When the song ended, he suggested we get a Coke and sit at a table. . . . Four hours later we’re still sitting in the same spot. Most of that conversation is lost on me now. My memory instead is of two people who had found commonality in dreams, values, needs, and interests. As we walked to the parking lot I thought, “I hope this person will become my friend.” I didn’t know what to expect. . . . We got to my car and he asked me if I wanted his phone number. “That’s different,” I thought. Fifteen years later, I remain with my best friend Rich, now my husband. . . . (“One Day It’s Time To Turn Dreams into True Living,” by Linda Converse, Chicago Tribune, March 28, 1993, Section 6, p. 8) We would suggest that the general aspects of the foregoing accounts are common to this passage in the middle years. So many people have similar stories to tell, with somewhat varying content from person to person. But for all, this cycling through loves in midlife is a frightening period, filled with uncertainty but also laden with possibility for the future.

R E K I N D L I N G PA S T L O V E S I N M I D - L I F E Related to the previous discussion of the divorce passage is an intriguing event in the lives of some middle-aged people. It is the re-igniting of a love affair with a long lost sweetheart from one’s youth. We discuss this special type of cycling event because it illustrates well the fact that, at the psychological level, close relationships never totally end; they live on in our memories, thoughts, and how they have influenced our lives. Stories now abound about people meeting at reunions, or in other kinds of chance encounters, who renewed lust and love after 20 or 30 or more years of absence. Or, in some instances after many years of wondering about the old love and sometimes in the context of having become divorced, a person will reach out and try to renew contact with the lover from the past. Sometimes both parties now are divorced; in some cases, one or both soon will get divorced after their renewal; in still other cases, a brief affair will occur but no lasting close relationship will ensue, and the individuals may remain in their primary relationships. Let us examine a few accounts of reunions to try to understand better how young loves that have long been gone can reappear and re-ignite sparks of passion many years later. First, here is a January 23, 1993, letter from a woman who signed “That Old Feeling” to Dear Abby (from Chicago Tribune):

224

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 225

R E K I N D L I N G

P A S T

L O V E S

I N

M I D - L I F E

Dear Abby: Can you stand another ‘lost love’ story like the one about the woman and her American airman? (She signed her letter with the name of a popular song of the ’40s, “It’s Been a Long, Long Time.”) She asked if she should try to locate her old love whom she had not seen since World War II. It was about the same time I was involved in a very intense, but brief, relationship. It ended because I had a commitment that had to take precedence over our love. For the next 40 years, my old love was never very far from my mind, even though I had no idea whether he was dead or alive. Then, recently, in an unbelievable stroke of fate, we met face to face, and all the intensity of our feelings for each other came flooding back. Sounds like a happy ending, right? Wrong. We are still committed to others. Nevertheless, we are both aware that the old flame never went out completely. . . . (p. 6, Sect. B) Abby did not have a response for “That Old Feeling.” It is obvious that these feelings will not readily dissipate unless this woman and her old love become involved and determine if they can have a close relationship at this point. At the same time, as is true with many, it appears that she and he will remain loyal to their current relationships and never know if they could have made it in the end. Why did the old feelings come flooding back to this woman, as they do to many others? Hollis in his 1993 book The Middle Passage suggested that by the middle period of our lives, we may have many past loves with whom embers of feeling still smolder and for whom it is possible to reconsider a close relationship. In psychoanalytic terminology, we still are cathected to (or have strong unconscious emotional connections to) past loved ones, and such associations can be become so powerful that they begin to play a role in our current close relationships. In the next illustration of the dilemmas of rekindling of old loves, let us examine an account from a February 21, 1993, Chicago Tribune “Tales from the Front” column. In this story, Marcy and Rich went steady in high school in the 1960s, but then went their separate ways as young adults, each getting married and having kids. Then, in the 1990s, Marcy received a phone message from Rich, who had gotten her number from a mutual friend. Rich was not divorced and “was just wondering how she was.” He left his phone number in a nearby state. Marcy reacted with shock. Cheryl Lavin who writes “Tales . . .” described the sequence from there: How could this guy be gutsy enough to call her at home? Wouldn’t he wonder what he was stepping into? What if her husband heard the message? But Marcy knew Rich . . . His whole personality was like that . . . confident, a little brazen, happy. Now Marcy can’t get her mind off him. She went through some old boxes and found the letters he wrote her in high school and college . . . “I was afraid that if I called I would see him, and if I saw him I would have an affair with him,” she said. Marcy’s marriage suddenly seems empty. . . Should she call? She’s snapping at her husband, even her kids. She wishes that she had never heard the phone message, but now that she has, she can’t think of anything else.

225

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 226

1 2 .

R E L A T I O N S H I P

P A S S A G E S

“I keep telling myself that life was OK until that Friday night that he called, but then another voice says, ‘It [her marriage] was boring, it was humdrum, it was lonely,’ ” she says. “I’m putting myself through hell and I don’t know what will make this end.” (Section C, p. 6) Why does Marcy have this dilemma? Maybe her marriage is somewhat lacking. Whether it is or is not, the allure of an old love is tempting. Rich is the promise of excitement and something much greater than she currently experiences. Or is he? This mental conflict likely will take a toll on Marcy unless she either tries to work on her marriage to see if it can be more satisfying, or she indeed does become involved with Rich. A notunlikely scenario if she becomes involved with Rich is that she will get divorced, but that she and Rich will discover that their present selves are not so compatible either. So, in the end, all of the parties to this little “Laingian Knot” (from R. D. Laing’s, 1970 analysis of relationship imbroglios) might go their separate ways, feeling maybe a lot older but a little wiser! The final account we will present is of a late-mid-life couple who reunited after 30 years. Unlike the foregoing stories that were left at the point a “big-time” dilemma had developed, this one ends happily. The participants were somewhat older and maybe ready for the chance meeting. Readiness may make all the difference. From the Associated Press, by Jessica Baldwin, April 18, 1993: London—Sylvia and Jerry Wylie’s romance began amid boisterous V-E Day celebrations. But 29 years and two attacks of cold feet intervened before the English Land Army girl and the Texan bomber pilot tied the knot. Their photographs—one as a couple in uniform, holding hands and standing stiffly for the camera, the other of relaxed, casually dressed 68-year-olds—are part of a “Forces Sweethearts” exhibition at the Imperial War Museum. The Wylies . . . keenly recall that day when Jerry and the navigator on his B-17 Flying Fortress sauntered up to Sylvia and her sister, Myra, in Bedford, about 50 miles north of London. “We had lots of fun just sitting and talking. Time slipped away and we missed our transport back to the hostel . . .” says Sylvia. As the time came for Jerry to return to Austin, the two 20-year-olds were talking about a life together. But a few months after a “heartbreaking” good-bye . . . Sylvia got cold feet. Eventually, they stopped writing. Both married, had two children each and divorced. In 1974, emboldened by a few glasses of wine, he wrote to her. “I had the urge to write and I wanted to before too much life went by. I wanted to try and settle the thing in my mind. If she was happily married then I’d be happy,” says Jerry . . . Sylvia reached into her purse for that letter, four pages that began, “How to begin a letter started 100 times and is 10 years late. . . .” That led to a reunion, at the same railway station [from which they had parted in England].

226

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 227

C O N T I N U I T Y

I N

T H E M E S

“He ran and I ran and we met in the middle of the road and hugged, with traffic going all around us,” she says. She refused a proposal then, but accepted a year later. After living in Texas for 10 years, they returned to England.

S P E C I A L PA S S A G E S A N D R E L AT E D ISSUES FOR SENIORS AND COUPLES I N L AT E L I F E Grow old along with me! The best is yet to be, The last of life, for which the first was made: Our times are in His hand Who saith, ‘A whole I planned, Youth shows but half; trust God; see all, nor be afraid! —Robert Browning, “Rabbi Ben Ezra” Aging at every period is a grappling with meaning and meaning-making. The prior quote speaks eloquently to how we may reframe the period involving advanced age. Listen also to the following thoughts of famed dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov about the subtle and irrevocable process of the aging of the body: You know, the physical aspect of aging is so sneaky. It doesn’t just hit you—boom— overnight. It starts in your twenties, really. It’s the stamina that goes first. And I can tell you, it really takes you by surprise. In a way it’s like a flower, where first the petals start to droop. And then the leaves start to change, and slowly the flower just wilts away. (in Carlsen, 1991, p. 137)

CONTINUITY IN THEMES Schaie (1988) made a useful distinction among three groups of persons beyond 60 yearsof-age. First, there are those individuals in their 60s and 70s who are quite similar to persons 10 to 20 years younger in the way they live their lives, although they may be retired from their primary line of work. Second, Schaie identified a group of people in their late 70s and early 80s who still live in their communities, but who also include a segment of people whose health is beginning to fail. Finally, he identified a group in their late 80s and beyond whose health definitely has failed; they are frail and many are in nursing homes. Thus, similar to the middles passage, this passage for individuals may span a number of decades. Our observation of what we euphemistically call the “senior years” is that they continue themes of earlier periods and perhaps introduce a few new ones, too. As we have seen in earlier chapters, one passage that many older persons now are encountering pertains to helping their grown children raise their grandchildren. They often are forced to help because their children have divorced, have custody, have to work to make a living,

227

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 228

1 2 .

R E L A T I O N S H I P

P A S S A G E S

and cannot afford other means of child care. In fact, the children may move back to their parents’ home with the grandchildren for a period of time, making for three generations of family under one roof. So, this parenting passage is, in effect, a return to a period that most of them left some 20 to 30 years before. It can be imposing because it comes when people, who usually are retired, expect to be relaxing and enjoying traveling or other pleasures they did not pursue during their earlier life. Ironically, another grandparenting issue faced by some individuals is the reluctance of a son- or daughter-in-law to allow them to see their grandchildren. Usually, such a prohibition has evolved from a difficult divorce and custody battle. Grandparents’ rights of visitation with grandchildren has become a legal problem in the 1990s, with suits filed to try to force custodial parents to allow such visitation. Even the issue of searching for identity is salient for older persons, just as it is for teens and people well into their middle years. Identity at 65, for example, may involve a coming to grips with no longer going to work or having the title of a certain kind of professional. It may mean one has to be resilient against the feeling that society no longer has any use for him or her—now that they are not part of the workaday world. Or, it may mean getting used to starting a new career!

M O R TA L I T Y The older adult is confronted regularly with the mortality of family members, friends, and self. For many people in their 70s and 80s, the death of associates is a normal, almost weekly, event, as is the attending of funerals and memorial services, if the individuals are healthy enough themselves to pay their respects. Thus, grieving the loss of close others may become a routine part of the life of a person in this passage. S/he may have to become somewhat inured to loss, so as to balance the magnitude of these events against the need to stay positive about living and his or her own coping with stressors. Of course, the greatest loss that persons in this passage often begin to anticipate is the loss of their closest other—their spouse or lover. Who will go first? This is a disheartening question that confronts many elderly couples and one that from the beginning has loomed over the countenance of humans involved in close relationships.

D AT I N G I N T H E G O L D E N Y E A R S Although there has been extensive research on the dynamics of dating and early relationship commitment behaviors among people in their 20s through their 40s, there has been relatively little research on these activities among people in their 60s and older. This paucity of research exists despite the huge shift of the population toward this age range that is only a decade or so away (Coleman, 1997). Furthermore, the prominent relationship between loss of former spouse or lover to death or dissolution and quest for new romantic relationships has been even more neglected in the aging, coping, and close relationships literatures. In one of the key studies done to date regarding dating among people in their “golden years,” Bulcroft and O’Connor (1986) investigated the romantic behavior of 45 people between ages 62 and 95 living in the Minneapolis, Minnesota area. Their principal finding was that similar to younger persons, older persons reported many infatuations, embraced 228

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:03 PM Page 229

D A T I N G

I N

T H E

G O L D E N

Y E A R S

romance and its trappings (e.g., candle light dinners) in courting, and emphasized the value of hugging, touching, kissing, the same behaviors strongly associated with youthful courtship. Bulcroft and Bulcroft (1991) used data from the National Survey of Families and Households to conduct logistic regression analyses identifying significant predictors of dating for persons aged 60 years and older. The strongest predictor of propensity to date in later life was gender, with men being significantly more likely than women to engage in dating. Younger males had a higher likelihood of dating. Other factors that increased the probability of dating and had a positive effect included comparative health, driving ability, single family residence, organizational participation, and contacts with siblings. As reported in a book entitled Late Love, Simpson (1994) interviewed 50 men and women who married after age 55. Her respondents also reported high degrees of zest in romantic and sexual activities while they were dating prior to marriage. Some had taken care of sick and eventually dying spouses and indicated that the new dating period was helpful to them in renewing their vitality for intimacy. Sometimes these late love romances are renewals of love relationships that were begun in teen years or college, then went by the wayside for 30 or 40 years, and then were somehow re-ignited—often via class reunions, or a person who now is alone getting on the Internet to look up a long-lost flame. Colleen Stright and Geoffrey Lake were such people. They were teenaged pen pals, who wrote often to one another during the hard times of World War II, Lake in London and Straight in Iowa. They stopped writing after the war, got married, had children, and lived happily married lives until their spouses died. Fortyfive years later, Lake wrote to the town in Iowa where Straight had lived in the 1940s. He found her and within three years they had met, fallen in love, and were married. After they had courted for a period via mail, and began to become close, they agreed to meet again in person—for the very first time; Lake wrote this letter to Straight just before their meeting: My darling Colleen, It sounds a bit ridiculous, the way we feel about one another. Here we are, both approaching the age of 70 and carrying on as though we are teen-agers but honey, I’ve got a young heart and cannot express my feelings any other way. I love it and I love you, honey. (p. 15A, AP Story, in The Gazette, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Feb. 14, 1999)

J u g g l i n g G r i e f a n d R o m a n t i c Ye a r n i n g s Harvey and Hansen (2000) conducted a study of the quest for romance among single people (58 women and 32 men) beyond age 60. In this study, we were interested in the extent to which persons at this stage juggled grief and romantic yearnings in their quest for closeness. Many persons in this age range are seeking partners because they have lost spouses due to death or divorce. Many people work for long periods to adapt to major losses such as death of a spouse. Successful re-entry into dating and relating activities may require finding new romantic partners who are willing to work collaboratively on losses in each person’s life. Thus, such relationships, like all close relationships to some degree, probably contain mutual therapeutic support as well as romance. There is likely to be a fine balance between therapeutic support and romance in such relationships. Through narrative inputs provided by respondents, we hoped to learn more about this balance. 229

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:04 PM Page 230

1 2 .

