A Developmental Guide to the Organisation of Close Relationships

Abstract

A developmental guide to close relationships is presented. Parent-child, sibling, friend, and romantic relationships are described along dimensions that address