R E L A T I O N S H I P

P A S S A G E S

We used the account-making and confiding approach to dealing with major loss of Harvey, Weber, and Orbuch (1990) to formulate a theoretical view about how people juggle grief and romantic quests. In the account-making and confiding approach, it is assumed that people develop accounts of their major losses such as the death of close others. They then confide parts of their stories to confidants who are good listeners and are empathic, and in so doing contribute to their adaptation to the loss. For the persons dating in their senior years, we expected that they would find more compelling new partners in whom they could confide about their past loves. Another perspective from which to explore the relationship between loss and love is the dialectic conception of relationships (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). These theorists provide fascinating analysis of the extent to which every close relationship involves a “ceaseless interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 3). Thus, both the account-making and confiding approach and the dialectic approach would predict more successful dating experiences among couples who can balance their grief about lost relationships with their desire to find love in new relationships. Harvey and Hansen’s (2000) evidence strongly supported the account-making and confiding, as well as the dialectic, approaches to how couples can juggle grief and romantic interests. Women especially who had not found been able to work on their accounts and engage in confiding about past loves were likely to have withdrawn from dating. However, those who found confidants among dating partners were the most successful in new dating activities. The woman in the following excerpt exhibits this finding in commenting on how she interacts with her new partner: [After her husband’s death] I had to help myself. . . I worked on myself. I privately reflected long and hard about our life together. But I joined support groups (e.g., Young Energetic Widowed Singles) and met the man I intend to marry in one of them. He had lost his wife in 1989, about the same time I lost my husband. We have been dating about 2 years. We have recovered from our grief and have a happy relationship. It’s a real blessing. We talk often about our deceased spouses and how they would approve of our new relationship. We have shared our grief and stories, and are not afraid to shed tears . . . But we go on and appreciate each day in our new life. You have a right to have and express your memories of your former life. You have to talk, talk, talk—never stop. We are now sharing our experiences with other widows and widowers. We hope to help them in their grief and help them be successful in making their new lives . . .

CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, we have tried to make the case that passage-like processes are useful to posit, despite tremendous variation in close relationships and the course of individual lives. Over the years, an amazing reality to us has been the change in what to expect for different periods in people’s lives. Now, people in the United States are living on the average a decade-plus longer than people at the turn of the 20th century. Passages for people in their middles, therefore, are stretching out even longer than the 30 to 60 span once used as a yardstick. We construe periods such as adolescence, and mid-life differently over time

230

01-070 C12 pp3 9/13/01 2:04 PM Page 231

C O N C L U S I O N S

and cultural change. Such stretching of some passage-like cycles is likely to continue in light of people’s enhanced health and nutrition practices and modern medical technology. The result of this continued evolution of longer lives may be even more “adolescentlike” dating and mating by senior citizens, as death takes spouses at different times and divorce continues to be as much a part of their lives as it was when they were 30 or 40 years younger. In the future, will there be more males living longer lives, thereby reducing somewhat the uneven odds women in their 70s, 80s, and beyond now face for dating and mating activities? Let’s hope so. Nevertheless, it was estimated that by 2000 there were 300 women for every 100 men over age 85 (U.S. Census Bureau). As reported by Jerrome (1990), at the end of the 1980s, two-thirds of people over age 80 were widowed or divorced women. The remarriage rate for men in these age ranges is much higher for men than women. The problem of differential age of death for men versus women at this end of the continuum, therefore, is staggering as we make our way through the 1990s. Why should we not think of people in these decades as just as likely to be engaged in dating and mating activities as we do about people much younger? It becomes ageism and a narrow view to think that they either are too worn out to lust and love or that they simply have no further reason to cherish these vital elements of living late in their lives. After all, what is “late” is relative. A striking conclusion to us is that the major developmental tasks for people at various different age ranges appear to be similar. At all points, we are periodically seeking to achieve positive human states such as happiness, contentment, tranquility, and a feeling of accomplishment. Similarly, we are periodically trying to combat negative human states such as hopelessness, depression, despair, guilt, fear, and anxiety. We work toward these ends both in our individual lives and in our relationships. Until death and all along the way, we search for an identity that gives us pride and our lives value. Until death and for most of our adult years, we often seek—sometimes implicitly—to complete unfinished business and resolve matters of the heart and mind that have burdened us since we emerged from our families of origin. Until death, and for most of the journey, we try to affirm our autonomy, while at the same time we quest for intimacy—reaching out in an often futile attempt to know and be known by another human being.

231

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 233

13 RELATIONSHIP ENHANCEMENT THROUGH PERSONAL ADJUSTMENT AND SOME FUTURE DIRECTIONS PERSONAL ADJUSTMENT There can be no happiness if the things we believe in are different from the things we do. —Albert Camus

I shall tell you a great secret my friend. Do not wait for the last judgment. It takes place every day. —Albert Camus

Man, like any other thing organic or inorganic in the universe, grows beyond his work, walks up the stairs of his concepts, charges ahead of his accomplishments. —John Steinbeck

The preceding quotes, in a pithy way, tell what this final part of the book is about. This section takes as its thesis the idea that we can grow and enhance our close relationships mainly to the extent that we have personally grown and developed as mature human beings. This conception pertains to a topic that we have implied throughout the book, empowering the self to write his or her own account, which includes Steinbeck’s lines “to grow beyond your work, and charge ahead of your accomplishments.” The whole thrust of this essay is on self-empowerment. As best we can make out from the vast pop psychology literature of our time, self-empowerment is a fancy buzz-phrase, developing in the ’80s and gaining momentum in the ’90s, usually meaning that we should take responsibility for our own lives and not be unduly blown about by winds of change in society, or by the multitude of circumstances that constitute a normal part of life’s progression. Another very positive way of defining this concept is to give power to self as much as possible, rather than accede to the influences of outside forces. Why include such a chapter in a text on close relationships? Close relationships are central phenomena in our lives. Nevertheless, all that we do in our lives follows some

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 234

1 3 .

E N H A N C I N G

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

personal system of meaning and logic containing priorities, attitudes, values, and the like, that we endorse and behavioral patterns that we carry out to pursue our system of meaning. We may not be very systematic in following our system, or we may not even be able to verbalize what our conception is. Yet, likely it is there, even in scrambled, disorganized behavioral patterns. For example, people often exhibit “crazy” patterns of behavior at the time of the ending of a close relationship, especially if they wanted the relationship to continue and the ending was a surprise. Still, what they do—whether it is getting drunk, trying quickly to find a new partner, going through several quick sexual flings, threatening to kill themselves, or going into a severe depression—has a rhyme and reason to it. In fact, it may be a scripted line of behavior. By scripted, it may be a type of action pattern that many people learn as an approach to dealing with such situations and that gets modeled on television and by people we observe. Or, it may be our own idiosyncratic “seat of the pants” response to do anything to try to alleviate the hurt. Other people seek counseling or the confidences of friends and follow more systematic patterns in dealing with their problems. The point is that we all march to some drumbeat. We need to recognize that drumbeat and make it more and more what we want it to be as life goes along. What we want to do is to give some concrete guidance regarding general, pervading principles that may help the individual evaluate her or his system of meaning and logic. There are general concepts of living that can be of assistance to us in dealing with a host of relationship stressors, including: divorce, death of a close other, rejection by a desired other, a sense of failure in raising children well, being overwhelmed by the demands of trying to have a career, close relationship, and raise a family, and so on. We now articulate general principles of living that apply to situations of great stress or to situations of tranquility and times when people feel that they have had major successes in their personal relationships. These principles, however, are just as valuable for success in one’s studies or work as they are in one’s close relationships. We will lay out the basic principles here.

C AV E AT E M P T O R The consumer of the following principles should beware. There is no magic on display in the principles we espouse. They represent, as much as anything, common sense. They are, in many cases, nuggets that other writers such as Shain (1989) and Welwood (1990) have described in implicit form but described much more interestingly and elegantly. They will not help you make the perfect decision regarding a lifelong close relationship. They will not help you decide when someone is insincere in a close relationship and may be trying to con you. They will not help you prevent a close relationship breakup. They will not help you quickly and fully recover from a relationship breakup. They will not help you like yourself and work first on self before you try to fix your relationships or others. What will they do? Hopefully, they will make you think—about how to analyze your close relationships and other meaningful parts of your life within a carefully considered system of meaning and logic; make you think about the necessary connection between such a system and behavior that is consistent with the system; about how to draw that connection in your daily behavior, for we firmly believe in Camus’ famous line to the effect that the last judgment takes place in our daily and momentary decision-making and 234

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 235

S O M E

P R I N C I P L E S

T O

R E L A T E

A N D

L I V E

B Y

actions. Add to that gem of insight Camus’ other pearl of wisdom that there can be no happiness if our beliefs and actions are inconsistent, and you have, in three succinct sentences, a powerful charge to every human being about the way to live an ethically sound life.

SOME PRINCIPLES TO R E L AT E A N D L I V E B Y Tr y t o A c h i e v e B a l a n c e i n D e c i s i o n s and Actions in Daily Life Working to find balance in one’s views and behavior is crucial to finding tranquility in life. Balance is an in-between position. One is neither too risky in decisions and behavior, nor too cautious. In relationships, some people take many risks all the time—everything from giving out their heart on a platter the first time they meet someone who simply appears to have qualities with which they want to link up to having unprotected sex with someone whose history is unknown to the risk-taker. It may even be construed as a risk to agree to marry someone with whom one has major attitude and value differences. The risk-taker in the latter instance may hope to see change in those views of her or his partner; maybe the partner will see the light as time goes on and reason and experience sink in? Do not hold your breath, especially if the other party has been on this earth for even a short time (say even 18 years). Changes in major value and attitude dimensions are not that likely. So, the decision-maker, in this case, is taking an untenable risk. At the same time, one has to take risks every day as a matter of living. You usually assume that other drivers will stop at red lights, that people will not try to assassinate you on the sidewalk, that you will not be seduced—at least fully—at work or in the classroom (i.e., you can do what you expect to do in those settings without wildly unexpected events occurring to interfere). What if, in a chance meeting with a stranger, the other person shows some qualities that are very appealing? Yet, you have little time to act or show interest in this person. What should you do? We would say that if you are looking for a partner, take a chance and try to find out more about this other person and in so doing reveal more about yourself. One who is searching has to be alert to such risk-taking and have scripts in mind as to how to show sincere interest (e.g., asking a person about the book he or she is reading, or asking the person about how he or she feels about meeting new people in public settings). Being open to new experience, whether it involves a new close relationship or some other experience, is one of the chief ways we grow psychologically, learn about the world, and create new vistas of opportunity for ourselves. For each of us, there is a “golden mean” that can be found and that can represent the appropriate levels of caution and risk-taking that we believe fit us. Do not be swayed by extreme, cliche-like logic such as “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” Maybe that logic should prevail, but you have to decide when. For every maxim, there usually is a countermaxim that an equally persuasive line of reasoning associated with it. That is part of the thesis of a fine, scholarly work by Michael Billig and several other authors in their (1988) book, Ideological Dilemmas. They argue that contradictory strands of logic abound within both ideology and common sense. Such dilemmas, the authors imply, challenge us to develop our own sense of what is right and wrong. That is, they challenge us to find our own 235

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 236

1 3 .

E N H A N C I N G

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

“golden mean.” We should not shirk the responsibility of using our minds to try to analyze even the greatest of dilemmas and act accordingly—see the principle on taking responsibility later. The reader should see (in the balance principle) the answer we advocate to the quandry raised by Bellah et al. (1985) regarding an individual’s need and obligation to take care of self versus the need and obligation to reach out to others—to be more communal in behavior. We believe that each of us must achieve our own personal balance between these two legitimate and sometimes mutually exclusive goals. We must recognize that neither will be done well if we neglect the other. If we are to err on one side or the other, we would favor the communal approach that Bellah et al. also seemed to espouse. Uriel and Edna Foa’s (1974) book, Societal Structures of the Mind, presented an exchange theory of relationships that posited an important point along this line: When you give something as precious as love to others, the process of giving actually returns love to you as well—and in even greater proportions than that which you gave.

Tr y t o A c h i e v e E m p a t h y a n d B r e a d t h in Dealing with People What each of us will do in our most important moments as humans is interact closely with other humans. Can we see the world from their mind’s eyes and feel as they feel in dealing with their dilemmas? No, but we can try. How? Practice. Practice being a discerning listener. Practice asking thoughtful questions about another’s life and the topics for which other is desiring discussion. Practice being careful in giving advice—take questions under consideration if they require more thought. We do not think you can “practice caring about other.” We are assuming you do if you interact closely with them. Breadth in our experience in traveling and interacting with diverse others is invaluable to the development of considerable empathy in how we live our lives. We need diverse experiences. They are the lifeblood of higher education as it pertains to learning about others—and in the process learning a great deal about ourselves. So, travel as much as you can and learn as much as you can about the lands and people in places distant to your own land. Try to take time to learn about people whom you would not likely encounter in your daily walks. Their stories are just as informative about the human condition as is the stories of people with whom you more regularly interact.

Work On and Be Faithful to Your Network of Close Others This principle could be seen as the sine qua non of the social support literature. Social support, of a truly high quality nature, is essential in dealing with stress and day-to-day issues of living. Further, it makes one happier to be alive on intrinsic grounds. A networks of friends who include good confidants (i.e., you can bare most of your soul, anxieties, and deepest fears at least with some of them, and they can do the same with you) takes a lot of time—and testing—to develop. “Typical friends” often flunk the test of closeness and helpfulness in times of great duress, when much will be asked of them. You need people on whom you can depend. All available research on the support value of friendship emphasizes the role of friends as companions and confidants who are there for you in times of stress (Sherrod, 1989). To have same, you, too, have to be highly dependable, at least for some subset of people we would call “best friends or confidants.” We personally believe that the best way to maintain such a network is regular communication that means something. Taking the time to write a long and descriptive letter periodi236

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 237

S O M E

P R I N C I P L E S

T O

R E L A T E

A N D

L I V E

B Y

cally or to call and spend some time on the affairs of each person’s life are maintenance steps. Try to be there, too, for times when the other is very ill or possibly experiencing financial or other major living difficulties, or when that friend’s close others die and the friend wants and needs you to be near. You should be able to expect the same from your best friends. We realize that this line of reasoning is axiomatic. Yet, it appears more self-evident to women than it is to men. Men do not emphasize confiding to other men about the deeper matters of their lives as do women. Men often look to women as the key confidants in their lives; and then they may rely on one person for that role. Especially when they become involved, men sometimes drop their good female friends. That is psychologically fatal! You will always need them. They can nourish you in ways that your partner cannot. Do not put all of the responsibility for confiding and psychological sustenance on your partner, just as you must be open to the value of your partner having other close colleagues with whom to share confidences.

N o u r i s h t h e M i n d We l l a n d Wo r k t h e B o d y Read widely and devoutly. Exercise regularly. Need more be said? These activities have tremendous rippling impacts through our lives. Reading gives us perspective. Working the body hard and regularly gives us self-confidence and endurance—we often can persevere much better in the face of stress or personal crises. When we come up against difficult hurdles in our work or personal lives, a solid history of physical fitness activities may immunize us against caving in to pressure. It may give us a sense of control, even in times that, objectively speaking, we have little. This sense of control is conducive to health (Rodin & Langer, 1977). If at all possible, do not stop these activities when problems or heavy work/school schedules intrude, or when the weather is poor. Learn to see them as of such nourishing value that they should almost always take precedence over other possible activities. Friends and family may say that you owe them your time for interaction above all other priorities. You do not. You owe it to yourself first and foremost. You will be a better friend and relate more effectively with your close others to the extent that you have nourished your own needs. Often people begin to engage in physical fitness activities after separation or divorce. They want to look better, given that now they will be meeting new others and dating again. We believe that such physical fitness activities can contribute more to psychological and physical health if one regularly attends to them. You need to work out whether you are experiencing the greatest ecstasy in your love life, or the deepest valley of despair. One of the most enduring nourishers of mental health across many relationships has been a fairly intense, regular physical fitness program. We like to create personal tests (such as work toward a goal of miles one can run at a reasonable pace, or bench press one can do). These tests periodically reaffirm the accumulation of strength and fitness and give one a sense that such progress can be made, at different levels, throughout the body’s aging process. A person may prefer less vigorous but similarly useful activities such as meditation or Yoga as part of bodily nourishment. Another helpful step in taking charge of your own health is to turn off the telephone when it is your time to read or reflect or write (see later). You, and not others, should command your time and life-space. We usually use the telephone for a lot more minutes than we need to have rapport with others, to gossip, or to learn something. Tell your close others that you will have a phone machine on during “your time.” Do not relent on your rules for how you use your time. 237

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 238

1 3 .

E N H A N C I N G

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

In the chapter on female–male dialogue, it is noted that females, much more than males, use daily talk to achieve rapport and intimacy with friends and lovers. This daily talk, in the form of “troubles talk” as it is called by Deborah Tannen (1990), represents an invaluable experience. Nevertheless, a balance between such talk and action is possible and can contribute both to rapport with others and accomplishment in one’s work and personal nourishment.

Create an Ongoing Record of Reflections and Behavioral Patterns for Planned Achievements Be bullish on diary- and record-keeping. Buy a cheap calendar-date book. Mark down your physical workouts and other easy-to-record accomplishments. This step may sound simple, but it is not. It is a powerful tool for pushing self. It will show you your effort over a long period and thereby will reinforce and give strength for similar accomplishments in the future. In the context of a speech about the various problems people often face at major transition points in their lives, the first author once recommended this step to a group of college freshmen who were attempting to get oriented to the first year in college and being away from home. Interestingly, later in the year, the only piece of this speech that got reported by students to the people running the orientation program was the part in which it was recommended to buy and use a calendar-date book to record important daily events. Keep a more extensive diary, or jottings, about major aspects of your life such as your loves, hopes, fears, successes, and failures. This activity will give you perspective. The act itself may inform you. The act may give you insight into how to change your behavior in the future. As seen in the chapters on dissolution and grieving, diary-keeping may be one of the most effective ways of coming to grips with loss. It gives you an outlet for your most private thoughts. It allows you to vent your feelings. It “gives back” to you not only a record, but also evidence about who you were at critical points in your life. You need this type of self-understanding to better plan and bring into being your future selves.

B e R e s p o n s i b l e : Tr e a t P r o b l e m s i n L i v i n g a s C h a l l e n g e s Yo u Wi l l A d d r e s s a s B e s t Yo u C a n a n d N o t I m p o s s i b l e O b s t a c l e s Everyone has major dilemmas in their lives. For some, they occur regularly. Some people face up to their dilemmas better than others. They deal with them as best they can and move on in a timely fashion. That is a critically important lesson to learn. Moaning, whining, complaining about the powers that be, the system, your parents, your lover or spouse, your lack of looks or abilities will not be useful. Why waste the energy? Address the problem in a forthright manner, with due consideration of the particulars and as much advice as you desire from people whom you trust. Then act. That is the central message of the self-empowerment thesis. It also is the central message of various schools of thought in the behavioral and social sciences.

L i f e C a n B e H a r d — W h o e v e r P r o m i s e d Yo u I t Wo u l d N o t B e T h a t Wa y ? L e a r n t o E n d u r e a n d H e l p O t h e r s E n d u r e , To o We all are subject to pain such as that found in knotted relationships. (see Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). This vulnerability does not mean that we had an impoverished family background or that we have personalities that make close relationships impossible. 238

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 239

S O M E

P R I N C I P L E S

T O

R E L A T E

A N D

L I V E

B Y

When such difficulties arise, however, we likely will benefit from taking a good, long look at our lives and how well we are pursuing our own system of meaning and logic. In fact, such a look may humble us. And most of us can always gain from a more humble approach to living. We are only a heartbeat away from the opposite of living. Perspective, often gained from travel and meeting diverse other people, can greatly facilitate this indepth examination of who we are and hope to become. Telling people to learn to endure life’s struggles may sound a bit cynical. It is, however, the type of advice that derives from the “wisdom of the ages” in human experience. Consider what professional basketball player Scott Skiles, a former starting guard on the Orlando Magic basketball team, and in year 2000 the coach of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, has to say about how he has overcome a modicum of natural ability as an athlete to rise high in the world of competitive sports (From Sam Smith’s article “Scrappy Skiles Scorns Skeptics’ Scrutiny, Chicago Tribune, Sunday, March 21, 1993, Section 3, p. 3): “I’m not particularly gifted . . .” says Skiles, often noted for what he’s lacking— speed, size, jumping ability and defense. “My main gift is my ability to persevere.” “When I was in junior high school, they said I was too small for high school,” said Skiles who went on to lead his Plymouth, Ind., school to a “Hoosiers” like upset . . . “to win the Indiana state championship.” “When I was in high school, they said I was too fragile, not durable enough, too slow for college ball,” said Skiles, who became a first-team All-American and an NBA first-round pick from Michigan State. “And it has been the same when I came in this league . . . The guys who are in the front in battle, when they’re charging are they courageous or stupid? I’m not sure what I am. But it gets me by.” “I’m not a sprinter . . . But I’m the guy who can run the marathon. And that means I can do more than people realize. I’ve run the whole gamut in this league, from not playing to playing when we need a three to playing all the time. I’ve been in every situation and come through it. I didn’t have everything handed to me.” Skiles points toward a situation all of us encounter on occasion, namely: It is a situation in which we are up against the odds, or in which others do not think that we can excel or come through. But when we have learned how to persist against the odds and to let adversity motivate us, we can accomplish deeds and outcomes that otherwise might be seen as well beyond our means. Returning to the situation involving dissolution or divorce, we would suggest that it often involves a shattering of any illusion of invulnerability to such events that we might have. That is, it turns our world on end. Ronnie Janoff-Bulman (1992) wrote an influential book, Shattered Assumptions, about how people often experience major losses that shatter their taken-for-granted assumptions regarding the “goodness,” “fairness,” and “justice” of life. Life becomes grubbier after these experiences. It, indeed, must be endured at various critical points. These assumptions get shattered in many ways, whether by divorce, death, a serious accident, major business failure, or whatever. If we survive the early period of feeling that we have little control left in how we live our lives (see the chapter on grieving), these events often leave us as very humble beings. But that is empowering. Why? Humility is a state of mind that is in close contact with reality. This better grasp of reality leavens one’s decisions and actions with a broader perspective and less intense

239

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 240

1 3 .

E N H A N C I N G

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

self-interest. Thus, as importantly, humility that is born in these situations may stimulate the holder to endeavor to facilitate others’ self-empowerment as well. If divorce or other major losses help us find and hold onto humility, we have profited in a huge way.

There Always Is Enough Time To Do What You Want To Do In the relationship world, in particular, a saying common to people in the early 2000s is that “there never is enough time to do what we must do” with regard to our primary other, our children, our friends, not to mention our work and ourselves. We can solve that problem with dispatch. First, get rid of the “must” and make it “want to.” Then, recognize that time is something you helped create and sustain with your thought and behavior. To a degree, therefore, you can, rearrange time in your mind so that what seems to be too little is ample. How do you do this miracle? It is not a miracle. It is an organized, decisive approach to living that involves a prioritization of what is most important about living to you—go back to your system of meaning and logic. When you know what you want to do regularly and with the highest quality of attention and care, give it the best moments of your day. Again, as noted before, do not permit undue intrusions. Whether it is love-making, helping others solve problems, or visiting with a dear friend, find a way to fit the activity in among others because it is that important to you. Other tips for rearranging how you think about time are: Learn that activities that are presumed to take a long time, do not have to take a long time. Learn efficiency techniques. They may save your marriage! Learn how to wedge into the seams of mundane activities, such as standing in line, more sublime activities such as planning your next book. We realize that the preceding answer might be seen as a bit cavalier to the woman who has a part-time job, two kids at home who require full-time care, and a spouse who wonders why they never have sex anymore because you are too tired at the end of the day. In this relatively simplistic commentary, we cannot be sensitive enough, or do enough justice, to such legitimate and common presses on the individual and family. They are imposing, and probably only those who have had to cope with such situations have the right to preach. But we can suggest, in this instance, that the individual’s system of meaning and organization of behavior may have to be re-evaluated. The primary relationship needs nourishing, lest the other relationships begin to suffer when the inevitable crumbling of the primary relationship begins. Possibly one direction to consider in demanding family situations is the enlistment of close friends to trade services such as child care and shopping. The success of such a step depends much on the strength of one’s network of friends, as discussed previously.

A f t e r Yo u H a v e D e v e l o p e d We l l Yo u r G o a l s , P r i n c i p l e s , a n d B e h a v i o r a l A p p r o a c h e s t o L i v i n g , Tr u s t T h y s e l f In his essay “Self-Reliance,” Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind . . . Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.” Emerson also said, “It is easy to live for others. Everybody does. We call on you to live for yourselves.” These words speak volumes, we believe, especially when they are made in the context of a person’s diligent work to develop self and all that self needs to develop in order to faithfully carry out the mission of living. Frequently, people will challenge our logic and the way we do business. You and your ways may be the target of harsh criticism even from 240

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 241

S O M E

P R I N C I P L E S

T O

R E L A T E

A N D

L I V E

B Y

those whom you care about deeply. A lover may complain regularly, for example, that you do not give enough of some quality to her or him. It probably always is useful to hear out such challenges and criticism. Indeed, changes may be warranted. But, in the final analysis, if you have worked hard to order your life, trust yourself most in how you conduct your life. One of the problems in trusting yourself is that knowing yourself most likely will be a prerequisite to the development of trust. Unfortunately, for many of us, in our early development and socialization, we are not encouraged by parents and other key individuals to develop yourself fully, and hence to learn to trust yourself. We consider the words of Jean Baer, who has written self-help books about women and relationships for more than 2 decades. Her message to adults essentially is to stop being an emotional victim based on past experience: I was always the responsible one in my family. My mother, Helen Roth Baer, got sick [with cancer] when I was 13 and because I was the oldest of the three children I had to take charge. I stayed to live with my father after my mother died, even though I could have moved to New York and had an apartment of my own. I went on being the responsible one in my adult life, always assuming every responsibility. . . . Because of my need for approval, I’ve attached myself to a lot of users. I was brought up to invite people for dinner, be the good girl, take a seat in the back of the bus. I hope I’m a little tougher now. I think people get so used to being what they are in childhood, such as the scapegoat or the star, that somehow they go on playing that role forever, even when it isn’t called for. I can think of countless ways I’ve changed myself . . . I always had let other people direct me, preferably mother types . . . Today, what has changed about me is a sense that I can do more . . . It’s up to you to make your own life, to reach out. It’s not a question of “I’d like to do this,” but “I’m going to do this.” You’ve got to take advantage of opportunities that come your way. An awful lot of people don’t. I think there have been hundreds I passed up. At Seventeen magazine I had constant offers for other jobs, but I couldn’t leave “mother,” my female boss. I stayed because I wanted “mother’s” love. (Article in Chicago Tribune, “TempoWoman” Section, September 11, 1988, p. 3)

Don’t Make Excuses and Go by the Rule of Spare the Sympathy! That is what Bob Wieland, former strength coach of the Green Bay Packers Football Team suggested in 1986 when he completed a “walk for hunger” from Los Angeles to Washington, DC. His walk contributed over $300,000 in pledges for disabled veterans. No big deal? Maybe that is what you think. Bob Wieland lost his legs—totally—in 1969 when he stepped on a booby-trapped, 82-mm shell in Vietnam. He made the walk on his hands, wearing rubber pads on both hands and a leather strap under his torso. He has accomplished quite a bit since then, including his famous walk. He is the only double-amputee to compete in the Ironman Triathlon in Hawaii. He runs marathons, on his hands, that is. He bench pressed 507 pounds in 1977, breaking the world record in his weight class. Wieland wrote a book about his experience entitled One Step at a Time. His message was simple: You’re alive, so use your life to the fullest. 241

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 242

1 3 .

E N H A N C I N G

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

SOME FUTURE DIRECTIONS This final section includes predictions in how we continue to carry out our close relationships in the early 21st century. Then, we conclude with a few important new directions for future research in the field. Our predictions for relationship developments are as follows: • As has been the trend for 3 decades, many young people will stay single, until even later points than is presently true. It will not be uncommon for people to stay single well into their 30s and 40s. Many will decide not to marry at all. A continuing trend will be for mid-life people who lose their spouse via divorce or death to stay single. • Related to mid-life people staying single, all indications are that many older individuals who are part of the “baby boom” generations will stay single after divorce or the death of their spouse. Further, they may live with other persons as part of their quest for closeness, but have no need for marriage. That trend already is becoming substantial for persons in their 60s and beyond. • A thoughtful book by Glenda Riley entitled Divorce: An American Tradition (1991) suggested that the mechanism of divorce needs serious reform in this country. She argued that because of the many difficulties and sometimes trauma associated with divorce proceedings and child custody and support judgments, different courts should judge divorce and child custody, support, and division of assets. Steps such as challenging stereotypes regarding who is best qualified to be awarded custody and buffering children against parents using them in custody and support disputes need to be developed to make divorce proceedings fairer and more humane. • A continuing trend will be for young people in their late teens to publically indicate their homosexual lifestyle orientation. Now, most of these teens are in college when they feel safe enough to declare their sexual identity that often meets with disbelief and anger from their parents. We believe that the society will be more tolerant and open over time, such that an earlier public declaration may be more likely to occur. This assumption is based in part on the major strides gay and lesbian individuals are making in areas such as employment and running for public office in the last decade. Increasingly, people are coming to realize that sexual lifestyle very likely has little to do with how one carries out his or her job. It is our experience that college students tend to be more tolerant of sexual lifestyle differences among their colleagues. If that is true, those students will be the adult leaders of the future and hopefully will advocate for tolerance and fairness in how different groups of people are treated. • AIDS probably will be as deadly early in the 21st century as it is late in the 20th century. What effect that fact will be having on heterosexual sexual activity is unclear. “Casual sex” likely will continue, especially if AIDS is not rampant among heterosexual persons (and if new drugs lengthen the lives of persons with AIDS). “Casual sex” usually is not so casual, and indeed it may help people learn about their own and others’ sexuality. It also may be a vital part of sampling partners for closeness. As with all good things, however, this activity now and for some time into the future must be approached with considerable care about the histories of one’s potential partners and with attention to “safe sex” (which really is a nonsequitur because there always is some emotional danger in sexuality, not to mention possible leaks in condoms!).

242

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 243

S O M E

F U T U R E

D I R E C T I O N S

• The fast pace and diversity of our lifestyles of the 21st century will be exemplified by many close relationships that involve interracial and interreligious couples—a trend well in place now—and by couples who commute many miles between job and home. In this latter regard, we probably will see more and more couples who are international commuters in their relationships. • Where jobs are and getting jobs in the same place will continue to be a taxing issue for dual-career couples, who will continue to be quite superior in number compared to traditional couples involving one person’s total abandonment of his or her career. Similarly, increasingly, couples will agree for one, or both parties in some sequence, to take leaves from their careers and to take the lead in child-care activity. Child care will continue to be a problem in expense and quality. Increasingly, public law and policy will support two-career marriages and the need to simultaneously implement effective work and parenting responsibilities (e.g., the 1993 law pertaining to employees’ right to retention of jobs after parental leave in companies having over 50 employees). • Many couples will continue to recognize the importance of each person’s personal development within the context of the development of the relationship and family. More egalitarian close relationships will exist than ever before. They will be based on adherence to regular dialogue about issues and openness to challenge of the way things have been done in the past. As is true today, many couples will not be able to achieve this type of relating early in their relationship careers or in their present relationship. It will come mainly through learning from experience, patience, and commitment to make a close relationship work. • We will continue to experience unexpected tidal-wave–type events in the relationship world—similar to what happens when countries experience war or major depression. For example, what is happening in Moscow 2001 as the Russian economy continues to struggle will have ramifications for thousands of families and their functioning. What if the U.S. economy continues its late 2000 downturn in coming years—how will that affect our relationships and families? Now, to turn to a few suggested directions for future research in this vibrant field of work on close relationships: 1. How do cognition, emotion, physiology, personality, and behavior patterns converge and diverge in couples in the various stages of their relationships? 2. How do different ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic group memberships affect close relationship dynamics? 3. How do serial relationships and marriages interact in people’s minds and patterns of behavior. How do memories of past relationships get processed as people move along in new relationships? What are the effects of people discussing their memories of past relationships with new partners? 4. What are the processes by which children learn close relationship skills? How and when do they model what they see by parents in the home? How much impact do television, movies, and peers have on children’s relationship patterns? 5. Finally, a host of questions remain for the greatly understudied population of couples at late mid-life and beyond: How many who are single and in the range of age

243

01-070 C13 pp 9/13/01 2:05 PM Page 244

1 3 .

E N H A N C I N G

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

60 and above are cohabiting versus just dating? What does it mean to cohabit to this group? Does it mean to live consistently together, or to get together overnight regularly? What types of living arrangements do these involved older persons develop to live their lives of intimacy? How do single members of this group find partners for closeness after partners have died or divorce has occurred? Are there dating and mating practices similar to those observed for persons who are younger in age? How important is sexuality within and outside close relationships for this group? How common is infidelity in this age group among married or involved partners? How many married couples in this age range are actively contemplating divorce? How long have they been considering divorce, and what are some of the factors involved in their continued delay? How much influence do adult children have on the relationships of persons in this age range?

CONCLUSIONS By presenting some principles of personal adjustment, we have pointed toward the need for personal growth as a sine qua non of successful relationship functioning. A good foundation gives a house the capacity to weather many types of natural disasters. The same reasoning is applicable to close relationship events in our lives. We do not build a foundation overnight. We do not build a foundation in flimsy way. It takes work and perseverance, practically each day of our lives to keep the foundation sturdy—remember Camus’ lines! Some other pieces of common logic that we have concluded have merit for this analysis. For example, a common sense maxim is that “Life is short. Live it to the fullest.” We believe that. If one’s system of meaning and logic includes principles such as those articulated previously, we believe that the individual will be living life to the fullest and recognizing the preciousness of the moments we have. The predictions about the future, both for developments in how we carry out close relationships and in what research is needed, suggest the great diversity of topics and opportunities awaiting the student of close relationships. At times, the field may seem to involve nothing more than common sense. But if that is the case, why do we have such enormous problems to try to solve in how people implement their closeness and achieve satisfaction and well-functioning families? The truth is, we believe, this topic is immensely complicated—just as much so as the human mind is a profoundly complex organ, and in the case of close relationships, at least two human minds always are involved!

244

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 245

REFERENCES Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributes for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females’ friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830–838. Acitelli, L. K. (1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness and marital satisfaction among young married couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 102–110. Acker, M., & Davis, M. H. (1992). Intimacy, passion and commitment in adult romantic relationships: A test of the Triangular Theory of Love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 21–50. Agocha, V. B., & Cooper, M. L. (1999). Risk perceptions and safer-sex intentions: Does a partner’s physical attractiveness undermine the use of risk–relevant information? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 749–759. Ahrons, C. (1994). The good divorce. New York: HarperCollins. Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Aldous, J. (1996). Family careers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Amato, P. (2000). The consequences of divorce for children and adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287. Amato, P., & Booth, A. (1997). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family upheaval. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Anderson, S. M., & Cole, S. W. (1990). Do I know you?: The role of significant others in general social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 384–399. Andrews, B., & Brewin, C. R. (1990). Attributions of blame for marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 757–767. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love as the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1996). Self and self-expansion in relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 325–344). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 31–36. Atkinson, J. (1998, December). Addicted to sex. Texas Monthly, pp. 185–190. Backman, C. W., & Secord, P. F. (1959). The effect of perceived liking on interpersonal attraction. Human Relations, 12, 379–384. Bagnato, A. (1993). Henson fights grief by looking to No. 600. Chicago Tribune, January 11, 1993, Section 3, p. 1. Bailey, B. L. (1988). From front porch to back seat. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Bailey, J. M., & Dawood, K. (1998). Behavior genetics, sexual orientation, and the family. In C. Patterson & A. d’ Augelli (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities in families (pp. 135–154). New York: Oxford University Press. Bailey, J. M., & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089–1092. Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Neale, M. C., & Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 217–223. Baldwin, J. (1993). Romance. Associated Press Release, April 18, 1993. Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247–261. Bane, J. J. (1976). Here to stay: American families in the twentieth century. New York: Basic Books.

245

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 246

Banker, B. S., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Achieving stepfamily harmony: An intergroup-relations approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 310–325. Barnes, S. (1999). Married for keeps. Chicago Tribune, August 8, 1999, Family Section, p. C1 & C4. Barnett, R. C., & Rivers, C. (1996). He works: She works. New York: HarperCollins. Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147–178. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. Bartlett, F. C. (1935). Remembering. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bass, E., & Davis, L. (1988). Courage to heal. New York: HarperCollins. Battan, M. (1992). Sexual strategies. New York: Putnam. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Baumeister, R. F., & Wotman, S. R. (1992). Breaking hearts: The two sides of unrequited love. New York: Guilford. Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 377–394. Baxter, L. A. (1987). Cognition and communication in the relationship process. In R. Burnett, P. McGhee, & D. Clarke (Eds.), Accounting for relationships: Explanation, representation and knowledge (pp. 192–212). London: Methuen. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues & dialectics. New York: Guilford. Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Taboo topics in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 253–269. Bazzini, D. G., Shaffer, D. R. (1999). Resisting temptation revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 162–176. Beach, S. R., & Tesser, A. (1988). Love in marriage. In R. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 330–355). New Haven: Yale University Press. Beck, A. (1988). Love is never enough. New York: Harper & Row. Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bem, D. J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103, 320–325. Bem, S. L.(1993). The lens of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bentz, V. (1989). Becoming mature. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Berger, D. G., & Wenger, M. G. (1973). The ideology of virginity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35, 666–676. Bergquist, W., Greenberg, E., & Klaum, A. (1993). In our fifties. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Berkman, L. F., Leo-Summers, C., & Horwitz, R. I. (1992). Emotional support and survival after myocardial infarction: A prospective population-based study of the elderly. Annals of Internal Medicine, 117, 1003–1009. Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bernard, J. (1982). The future of marriage. (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. Bernikow, L. (1987). Alone in America. Winchester, MA: Faber and Faber. Berscheid, E. (1988). Some comments on love’s anatomy or, whatever happened to old–fashioned lust? In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 359–374). New Haven: Yale University Press. Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 79–129. Berscheid, E. (1997). Developments in the study of close relationships. Presented at Banff Meeting of International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships, June, 1997. Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260–266. Berscheid, E., Ammazzalorso, H., Langenfeld, N., & Lopes, J. (2001). Causal attributions of relationship quality. In V. Manusov & J. Harvey (Eds.), Attribution, communication behavior, and close relationships (pp. 115–133). New York: Cambridge University Press.

246

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 247

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1997). Attraction and close relationships. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 193–281). 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. (1978). Interpersonal attraction (2nd ed.), Needham, MA: AddisonWesley. Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas. London: Sage. Binson, D. (1995). Prevalence and social distribution of men who have sex with men. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 245–254. Bleske, A. L. & Buss, D. M. (2000). Can men and women be just friends? Personal Relationships. 7(2), 131–151. Blieszner, R., & Mancini, J. A. (1992). Developmental perspectives on relationship loss. In T. Orbuch (Ed.), Close relationship loss (pp. 142–154). New York: Springer-Verlag. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: Simon & Schuster. Bochner, A. P., Ellis, C., & Tillman, L. M. (1997). Relationships as stories. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships, (2nd ed., pp. 307–324). Sussex, England: Wiley. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. Brannock, J. C., & Chapman, B. E. (1990). Negative sexual experiences with men among heterosexual women and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 19, 105–110. Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. P. (1991). Extradyadic relationships and sexual jealousy. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 135–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brody, S. (1997). Sex at risk. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Brotman, B. (1993). Column. Chicago Tribune, May 2, 1993, p. 2E. Brown, C. (1993). Breaking-up. Glamour. P. 163. Bryant, A. S., & Demian, P. (1994). Relationship characteristics of American gay and lesbian couples: Findings from a national survey. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 1, 101–117. Bulcroft, R. A., & Bulcroft, K. A. (1991). The nature and functions of dating in later life. Research on Aging, 13, 244–260. Bulcroft, K. A., & O’Connor, M. (1986). The importance of dating relationships on quality of life for older persons. Family Relations, 35, 397–401. Burgess, E. W., & Cottrell, L. S. (1939). Predicting success or failure in marriage. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Burgess, R. L., & Huston, T. L. (Eds.). (1979). Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press. Burleson, B. R. (1995). Personal relationships as a skilled accomplishment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 575–581. Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 661–728. Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books. Buunk, B., & Van Driel, B. (1989). Variant lifestyles and relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Byers, E., & Heinlein, L. (1989). Predicting initiations and refusals of sexual activities in married and cohabiting heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 21–231. Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 713–715. Call, V., Sprecher, S., & Schwartz, P. (1995). The incidence and frequency of marital sex in a national sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 639–650. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

247

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 248

Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 3–22). San Diego: Academic Press. Caporael, L. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1991). The quest for human nature: Social and scientific issues in evolutionary psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 47, 1–9. Carlsen, M. B. (1991) Creative aging. New York: Norton Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). Courtship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cavanaugh, J. C. (1993). Adult development and aging (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press. Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdrawal pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73–81. Chavez, L. (1995). Kinsey research more than a little suspect. USA TODAY, December 13, 1995, p. 13A. Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. M. (1985). Premarital sexual pathways and relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 271–288. Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 707–720. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24. Clark, R. D. (1990). The impact of AIDS on gender differences in willingness to engage in casual sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 771–782. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55. Close, E. (1995). A man’s world: How is male privilege. New York: HarperCollins. Cloud, J. (2000). Will gay marriage be legal? Time, Feb. 21, p. 26. Coleman, J. C. (1984). Intimate relationships, marriage, and the family. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Coleman, M. (1997). Review of Handbook of aging and the family edited by R. Blieszner & V. H. Bedford. Contemporary psychology, 42, 325–326. Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. (in press). Relationship maintenance and enhancement in remarried families. In J. H. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1288–1307. Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (in press). Decade review on remarriage and families. Journal of Marriage and the Family. Converse, L. (1993). One day it’s time to turn dreams into true living. Chicago Tribune, March 28, 1993, Section 6, p. 8. Cook, S. (1999). Sex, lies, and the oral tradition. Daily Iowan, p. 3A, January 21, 1999. Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (1999). The adult attachment interview and the relationship questionnaire: Relations to reports of mothers and partners. Personal Relationships, 6, 1–18. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Toward a psychology of optimal experience. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 13–26. Cunningham, J. D., & Antill, J. K. (1981). Love in developing romantic relationships. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships: Developing personal relationships (Vol. 2) (pp. 27–51). New York: Academic Press. Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1991). Sexuality and communication in close relationships. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 93–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dabbs, J. M. (1992). Testosterone measurements in social and clinical psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 302–321. Danica, E. (1988). Don’t. San Francisco: Cleis Press. Dannecker, M. (1984). Towards a theory of homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 1–8.

248

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 249

Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation process arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35, 867–881. Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826–838. Densmore, D., Giler, J., & Neumeyer, K. (1992). Redefining Mr. Right. Oakland: New Harbinger. Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dion, K. L. & Dion, K. K. (1976). Love, liking, and trust in heterosexual relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 191–206. Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143–158. Duck, S. W. (1973). Personal relationships and personal constructs: A study of friendship formation. Chichester: Wiley. Duck, S. W., & Sants, H. K. A. (1983). On the origin of the specious: Are relationships really interpersonal states. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 27–41. Ehrenreich, B., Hess, E., & Jacobs, G. (1986). Re-making love: The feminization of sex. New York: Simon & Schuster. Elias, M. (1999). Fraying families are taking earlier toll. USA TODAY, November 30, 1999, p. 8D. Emery, R. E. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody, and mediation. New York: Guilford Press. Epstein, S. (1993). You’re smarter than you think you are. New York: Simon & Schuster. Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W. Norton. Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: W. Norton. Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557–579. Fehr, B. (1999). Laypeople’s conceptions of commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 90–103. Feng, D., Giarrusso, R., Bengtson, V. L., & Frye, N. (1999). Intergenerational transmission of marital quality and marital instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 451–463. Festinger, L. (1953). Group attraction and membership. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 103–134). Evanston, IL: Row & Peterson. Fincham, F. D. (1985). Attributions in close relationships. In J. H. Harvey & G. Weary (Eds.), Attribution: Basic issues and applications (pp. 203–234). New York: Academic Press. Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., Harold, G. T., & Osborne, L. N. (1997). Marital satisfaction and depression: Different causal relationships for men and women? Psychological Science, 8, 351–357. Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The impact of attributions in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 510–517. Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 613–628. Fine, M. (1992). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. In M. Fine (Ed.), Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist research (pp. 31–59). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands & wives: Communication in marriage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 73–89. Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Social structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Fraley, W., & Shaver, P. (1999). Loss and bereavement: Attachment theory and recent controversies concerning grief work and the nature of detachment. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (pp. 735–759). New York: Guilford Press. Frankl, V. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. New York: Washington Square Press. Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York: Harper & Row. Furstenberg, F. F., & Cherlin, A. (1991). Divided families. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

249

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 250

Furstenberg, F. F., & Spanier, G. B. (1987). Remarriage and reconstituted families. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 419–434). New York: Plenum. Furstenberg, F. F., & Teitler, J. O. (1994). Reconsidering the effects of marital disruption: What happens to children of divorce in early childhood? Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 489–502. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroege & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–25). London: Wiley. Gaines, S. O., Jr., & Ickes, W. (1997). Perspectives on interracial relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 197–220). Chichester: Wiley. Gaines, S. O., Jr., Granrose, C. S., Rios, D. I., Garcia, B. F., Youn, M. S. P., Farris, K. R., & Bledsoe, K. L. (1999). Patterns of attachment and responses to accommodative dilemmas among interethnic/interracial couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 275–285. Galinsky, E. (1999). Ask the children. New York: Morrow. Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (1994). Remarried family relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Garbarino, J. (1995). Growing up in a socially toxic environment: Life for children and families in the 1990s. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 42, 1–20. Gately, D., & Schwebel, A. I. (1992). Favorable outcomes in children after parental divorce. In C. A. Everett (Ed.), Divorce and the next generation (pp. 57–78). New York: Haworth Press. Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275. Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. (1984). Commuting marriage. New York: Guilford Press. Giler, J., & Neumeyer, K (1992). Redefining Mr. Right. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger & Marin. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gilmour, R., & Duck, S. W. (Eds.). (1986). The emerging field of personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Glenn, N. D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality in the 1980s: A critical review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 818–831. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Goldstein, R. (1990). Fortysomething. Los Angeles: Taracher. Goode, E. (2000). When women find love is fatal. New York Times, February 15, 2000, pp. D1 & D6. Goode, W. (1959). The theoretical importance of love. American Sociological Review, 24, 38. Gottman, J. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gottman, J. (1995). Why marriages succeed or fail. New York: Fireside Books. Gottman, J., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and The Family, 60, 5–22. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 221–233. Greene, B. (1993). Column. Chicago Tribune, May 11, 1993, Section 2, p.1. Griffin-Shelley, E. (Ed.), (1993). Outpatient treatment of sex and love addicts. Westport, CT: Praeger. Grote, N. K., Frieze, I. B., & Stone, C. A. (1996). Children, traditionalism in the division of family work, and marital satisfaction: “What’s love got to do with it?” Personal Relationships, 3, 211–228. Gutierres, S. E., Kenrick, D. T., & Partch, J. J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1126–1134. Harris, J. (1997). I kissed dating goodbye. New York: Multnomah Books. Harvey, J. H. (1987). Attributions in close relationships: Research and theoretical developments. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 8–20. Harvey, J. H. (1995). Odyssey of the heart: The search for closeness, intimacy, and love. New York: Freeman. Harvey, J. H. (1996). Embracing their memory: Loss and the social psychology of story-telling. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

250

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 251

Harvey, J. H. (2000). Give sorrow words: Perspectives on loss and trauma. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel. Harvey, J. H., Flanary, R., & Morgan, M. (1986). Vivid memories of vivid loves gone by. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 359–373. Harvey, J. H., & Hansen, A. (2000). Loss and bereavement in close romantic relationships. In C. & S. Hendrick (Eds.), Sourcebook on close relationship (pp. 359–370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Harvey, J. H., Hendrick, S. S., & Tucker, K. (1988). Self-report methods in the study of personal relationships. In S. Duck & W. Ickes (Eds.), Handbook of research on personal relationships (pp. 99–113). New York: Wiley. Harvey, J. H., & Omarzu, J. (1997). Minding the close relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 1, 224–240. Harvey, J. H., & Omarzu, J. (1999). Minding the close relationship: A theory of relationship enhancement. New York: Cambridge University Press. Harvey, J. H., Orbuch, T. L., Chwalisz, K., & Garwood, G. (1991). Coping with sexual assault: The roles of account-making and confiding. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 4, 515–531. Harvey, J. H., Orbuch, T. L., Weber, A. L., Merbach, N., & Alt, R. (1992). House of pain and hope: Accounts of loss. Death Studies, 16, 1–26. Harvey, J. H., Weber, A. L., Galvin, K. S., Huszti, H., & Garnick, N. (1986). Attribution and the termination of close relationships: A special focus on the account. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 189–201). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harvey, J. H., Weber, A. L., & Orbuch, T. L. (1990). Interpersonal accounts: A social psychological perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Harvey, J. H., Wells, G. L., & Alvarez, M. D. (1978). Attribution in the context of conflict and separation in close relationships. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 235–259). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. (1993). Love, sex, and intimacy. New York: HarperCollins. Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relations. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383–410. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 511–524. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1994). Attachment theory as an organizing framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1–22. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: Wiley. Heider, F. (1976). A conversation with Fritz Heider. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp. 1–10). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392–402. Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 784–794. Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98. Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1992). Romantic love. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hendrick, C., & Page, H. (1970). Self-esteem, attitude similarity, and attraction. Journal of Personality, 38, 588–601. Herbert, T. B., Silver, R. C., & Ellard, J. H. (1991). Coping with an abusive relationship: How and why do women stay? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 311–325. Herdt, G. (1997). Same sex, different cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview. Hernandez, J. (1988). Demographic trends and the living arrangements of children. In E. M. Hetherington & J. Arasteh (Eds.), Impact of divorce, single parenting, and stepparenting on children (pp. 3–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents and children. In M. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families (pp. 233–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

251

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 252

Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147–168. Hinde, R.A. (1995). A suggested structure for a science of relationships. Personal Relationships, 2, 1–15. Hite, S. (1987). Women and love. New York: Knopf. Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift. New York: Viking. Hojat, M. (1990). Can affectional ties be purchased? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 493–502. Hollis, J. (1993). The middle passage. Toronto: Inner City Books. Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.) Close relationships: Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 315–359). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Jacobson, N. J. (1985). Causal attributions of married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1389–1412. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Stuart, G. L., Sandin, E., Smutzler, N., & McLaughlin, W. (1997). Comparing the social support behaviors of violent and nonviolent husbands during discussions of wife personal problems. Personal Relationships, 4, 395–412. Horowitz, M. J. (1976). Stress response syndromes. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Hulbert, H. D., & Schuster, D. (Eds.), (1993). Reflections on the lives of women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hunt, M. M. (1966). The world of the formerly married. New York: McGraw-Hill. Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in married relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 721–733. Huyck, A. (1999). Outercourse. The Little Hawk (City High, Iowa City, Iowa). p. 1. January 22. Hyde, J. S., DeLamater, J. D., & Hewitt, E. C. (1998). Sexuality and the dual-earner couple: Multiple roles and sexual functioning. Family Psychology, 12, 354–368. Hyde, J. S., Rosenberg, B. G., & Behrman, J. (1977). Tomboyism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 73–75. Ickes, W. (1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61, 587–609. Jacobson, N. S., & Christensen, A. (1996). Integrative couple therapy: Promoting acceptance and change. New York: W. W. Norton. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions. New York: Free Press. Johnson, M. E., Brems, C., & Alford-Keating, P. (1997). Personality correlates of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 34, 57–69. Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 967–980. Joiner, T. E., Vohs, K. D., Schmidt, N. B. (2000). Social appraisal as correlate, antecedent, and consequence of mental and physical health outcomes. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 336–351. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). New York: Academic Press. Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, R. A. (1984). New York: Freeman. Jones, W. H., & Burdette, M. P. (1994). Betrayal in relationships. In A. L. Weber & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships (pp. 243–262). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Jorday, K. M., Vaughan, J. S., & Woodworth, K. J. (1997). I will survive: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’ experience of high school. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 7, 17–33. Julien, D., & Markman, H. J. (1991). Social support and social networks as determinants of individual and marital outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 549–568. Kass, A., & Kass, L. (2000). Wing to wing, oar to oar. New York: HarperCollins. Kayser, K. (1994). When love dies. New York: Guilford Press.

252

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 253

Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J., Huston, T., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, A. & Peterson, D. Close relationships (pp. 265–314). San Francisco: Freeman. Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, A., & Peterson, D. (1983). Close relationships. San Francisco: Freeman. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 75–133. Kerckhoff, A. C., & Davis, K. E. (1962). Value consensus and need complementarity in mate selection. American Sociological Review, 27, 295–303. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Fisher, L. D., Ogrocki, P., Stout, J., Speicher, C. E., & Glaser, R. (1987). Marital quality, marital disruption, and immune function. Psychosomatic Medicine, 49, 13–34. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K, Malarkey, W. B., Chee, M, Newton, T., Cacioppo, J. T., Mao, H., & Glaser, R. (1993). Negative behavior during marital conflict is associated with immunological downregulation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 395–409. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Newton, T., Cacioppo, J. T., MacCallum, R. C., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W. B. (1996). Marital conflict and endocrine function: Are men really more physiologically affected than women? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 324–332. Kinsey, A. (1948). Sexual behavior and the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders. Kinsey, A. (1953). Sexual behavior and the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123–142. Kleiman, C. (1999). Workinglife (Column). Chicago Tribune, January 26, 1999, p. 1, Section 3. Kligel, R., & Baltes, P. (1987). Theory-guided analysis of mechanisms of development and aging through testing-the-limits and research on expertise. In C. Schooler & K. Schai (Eds.), Cognitive functioning and social structures over the life course. New York: Ablex. Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kotre, J., & Hall, E. (1990). Seasons of life. Boston: Little, Brown. Kramer, H., & Kramer, K. (1993). Conversations at midnight. New York: Morrow. Kurdek, L. A. (1992). Relationship stability and relationship satisfaction in cohabiting gay and lesbian couples: A prospective longitudinal test of the contextual and interdependence models. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 125–142. Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 221–242. Kurdek, L. A. (1999). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 553–568. Laing, R. D. (1970). Knots. New York: Pantheon. Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities: The emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. New York: Basic Books. Laumann, E. O. (1994). The social organization of sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lavin, C. (1993). Tales from the front. Chicago Tribune, February 21, 1993, Section C, p. 6. Lavin, C. (2000). Tales from the front. Chicago Tribune, December 30, 2000, Section C, p. 4. Lawson, A. (1988). Adultery. New York: Basic Books. Lee, J. A. (1976). The colors of love. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and affective exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 587–597. Levenson, R. W., Cartensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Long-term marriage: Age, gender, and satisfaction. Psychology and Aging, 8, 301–313.

253

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 254

Levinger, G. (1964). Task and social behavior in marriage. Sociometry, 27, 433–448. Levinger, G. (1983). Development and change. In Kelley et al. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 315–359). San Francisco: Freeman. Levinger, G. (1992). Close relationship loss as a set of inkblots. In T. L. Orbuch (Ed.), Close relationship loss (pp. 213–221). New York: Springer-Verlag. Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf. Levinson, D. J. (1996). The seasons of a woman’s life. New York: Knopf. Levitan, S. A., & Belous, R. S. (1981). What’s happening to the American family? Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Levitan, S. A., Belous, R. S., & Gallo, F. (1988). What’s happening to the American family? (Rev. Ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lewis, C. S. (1961). A grief observed. New York: Bantam Books. Lewis, R. A. (1972). A developmental framework for the analysis of premarital dyadic formation. Family Process, 11, 17–48. Lorbor, A. (1992). Comment. United States Holocaust Memorial Newsletter, Winter, p. 2. MacLaine, S. (1991). Quoted in The Quotable Woman, p. 119. Don Mills, Ontario: Running Press. Mackey, W. C. (1997). The American family. New York: Plenum. Markman, H. J. (1999). Preventing divorce and relationship distress. Paper at Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1999. Markman, H., Stanley, S., & Blumberg, S. (1994). Fighting for your marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Marshall, L. L., & Vitanza, S. A. (1994). Physical abuse in close relationships. In A. Weber & J. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships (pp. 263–284). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon. Marshall, L. L., Weston, R., & Honeycutt, T. C. (2000). Does men’s positivity moderate or mediate the effects of their abuse on women’s relationship quality? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 660–675. Marshall, M. (1984). The cost of loving. New York: Putnam. Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little, Brown. Matthews, S. H. (1986). Friendship through the life course. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McCormick, N. B. (1997). Autobiography of a feminist sexual scientist. In B. Bullough, V. Bullough, M. Fithian, W. Hartman, & R. Klein (Eds.), How I got into sex (pp. 250–262). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. McKinney, K., & Sprecher, S. (1991). Introduction. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.). Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 1–8). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mead, M. (1991). Quoted in The Quotable Woman, p. 109. Don Mills, Ontario: Running Press. Meyers, S. A., & Berscheid, E. (1997). The language of love: The difference a preposition makes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 347–362. Miller, B. (1993). Thou shall not stalk. Chicago Tribune, April 18, 1993, pp. 14–20. Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 121–144. Montgomery, B. M. (1986). Playing at love. Paper presented at International Conference on Personal Relationships, Tel Aviv, June, 1986. Muehlenhard, C. L., Goggins, M. F., Jones, J. J., & Satterfield, A. T. (1991). Sexual violence and coercion in close relationships. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 155–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Murray, S., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 707–722. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 79–98. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., MacDonald, G., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1998). Through the looking glass darkly? When self-doubts turn into relationship virtues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1459–1480.

254

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 255

Murstein, B. I. (1970). Stimulus-value-role. A theory of marital choice. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 465–481. Murstein, B. I. (1988). A taxonomy of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 13–37). New Haven: Yale University Press. Murstein, B. I. (1987). A clarification and extension of SVR theory of dyadic pairing. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 929–947. Murstein, B. I. (1974). Love, sex, and marriage. New York: Springer. Murstein, B. I., & Williams, P. (1983). Sex roles and marriage adjustment. Small Group Behavior, 14, 77–93. Myers, D., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10–19. Neeld, E. (1990). Seven choices. New York: Delta. Neisser, U. (1987). From direct perception to conceptual structure. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and cognitive development (pp. 11–24). New York: Cambridge University Press. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1997). The effects of child care on infant-mother attachment security: Results of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Child Development, 68, Number 5, 860–879. Noller, P. (1980). Misunderstandings in married communication: A study of couples’ nonverbal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1135–1148. Noller, P. (1984). Nonverbal communication in marital interaction. New York: Pergamon. Norwood, R. (1986). Women who love too much. New York: Pocket Books. Orbuch, T. L. (1997). People’s accounts count: The sociology of accounts. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 455–478. Orbuch, T. L. (1988). Responses to and coping with nonmarital relationship terminations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Orbuch, T. L., & Harvey, J. H. (1991). Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of sexuality in close relationships. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 9–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Orbuch, T. L., Harvey, J. H., Davis, S. H., & Merbach, N. (1994). Account-making and confiding as acts of meaning in response to sexual assault. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 249–264. O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1993). Eroding stereotypes: College women’s attempts to influence reluctant male sexual partners. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 270–282. Parkes, C. M. (1972). Bereavement. New York: Tavistock. Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052–1069. Peck, M. S. (1978). The road less traveled. New York: Simon & Schuster. Pennebaker, J. (1990). Opening up. New York: Morrow. Peplau, L. A., Garnets, L. D., Spalding, L. R., Conley, T. D., & Veniegas, R. C. (1998). A critique of Bem’s “exotic becomes erotic” theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 105, 387–394. Peplau, L. A., & Spalding, L. R. (2000). The close relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 111–136). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Peplau, L. A., Veniegas, R. C., & Campbell, S. M. (1996). Gay and lesbian relationships. In R. Savin-Williams & K. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (pp. 250–273). New York: Harcourt Brace. Perper, T. (1985). Sex signals: The biology of love. Philadelphia: ISI Press. Petrie, K. J., Booth, R. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1998). The immunological effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1264–1272. Phillips, A. (1998). How much does monogamy tell us? New York Times, Op-Ed Section, p. A27, October 2. Pittman, F. (1990). Private lies. New York: W. W. Norton. Pollit, K. (2000). Is divorce getting a bum rap. Time, September 25, 2000, p. 82. Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960–1990: A review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 527–555. Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: Guilford.

255

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 256

Pruitt, D. G. (1972). Methods for resolving differences of interest. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 133–134. Rabin, C. (1996). Equal partners, good friends: Empowering couples through therapy. London: Routledge. Raffel, L. (1999). Should I stay or go? New York: Contemporary Books. Raphael, B. (1983). The anatomy of bereavement. New York: Basic Books. Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M. A. (1974). Communication, conflict, and marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 9, 25–37. Regan, P. C., & Dreyer, C. S. (1999). Lust? Love? Status? Young adults’ motives for engaging in casual sex. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11, 1–24. Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12, 1–21. Reibstein, J., & Richards, M. (1993). Sexual arrangements. New York: Scribners. Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In E. T. Higgins, & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 523–563). New York: Guilford. Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Chichester: Wiley. Reiss, I. L. (1960). Toward a sociology of the heterosexual love relationship. Marriage and Family Living, 22, 139–145. Reiss, I. L. (1986). Journey into sexuality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95–112. Rey, A. M., & Gibson, P. R. (1997). Beyond high school: Heterosexuals’ self-reported anti-gay/lesbian behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 7, 65–84. Richardson, L. (1993). Mommy wars. In Womanews, Chicago Tribune, p. 4, February 7. Riley, G. (1991). Divorce: An American tradition. New York: Oxford University Press. Risman, B. J., & Johnson-Sumerford, D. (1998). Doing it fairly: A study of postgender marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 23–40. Rodin, J., & Langer, E. J. (1977). Long-term effects of a control-relevant intervention with institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 897–902. Rogers, C. R. (1957). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The Counseling Psychologist, 5, 2–10. Rosenblatt, P. C. (1983). Bitter, bitter tears. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rosenblatt, P. C., Karis, T. A., & Powell, R. D. (1985). Multiracial couples: Black and white voices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341–357. Ross, M., & Holmberg, D. (1992). Are wives’ memories for events in relationships more vivid than their husbands’ memories? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 584–604. Rossi, A. S. (1985). Gender and parenthood. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Gender and the life course (pp. 161–192). New York: Aldine. Rothman, B. (1991). Loving & leaving. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Rubenstein, C. M., Shaver, P., & Peplau, L. A. (1979). Loneliness. Human Nature, 2, 58–65. Rubin, L. (1983). Intimate strangers: Men and women together. New York: Harper & Row. Rubin, L. (1990). Erotic wars. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Rubin, L. (1994). Families on the fault line. New York: HarperPerennial. Rubin, R. (1999). National family wars. USA TODAY, p. 1, Section D, November 9. Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.

256

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 257

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117. Rusbult, C. E., Bissonnette, V. L., Arriaga, X. B., & Cox, C. L. (1998). Accommodation processes during the early years of marriage. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 74–113). New York: Cambridge. Salzman, M., & Matahia, I. (1999). Next: Trends for the near-future. New York: Overlook Press. Sandberg, D. E., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L, Ehrhardt, A. A., & Yager, T. J. (1993). The prevalence of gender-atypical behavior in elementary school children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 306–314. Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (1999, April). Would you consider oral sex to be sex? Paper presented at Kinsey Institute, Bloomington, IN. Savin-Williams, R. C. (1990). Gay and lesbian youth. New York: Hemisphere. Scanzoni, J., Polonko, K., Teachman, J., & Thompson, L. (1989). The sexual bond: Rethinking families and close relationships. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Scarr, S. (1984). Mother care/other care. New York: Basic Books. Schachter, S. (1964). The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional state. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 49–80). New York: Academic Press. Schaie, W. (1988). Ageism in psychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 179–183. Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1998). Do you remember?: Recollections of adult attachment patterns. Personal Relationships, 5, 219–234. Schwartz, P. (1994). Peer marriage. New York: Free Press. Seidman, S. (1991). Romantic longings: Love in America, 1830–1980. New York: Routledge. Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: Knopf. Shain, M. (1989). Courage my love. New York: Bantam. Sheehy, G. (1976). Passages. New York: E. P. Dutton. Sherrod, L. (1989). The influence of gender on same-sex friendships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.) Close relationships, (Vol. 10) (pp. 247–270). Newbury Park: Sage. Shotland, L. (1989). A model of the causes of date rape in developing and close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (Vol. 10) (pp. 247–270). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Siegel, J. P. (2000). Parental styles of interaction. In Chicago Tribune, December 10, p. 5. Simpson, J. A., & Gangstad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in socio-sexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 181–190. Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Blackstone, T. (1995). When the head protects the heart: Empathic accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 629–641. Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Grich, J. (1999). When accuracy hurts: Reactions of anxious-ambivalent dating partners to a relationship-threatening situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 754–769. Simpson, S. (1994). Late love: A celebration of marriage after fifty. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Skolnick, A. (1991). Embattled paradise: The American family in an age of uncertainty. New York: Basic Books. Slater, P. E. (1973, December). Sexual adequacy in America. Intellectual Digest, 132–135. Slater, S. (1994). Approaching and avoiding the work of the middle years: Affairs in committed lesbian relationships. Women & Therapy, 15, 19–34. Smith, S. (1993). Scrappy Skiles scorns skeptics’ scrutiny. Chicago Tribune, March 21, Section 3, p. 3. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666. Sorenson, K. A., Russell, S. M., Harkness, D. J., & Harvey, J. H. (1993). Account-making, confiding, and coping with the ending of a close relationship. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 73–86. South, S. J., & Lloyd, K. M. (1995). Spousal alternatives and marital dissolution. American Sociological Review, 60, 21–35.

257

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 258

Spalding, L. R., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). The unfaithful lover: Heterosexuals’ stereotypes of bisexuals and their relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 611–625. Spanier, G. B., & Thompson, L. (1987). Parting: The aftermath of separation and divorce. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sprecher, S. (1994). Two sides to the breakup of dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, 199–222. Sprecher, S. (1999). “I love you more today than yesterday”: Romantic partners’ perceptions of changes in love and related affect over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 45–53. Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2000). Sexuality in a relational context. In C. Hendrick & S.S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 217–227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stacy, J. (1990). Brave new families. New York: Basic Books. Stacy, J. (1993). The sky is fall, but Popenoe’s analysis won’t help us do anything about it. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 548–557. Steinem, G. (1992). Revolution from within: A book of self-esteem. Boston: Little, Brown. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313–335. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cupid’s arrow. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Barnes, M. L. (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 13–37). New Haven: Yale University Press. Stewart, A. J., Copeland, A. P., Chester, N. L., Malley, J. E., & Barenbaum, N.B. (1997). Separating together: How divorce transforms families. New York: Guilford Press. Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed in two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465–479. Stroebe, W., & Stroebe, M. S. (1986). Beyond marriage: The impact of partner loss on health. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 203–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Surra, C. A. (1990). Research and theory on mate selection and premarital relationships in the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 844–865. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1996). Self-traps: The elusive quest for higher self-esteem. New York: Freeman. Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and positive strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857–869. Swenson, D. (1997). A model of the remarried family. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 27, 150–185. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Morrow. Tavris, C. (1993). False memory. New York Times Book Review, January 3, p.4. Tavris, C., & Wade, C. (1984). The longest war (2nd ed.). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization– minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67–85. Teachman, J. D., Tedrow, L. M., & Crowder, K. D. (2000). The changing demography of America’s families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1234–1246. Tennov, D. (1979). Love and limerence. New York: Stein & Day. Thornton, A. (1989). Changing attitudes toward family issues in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 873–893. Tian, Q. (2000) Cohabitation. USA TODAY, February 10, p. 15A. Tiefer, L. (1995). Sex is not a natural act. Boulder, CO: Westview. Tucker, J. S., & Anders, S. L. (1999). Attachment style, interpersonal perception accuracy, and relationship satisfaction in dating couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 403–412. Turow, S. (1987). Presumed innocent. New York: Simon & Schuster. Ullmann, L. (1976). Changing. New York: Bantam. Vaughan, D. (1986). Uncoupling: Turning points in intimate relationships. New York: Oxford University Press.

258

01-070 Ref. pp3 9/13/01 2:07 PM Page 259

Veroff, J., Douvan, E., & Kulka, R. A. (1981). The inner American: A self-portrait from 1957–1976. New York: Basic Books. Viorst, J. (1986). Necessary losses. New York: Fawcett. Walker, L. E. A. (1984). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer. Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1995). The good marriage. New York: Warner. Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup. New York: Basic Books. Wallerstein, J. S., & Lewis, J. (1998). The long-term impact of divorce on children: A first report from a 25-year study. Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 36, 368–383. Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J. M., & Blakeslee, S. (2000). The unexpected legacy of divorce. New York: Hyperion. Walster, E. (1965). The effect of self-esteem on romantic liking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 184–197. Walster, E., & Walster, G. (1978). A new look at love. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Walster, E., Walster, G., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ward, R. A. (1993). Marital happiness and household equity in later life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 427–438. Wegner, D. M. (1989). White bears & other unwanted thoughts: Suppression, obsession, and the psychology of mental control. New York: Penquin Books. Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52. Wegner, D. M. (1997). When the antidote is the poison: Ironic mental control processes. Psychological Science, 8, 148–151. Wegner, D. M., & Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. American Psychologist, 54, 480–492. Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital separation. New York: Basic Books. Welwood, J. (1990). Journey of the heart. New York: HarperCollins. Welty, E. (1991). Relationship. In The quotable woman (p. 44). Don Mills, Ontario: Running Press. Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., & Rose, S. (1997). Gender and close relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Witkin, G. (1993). Comment. Parade Magazine, April 4, p. 12. Worrell, J. (1988). Women’s satisfaction in close relationships. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 477–498. Wortman, C. B., Biernat, M., & Lang, E. (1991). Coping with role overload. In M. Frankenhaeuser, U. Lundberg, & M. Chesney (Eds.), Women, work, and health (pp. 85–110). New York: Plenum. Wortman, C. B., & Silver, R. C. (1989). The myths of coping with loss. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 349–357. Zilbergeld, B. (1993). The new male sexuality. New York: Bantam.

259

01-070 Au index pp2 9/14/01 12:36 PM Page 261

AUTHOR INDEX A Abbey, A., 49, 158 Abrahams, M. F., 69 Acitelli, L. K., 26 Acker, M., 86 Agocha, V. B., 69 Agyei, Y., 141 Ahrons, C., 14, 186, 206 Ainsworth, M. S., 87 Aldous, J., 117 Alford-Keating, P., 143 Alt, R., 193 Altman, I., 2, 46, 47, 92, 101 Alvarez, M. D., 179 Amato, P., 11, 47, 196, 202, 206 Ammazzalorso, H., 10 Anastasio, P. A., 129 Anders, S. L., 88 Anderson, M., 94 Anderson, S. M., 45 Andrews, B., 156 Antill, J. K., 81 Aron, A., 99 Aron, E. N., 99 Aronson, E., 2 Arriaga, X. B., 92 Atkinson, J., 64 B Bachman, B. A., 129 Backman, C. W., 2 Baer, J., 241 Bagnato, A., 192 Bailey, B. L., 53, 185 Bailey, J. M., 140, 141, 142 Baldwin, J., 226 Baldwin, M. W., 88 Baltes, P., 211 Bancroft, J., 134 Bane, J. J., 116, 122 Banker, B. S., 129 Barenbaum, N. B., 186 Barnes, M. L., 80 Barnes, S., 185 Barnett, R. C., 21 Barry, W. A., 3 Bartholomew, K., 87, 89 Bartlett, F. C., 27 Bass, E., 162 Battan, M., 63, 73, 74

Baumeister, R. F., 39, 64, 148, 149, 150 Baxter, L. A., 5, 65, 230, 238 Bazzini, D. G., 46 Beach, S. R. H., 45, 92, 177 Beck, A. T., 79, 108 Behrman, J., 60, 140 Bellah, R. N., 119, 120, 121, 221, 236 Belous, R. S., 122 Bem, D. J., 138, 139 Bem, S. L., 72 Bengtson, V. L., 203 Bentz, V., 212–213, 221 Berger, D. G., 59 Bergquist, W., 220 Berkman, L. F., 4 Bernard, J., 3, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 128 Bernikow, L., 42, 43 Berscheid, E., 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 40, 45, 46, 69, 77, 78, 80, 82, 103, 177 Biernat, M., 23 Billig, M., 235 Binson, D., 135 Bissonnette, V. L., 92 Blackstone, T., 95 Blakeslee, S., 14, 112, 113, 203, 205 Bledsoe, K. L., 52 Blehar, M. C., 87 Bleske, A. L., 66 Blieszner, R., 221 Blumberg, S., 113 Blumstein, P., 3, 10, 30, 109, 137, 138, 139, 141, 185 Bochner, A. P., 193 Booth, R. J., 11, 196, 202, 206 Bowlby, J., 31, 87 Bradbury, T. N., 175 Brannock, J. C., 141 Brems, C., 143 Brewin, C. R., 156 Bringle, R. G., 73 Brody, S., 143 Brotman, B., 166 Brown, C., 183 Bryant, A. S., 142

261

Bulcroft, K. A., 228, 229 Bulcroft, R. A., 229 Burdette, M. P., 186 Burge, D., 88 Burgess, E. W., 2, 3 Burleson, 113 Buss, D. M., 33, 66, 185 Buunk, B. P., 48, 73 Byers, E. S., 69 Byrne, D., 2, 96 C Cacioppo, J. T., 177, 186 Call, V., 59, 60 Campbell, A., 4 Campbell, S. M., 133 Canary, D. J., 96, 97 Carlsen, M. B., 227 Carrere, S., 180 Cartensen, L. L., 26 Cate, R. M., 38, 45, 58 Chapman, B. E., 141 Chavez, L., 134 Chee, M., 177, 186 Cherlin, A., 203, 204 Chester, N. L., 186 Chodorow, N., 141 Christensen, A., 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 103, 177, 181, 187 Christopher, F. S., 58 Chwalisz, K., 160 Clark, C. L., 67, 68, 69 Clark, M. S., 98 Clark, R. D., 86 Close, E., 34 Cloud, J., 134, 135 Coan, J., 180 Cole, S. W., 45 Coleman, J. C., 80 Coleman, M., 129, 228 Condor, S., 235 Conley, T. D., 140 Converse, L., 224 Converse, P. E., 4 Cook, S., 70 Coontz, S., 121, 123 Cooper, M. L., 69 Copeland, A. P., 186 Cottrell, L. S., 2 Cox, C. L., 92 Cox, M., 203

01-070 Au index pp2 9/14/01 12:36 PM Page 262

Cox, R., 203 Crowder, K. D., 115 Crowell, J. A., 88 Crowley, D., 91 Csikszentmihalyi, M., 104 Cunningham, J. D., 81 Cupach, W. R., 65 D Dabbs, J. M., 156 Danica, E., 159, 160 Dannecker, M., 141 Darley, J. M., 46 Davilla, J., 88 Davis, K. E., 2, 44, 102 Davis, L., 162 Davis, M. H., 86 Davis, S. H., 159 Dawood, K., 142 De La Ronde, C., 100 DeLamater, J. D., 60 Demian, P., 142 Densmore, D., 61, 62 Derlega, V. J., 21, 97, 194 Diener, E., 4 Dindia, K., 96 Dion, K. K., 81 Dion, K. L., 81 Douvan, E., 121 Dovidio, J. F., 129 Dreyer, C. S., 68, 69 Duck, S. W., 3, 45 Dutton, D., 145–146 E Edwards, D., 235 Ehrenreich, B., 62, 185 Ehrhardt, A. A., 140 Elias, M., 120 Ellard, J. H., 155, 156 Ellis, C., 193 Ellsworth, P. C., 177 Emery, R. E., 187 Epstein, S., 80, 90 Erikson, E., 206, 210 F Farina, A., 71 Farris, K. R., 52 Fazio, R. H., 46 Fehr, B., 88, 91, 92 Feng, D., 203 Festinger, L., 2 Fincham, F. D., 175, 177 Fine, M., 75, 129 Fisher, L. D., 4 Fiske, S. T., 45

Fitzpatrick, M. A., 28 Flanary, R., 200, 202, 207 Fletcher, G. J. O., 91 Foa, E. B., 86, 236 Foa, U. G., 86, 236 Fraley, W., 88 Frankl, V. E., 195, 196 Frieze, I. B., 21 Fromm, E., 77 Frye, N., 203 Furstenberg, F. F., 198, 203, 204 G Gaertner, S. L., 129 Gaines, S. O., Jr., 52 Galinsky, E., 125, 126, 127, 128 Gallo, F., 122 Galvin, K. S., 190 Gane, M., 235 Gangstad, S. W., 69 Ganong, L., 129 Garbarino, J., 131 Garcia, B. F., 52 Garnets, L. D., 140 Garnick, N., 190 Garwood, G., 160 Gately, D., 204 Gelles, R. J., 157 Gergen, K. J., 72 Gerstel, N., 31 Giarrusso, R., 203 Gibson, 142, 143 Giler, J., 62, 197 Giles, L., 91 Gilligan, C., 217 Gilmour, R., 3 Glaser, R., 4, 177, 186 Glenn, N. D., 128, 175 Goffman, E., 39, 65, 181 Goggins, M. F., 157 Goldstein, R., 220 Goode, E., 145 Goode, W., 89 Gottman, J., 26, 128, 177, 179, 180, 186 Gottman, J. M., 26, 177 Granrose, C. S., 52 Greenberg, E., 219 Greene, B., 166 Grich, J., 88 Griffin, D. W., 100 Griffin-Shelley, 148 Gross, H., 31

262

Grote, N. K., 21 Groth, G. E., 69 Gutierres, S. E., 46 H Hall, E., 221, 222 Hammen, C., 88 Hansen, A., 48, 229, 230 Harkness, D. J., 42, 174 Harold, G. T., 177 Harris, J., 38 Harvey, J. H., 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 42, 43, 48, 58, 59, 96, 99, 100, 102, 144, 159, 160, 169, 173, 174, 179, 187, 190, 191, 193, 194, 199, 200, 202, 207, 229, 230 Hastorf, A. H., 71 Hatfield, E., 2, 67, 68, 83 Hazan, C., 87, 88, 149 Heavey, C. L., 177 Heider, F., 78, 101, 102 Heinlein, 69 Hendrick, C., 2, 78, 84, 94, 98 Hendrick, S. S., 58, 78, 84, 94, 98 Herbert, T. B., 155, 156 Herdt, G., 135, 136, 137 Hernandez, J., 121 Hertel, R. K., 3 Hess, E., 62, 185 Hetherington, E. M., 203 Hewitt, E. C., 60 Hill, C. T., 3, 80, 175 Hinde, R. A., 8, 9, 92 Hite, S., 73 Hixon, J. G., 100 Hochschild, A., 21, 22, 32, 109, 127 Hojat, M., 31 Hollis, J., 220, 221 Holmberg, D., 200, 207 Holmes, J. G., 93, 99, 100, 177 Holtzworth-Munroe, A., 26, 155, 179 Honeycutt, T. C., 155 Horowitz, L. M., 87 Horowitz, M. J., 190 Horwitz, R. I., 4 Hulbert, H. D., 211 Hunt, M. M., 171, 184 Huston, T. L., 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 103, 175

01-070 Au index pp2 9/14/01 12:36 PM Page 263

Huszti, H., 190 Huyck, A., 70 Hyde, J. S., 60, 140 I Ickes, W., 52, 88, 95, 99, 102 J Jacobs, G., 62, 185 Jacobson, N. J., 26, 179 Jacobson, N. S., 181, 187 Janoff-Bulman, R., 239 Jerrome, 231 Johnson, D. J., 46 Johnson, M. E., 143 Johnson, V. E., 58 Johnson-Sumerford, D., 32 Joiner, T. E., 39 Jones, E. E., 71, 102 Jones, J. J., 157 Jones, W. H., 186 Jorday, K. M., 143 Julien, D., 26 K Karis, T. A., 52 Kass, A., 37, 38 Kass, L., 37, 38 Kayser, K., 185 Keefe, R. C., 46 Kelley, H. H., 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 91, 93, 103, 114 Kelly, J. B., 203, 205 Kenrick, D. T., 46, 69 Kerckhoff, A. C., 2, 44 Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., 4, 177, 186 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 94 Kinsey, A., 57, 134, 135 Kirkpatrick, L. A., 88 Klaum, A., 219 Kleiman, C., 132 Kligel, R., 211 Knapp, M. L., 49 Kotre, J., 221, 222 Kramer, H., 195 Kramer, K., 195 Kulka, R. A., 121 Kundera, M., 93 Kurdek, L. A., 141, 142, 177 L Laing, R. D., 226 Lang, E., 23 Langenfeld, N., 10 Langer, E. J., 237

Larson, R., 127, 128, 131 Laumann, E. O., 135 Lavin, C., 60, 225 Lawson, A., 184 Leary, M. R., 39 Lee, J. A., 84 Leo-Summers, C., 4 Levenson, R. W., 26, 177 Levin, L., 58 Levinger, G., 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 94, 103, 173, 210 Levinson, D. J., 209, 210, 219 Levitan, S. A., 122 Lewis, C. S., 196, 207 Lewis, J., 203, 205 Lewis, J. M., 14 Lewis, R. A., 45 Lloyd, K. M., 10 Lloyd, S. A., 38, 45 Lopes, J., 10 Lorbor, A., 193 Lusterman, D-D., 12 M MacCallum, R. C., 177 MacDonald, G., 177 Mackey, W. C., 25, 26 MacLaine, S., 55 Madsen, R., 119, 120, 121, 221, 236 Malarkey, W. B., 177, 186 Malley, J. E., 186 Mancini, J. A., 221 Mao, H., 177, 186 Margulis, S. T., 194 Markman, H. J., 26, 113, 114 Markus, H., 71 Marshall, L. L., 155, 156, 157 Marshall, M., 216 Masters, W. H., 58 Matahia, I., 130 Matthews, S. H., 196 McClintock, E., 4, 5, 7, 9, 103 McCormick, N. B., 144 McKinney, K., 56, 59 McLaughlin, W., 155 Mead, Margaret, 20 Merbach, N., 159, 193 Metts, S., 65, 194 Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., 140 Meyers, S. A., 82

263

Middleton, D., 235 Miller, B., 151, 152 Miller, D. T., 71 Mills, J., 2, 86, 98 Montgomery, B. M., 5, 49, 230, 238 Morgan, M., 200, 202, 207 Muelenhard, C. L., 157 Murray, S., 99, 100, 177 Murstein, B. I., 2, 4, 26, 45, 79, 80 Myers, D., 4 N Neale, M. C., 141 Neeld, E., 193, 194 Neisser, U., 82 Neumeyer, K., 62, 197 Newton, T., 177, 186 Noller, P., 28 Norwood, 148 O O’Connor, M., 228 Ogrocki, P., 4 Omarzu, J., 96, 99, 100, 169 Omoto, A. M., 5 Orbuch, T. L., 58, 102, 159, 160, 173, 174, 190, 191, 193, 194, 230 Osborne, L. N., 177 O’Sullivan, L. F., 69 P Page, H., 2 Parkes, C. M., 190, 199 Partch, J. J., 46 Patrick, B. C., 97, 107 Patterson, C. J., 133, 141, 142, 144 Peck, M. S., 89 Pennebaker, J., 41, 162, 174, 194, 206 Peplau, A., 103 Peplau, L. A., 3, 44, 80, 133, 134, 137, 140, 144, 175 Perper, T., 65 Peterson, D., 103 Petrie, K. J., 206 Petronio, S., 194 Phillips, A., 74 Pillard, R. C., 140, 141 Pittman, F., 73, 185 Pollit, K., 204 Polonko, K., 116 Popenoe, D., 47, 48, 116, 121, 122, 123, 126, 129

01-070 Au index pp2 9/14/01 12:36 PM Page 264

Powell, R. D., 52 Prager, K. J., 97, 98 Pruitt, D. G., 86 R Rabin, C., 110 Radley, A., 235 Raffel, L., 169 Raphael, B., 190, 192, 194 Rapson, R., 2 Raush, H. L., 3 Regan, P. C., 55, 56, 58, 68, 69 Reibstein, J., 73 Reinisch, J. M., 55 Reis, H. T., 10, 97, 107 Reiss, I. L., 44, 56 Rempel, J. K., 93 Rey, 142, 143 Richards, M. H., 73, 127, 128, 131 Richardson, L., 18 Riley, G., 242 Rios, D. I., 52 Risman, B. J., 32 Rivers, C., 21 Rodgers, W. L., 4 Rodin, J., 237 Rogers, C., 99 Rose, S., 21, 97 Rosemond, J., 75 Rosenberg, B. G., 60, 140 Rosenblatt, P. C., 52, 207 Ross, M., 89, 200, 207 Rossi, A. S., 72 Rothman, B., 186 Rubenstein, C. M., 44 Rubin, L., 24, 25, 26, 30, 64, 65, 71, 215 Rubin, R., 123, 124, 125 Rubin, Z., 3, 80, 175 Rusbult, C. E., 46, 92 Russell, S. M., 42, 174 Rust, M. C., 129 S Sadalla, E. K., 69 Salzman, M., 130 Sandberg, D. E., 140 Sanders, S. A., 55 Sandin, E., 155 Sants, H. K. A., 45 Satterfield, A. T., 157 Savin-Williams, R. C., 142 Scanzoni, J., 116

Scarr, S., 32 Schachter, S., 139 Schaie, W., 227 Scharfe, E., 89 Schmidt, N. B., 39 Schuster, D., 211 Schwartz, P., 3, 11, 21, 30, 32, 59, 60, 109, 110, 111, 112, 128, 137, 138, 139, 141, 185 Schwebel, A. I., 204 Scott, R. A., 71 Secord, P. F., 2 Seidman, S., 56, 57, 61 Seligman, M. E. P., 221 Shaffer, D. R., 46 Shain, M., 17, 79 Shaver, P., 44, 87, 88, 97, 149 Shaver, P. R., 69 Sheehy, G., 209, 217, 218, 219 Sherrod, L., 236 Shotland, L., 158 Siegel, J. P., 95 Signoret, S., 96 Silver, R. C., 155, 156, 194 Simmel, G., 49 Simpson, J. A., 69, 88, 91, 229 Skolnick, A., 122 Slater, P. E., 60, 143 Smith, S., 239 Smutzler, N., 155 Snyder, M., 5, 46 Sorenson, K. A., 42, 174 South, S. J., 10 Spalding, L. R., 133, 134, 137, 140, 144 Spanier, G. B., 173, 198 Speicher, C. E., 4 Sprecher, S., 56, 58, 59, 60, 83, 92, 177, 178 Stacy, J., 14, 122, 123 Stafford, L., 97 Stanley, S., 113 Steinem, G., 81 Sternberg, R. J., 77, 80, 85, 86 Stewart, A. J., 186 Stillwell, A. M., 64 Stone, C. A., 21 Stout, J., 4

264

Straus, M. A., 157 Stroebe, M. S., 199 Stroebe, W., 199 Stuart, G. L., 155 Sullivan, W. M., 119, 120, 121, 221, 236 Surra, C. A., 45 Swain, M. A., 3 Swann, W. B., Jr., 46, 100 Swanson, C., 180 Swenson, D., 130 Swidler, A., 119, 120, 121, 221, 236 T Tanke, E. D., 46 Tannen, D., 27, 28, 29, 238 Tavris, C., 21, 162 Taylor, D., 2, 45, 46, 47, 92–93, 101 Taylor, S. E., 45, 155 Teachman, J., 116 Teachman, J. D., 115 Tedrow, L. M., 115 Teitler, J. O., 203 Tennov, D., 83, 89, 90 Tesser, A., 45, 92 Thibaut, J. W., 93 Thomas, G., 91 Thompson, L., 116, 173 Thornton, A., 121, 171 Tian, Q., 37 Tiefer, L., 72 Tillman, L. M., 193 Tipton, S. M., 119, 120, 121, 221, 236 Treboux, D., 88 Trost, M. R., 69 Tucker, J. S., 88 Tucker, K., 58 Turow, S., 40 U Ullmann, L., 42, 219 V Van Driel, B., 48 Vangelisti, A. L., 175 Vaughan, D., 153, 173, 176, 181 Vaughan, J. S., 143 Veniegas, R. C., 133, 140 Veroff, J., 121 Viorst, J., 170 Vitanza, S. A., 156, 157 Vohs, K. D., 39

01-070 Au index pp2 9/14/01 12:36 PM Page 265

W Wade, C., 21 Walker, L. E. A., 157 Wall, S., 87 Wallerstein, J. S., 14, 112, 113, 203, 205 Walster, E., 2, 3, 40, 77, 78, 82 Walster, G., 82 Ward, R. A., 21 Waters, E., 87, 88 Weber, A. L., 4, 102, 160, 174, 190, 191, 193, 194, 230

Wegner, D. M., 195 Weiss, R. S., 3, 96, 172, 182 Wells, G. L., 179 Welty, E., 1 Welwood, J., 5, 7, 169 Wenger, M. G., 59 Weston, R., 155 Wheatley, T., 195 Whitehead, B. D., 47, 48 Williams, P., 26 Winstead, B. A., 21, 97 Witkin, G., 213, 214 Woodworth, K. J., 143

265

Worrell, J., 21 Wortman, C. B., 23, 194 Wotman, S. R., 64, 148, 149, 150 Y Yager, T. J., 140 Youn, M. S. P., 52 Z Zanna, M. P., 93 Zilbergeld, B., 61

01-070 Subj. index pp2 9/13/01 2:08 PM Page 267

SUBJECT INDEX A Abusive close relationships, destructive, 152–159, see also Violence Acceptance, 103, 105 Acceptance therapy, 181 Account-making-confiding model in coping with loss, 190, 191, 230 Adolescents, 217, 218 and family life, 128 Adultery, see Affairs Affairs and extramarital relations, 20, 73–74, see also Clinton-Lewinsky affair and betrayal, 183–186 discovery of, 12 Agape, 84 “Agape love style,” 98 Aging, 227 and continuity in themes, 227–228 AIDS/HIV, 142–143, 242 Alcohol, and violence, 157 “American Couples Study,” 137–139 Attachment defined, 97 vs. intimacy, 97–98 Attachment styles, 87–89 Attraction, 39–41 Attributions negative, 108 relationship-disruption, 106 relationship-enhancing, 101–103, 105 B Balance, in decisions and actions in daily life, 235–236 Belong, need to, 39 Bergen, Candice, 39–40 Bestowal, 98 Bible Belt, 1, 2 Blame, 108 Body, taking care of one’s, 237 Boredom, 214 C Calendar-date book, 238

Careers, 21 dual-career couples, 30, 60, 126, 215 traditional family, 117–119 Change, personal, see Passages Child, death of one’s, 221–222 Child care, 23 Child-free families, 130, 215–216 Children effects of divorce on, 202–206 grandparents raising, 117 what they think about working parents, 125–127 Clinton, Bill and Hillary, 13–14 Clinton-Lewinsky affair, 13–14 Close relationships (CRs), see also specific topics characteristics, conceptions, and definitions of, 4–5, 7–10 demographic trends, 11–12 developments in interdisciplinary study of, 2–4 historical notes regarding, 2–4 importance, 4 loss of, 41–42, see also Relationship dissolution moving into 21st century, 15 myths that hinder development of lasting, 174–175 theory issues facing the field of, 9–10 Close relationships formula, changing the, 29–32 Closeness, 6–7, see also Intimacy defined, 103–104 meeting others for hows of, 48–51 readiness for, 41–45 reasons for wanting to meet others for, 38–39

267

requirements for achieving durable, 108 theories of courtship and progression toward, 44–45 Cognition, social, 45–47 Cohabitation, 37–38 and closeness, 47–48 Commitment, 91–92 defined, 91–92 Communal love, 86–87, 98–99 Communication, 25, 101, see also Talk improving, 29 Commuting couples, 30–31 Commuting Marriage (Gerstel and Gross), 31 Companionate relationships, 112 Confiding, 190, 191, 193–194, 230 Contempt, 106 Continuity over time, 104–105 vs. discontinuity, 106 Control, love as, 90–91 Covenant Marriage Law, 14–15 Critical flaws, 103 Critical periods, 212–213 Criticism, 106 D Dating giving up, 38 in the golden years, 228–230 Dating relationships, factors reported for breakups of, 177, 178 Day care, 30 Diary-keeping, 238 DINKS (dual income, no kids), 130, 215–216 Divorce, 242, see also Grief; Loss; Relationship dissolution abuse, violence, and, 163–165 aftermath, 196–197

01-070 Subj. index pp2 9/13/01 2:08 PM Page 268

and children, 202–206 demographic trends, 11–12 emotional, 173 fading stigma of, 171–173 future of, 187 “good,” 186–187 national discourse on, 14 vs. nonmarital dissolution, 173–174 Divorce dilemma, 1–2 Divorce mediation, 187 Divorcing time/period, 165, 172 Divorcing world, future of marriage in a, 170–171 Domestic violence, see Violence Dreams, 219 Drugs, prescription, 12 E E-mail, 53 Economy, and family life, 13, 124–125 Egalitarian relationships, 29–32, 34, 109 same-sex, 137–138 Elderly, dating, 227–230 Empathic accuracy, 95–96, 99, 102–103 Empathy and breadth in dealing with people, 236 Equity, see Inequity Eros, 84 Evolutionary psychology, 33, 46, 67 and homosexuality, 137 Evolutionary psychology hypothesis/position, 67–68 Exchange theory, and love, 86–87 Exotic becoming erotic (EBE), 139–140 F Family labor, division of, 21–23, 32 and relationship satisfaction, 21 Family realities, divergent, 127–129 Family wars, national, 120–123 Family(ies) blended, 129–130 decline of the American, 120–122

defining, in 21st century, 115–116 demographic changes from 1970 to 1998, 117, 118 evidence about changes in nature of, 116–117 on the fault line, 124–125 and individualism, 119–120 national discourse on close relationships and the, 13–15 problems and potential with the, 131–132 Faults, seeing virtues in, 99–100 Feminist positions on human sexuality, 72–73 Filters, theory of, 45 Flirting and learning to flirt, 50–51 Francis, Mark, 153–154 Friends, sex with, 66 Friendships, 39, 174, 236–237 between romantic partners, 110 same- vs. opposite-sex, 66 G Gay/lesbian couples, 109, see also Homosexual behavior “American Couples Study” findings for, 137–139 family and identity issues, 142 future research on, 143–144 relationship maintenance, 141–142 Gay/lesbian lifestyle, acceptance of, 242, see also Homophobia Gay/lesbian married rights, 134–135 Gay/lesbian relationships, 133–135 Gender, see also Sex differences; Sex roles; specific topics and well-being, 26 Gender conflict, 166 Gender inequity, 21 “Genderlect,” 29 Generativity, 206

268

Grandparents, 228 raising children, 117 rights, 115–116, 228 Grief, 41–42, 189 depression, memories, and, 200–202 and health, 198–200 intrusions of images and thoughts, 192–193 and romantic yearnings in late life, 229–230 working-through process, 193–195 Grief Observed, A (Lewis), 196 Grieving process, universality of, 195–196 H Health, 237 Homophobia, 142–143 Homosexual behavior, see also Gay/lesbian couples across cultures, 135–137 Homosexual orientations, origins of, 139–141 “Honeymoon” period, 213 “House-husbands,” 132, 219 Household work and responsibilities, 23, 32, 142 Housewives, 21 Humility, 239 I Incest, 159–162 Independence, sex differences regarding, 27 Individualism, and the family, 119–120 Inequity, 106 gender, 21 Infatuation, love as, 90 Interaction, stages of, 49–50 Interaction lines, 49–50 Interdependence, 4–6, 103–104 Internet, 53 Interracial and interethnic couples, 52 Intimacy, 27–28, 107, see also Closeness defined, 97–98 and distance, dance of, 24–25 Intimate relationships defined, 97 vs. intimate interactions, 98

01-070 Subj. index pp2 9/13/01 2:08 PM Page 269

Inversion hypothesis, 139, 140 “Itch” period, 184 K Kennedy, Edward (Ted), 40–41 L Lesbian couples, see Gay/lesbian couples Lewinsky, Monica, 13–14 Life course passages, see Passages Life structure, 210 “Living time together,” 98 Loneliness, 42–43 Loss, 206–207, see also Grief account-making-confiding model in coping with, 190, 191, 230 of a child, 221–222 early reactions to, 190, 192 obsessing about vs. confronting a, 195 relative nature of, 195–196 writing about one’s, 196 Love, 77, 94, see also Obsessed “love” attachment styles and types of, 87–89 commitment and, 91–94 communal, 86–87, 98–99 definitions, 78–80 destructive aspects, 89–91 language of, 82 in one’s 20s, 218–219 re-making, 62 as self-expansion, 99 studying, 77–78 triangular theory of, 85–86 typologies of, 82, 85 companionate vs. passionate, 82–83 unrequited, 64 Love Is Never Enough (Beck), 108–109 “Love lab” research, Gottman’s, 179–181 Love Maps game, 180 Love styles, 82–85, 98–99 Loving vs. being in love, 82 vs. liking, 80–81 “Loving contrition,” 157 Ludus, 84

M Male privilege, 34, see also Sex roles Males, “new,” 34–35 Mania, 84 Marriage aims for an ideal, 108 good, 112–113 Marriage responsibilities, division of, 23, 32, 142 Marriage thesis, Bernard’s “her” vs. “his,” 18–20, 24–26 updating, 21–23 Marriage(s) egalitarian, 20 postgender, 32–33 shock theory of, 18 “Me generation,” 121, 122 Memories, vivid, 200–202 Men, as breadwinners, 25–26 Men’s movement, 35 Mental health, marriage and, 19 Mid-life passage, 210, 211 “Middles couples,” special passages and related dilemmas for, 220–222 Minding analysis, comparison of intimacy and, 107 Minding (the close relationship), 96, 99–100, 105–107 components, 100–107 defined, 100 variables revealing low and high degrees of, 105–107 Minding theory, 96, 103 “Mommy wars,” 19 Monogamy among homosexual couples, 141 in 21st century, 73–74 Mortality, 228 Mourning, 41–42 Murder, 145–146, 153–155 N “National Family Wars,” 120–123 Need, love as, 90 Negative automatic thought, 108 Nondating, 38

269

O Obsessed “love,” and related destructive behavior, 147–148 Obsessing about vs. confronting a loss, 195 Obsession sexual, 64 in teen and early love, 218 and unrequited love, 148–152 Obsessive love, 89–90 O’Malley, Jack, 152 Opening up, 194 Oral sex, 69–70 “Outercourse,” 69–70 P Partner knowing one’s, 101 wanting to know one’s, 101 Partner preferences of college students, 55 Passage-type analysis of relationship events, 213–216 Passages, 209–210, 230–231 common, in close relationships, 213–216 definition, distinctions, rationale, and caveats, 210–213 loss of romantic relationships and beginning again, 222–224 rekindling past lovers in mid-life, 224–227 special and related dilemmas for “middles couples,” 220–222 and related dilemmas for youth and young couples, 216–217 and related issues for seniors and couples in late life, 227–230 Passages (Sheehy), 209 Peer marriage/peer close relationship, 109–111, see also Egalitarian relationships disadvantages, 111 future of, 111–112 Physical attraction (PA), 39–41

01-070 Subj. index pp2 9/13/01 2:08 PM Page 270

Physical attraction (PA) effect, 40 Pornography, 162–163 Possessiveness, 146 Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 12 Pragma, 84 Premarital counseling, 113–114 PREP (Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program), 113–114 Process, 106 Promiscuity, 70–71 Proxmire, W., 78 Psychology, contemporary as unfair to men, 25–26 Puritans, 56–57 R Rape date/acquaintance, 157–159 as having genetic/evolutionary basis, 17 Rapport-building, 28, 44 Reciprocity, 103–105 Record-keeping, 238 Relationship cognition, 45–48 Relationship conflict, 179–181 Relationship dissolution, 41–42, 141, 169–170, see also Divorce; Grief; Loss correlates and causes of, 177–179 future of, 187 progression toward, 175–177 and violence, 164–165 who appears to initiate, 181 who is most or least distressed following, 181–183 Relationship enhancement, 96, 114, 233–235 future research on, 242–244 principles to relate and live by, 235–241 Relationship-enhancing attributions, 101–103, 105 Relationship maintenance, 96, 114 conceptions of, 96–97

intimacy, attachment, and, 97–98 Relationship skills, learning, 113–114 Relationships, see also Close relationships; Close relationships (CRs); specific topics dialectic conception of, 230 stage models of the progression of, 44–45 alternatives to, 45 Religion, 1 Remarriage, 197–198 Remarried families, 129–130 Reproduction, 12 Respect, 103, 105 Responsibility, 238, see also Marriage responsibilities Rhodes, Jennifer, 147–148, 150–151 Romantic ideal, 100 Romantic Longings (Seidman), 56–57 Romantic vs. companionate relationships, 112 Romanticism, 81 Rumination, 195 S Same-sex couples, see Gay/lesbian couples Scripted approaches to relationships, 110 Scripts, 211, 234 Second Shift, The (Hochschild), 22–23 “Secrets” stage, 176 Self-disclosure, 44, 46, 65 behavior-facilitating disclosure, 105 behavior that avoids disclosure, 106 Self-expansion, 99 Self-fulfilling prophecies, 46 Self-identity, 142 in late life, 228 struggle to achieve, 217–218 Self-reliance, 240–241 Self-verification, 100 Sex, 113 casual, 67–69, 242 with friends, 66

270

Sex differences in communication styles, 27–28 and intimacy and distance in close relationships, 24 in marriage, 18–20 in partner preferences, 55 in personality, 25, 26 reasons for, 33–34 in sexual fantasy, 63 in socialization, 27 Sex education, 75 Sex roles, 20, see also specific topics rigid, 24–26 Sexual activity, see also Affairs other than intercourse, 69–70 Sexual attraction, see Physical attraction Sexual-close-relationship education, 74–75 Sexual fantasy, 63–64 Sexual obsession, 64 Sexual stereotypes and labels, 70–71 Sexuality within close relationships, 59–60 studying, 58–59 communication and, 64–67 defined, 56 different psychologies of, 61–62 feminist positions on, 72–73 gender differences in, 55, 60–61 historical background for work on, 56–58 Single status, 51, 242 Social constructionism, 72 Social network, working on and being faithful to one’s, 236–237 Social penetration theory, 46, 47 “Spur Posse” story, 158–159, 166 Stalking, obsession and, 150–152 Stepfamilies, 129–130 Storge, 84

01-070 Subj. index pp2 9/13/01 2:08 PM Page 271

Stuart, Charles and Carol, 153 T Talk, as stumbling block to male-female intimacy, 27–28 Testosterone, 156 Time, 240 Traditional families, 123 Traditional family careers, 117–118 Traditional marriages, 18–19 Traditional relationships, 109 defined, 109 “Troubles talk,” 28, 238 Trust, 92–94 Trusting oneself, 240–241

Turning points, 212–213 V Victorian era, 57 Violence, relationship, 145–146, 165–167, see also Obsessed “love” causes, 155–157 perpetrated by women, 154, 157, 183–184 risk factors, 146 W Wilensky, Gary D., 147–148, 150–151 Women killed by intimates, 145–146 role in helping men fulfill their dreams, 219

271

staying in and returning to abusive relationships, 155–156 violence by, 154, 157, 183–184 Work, and sex, 60 Working mothers, 21, 125 Working parents, what children think about, 125–127 Working through, 193–195 Y Yelachich, Michelle, 153–154 Youth and young couples, special passages and related dilemmas for, 216–217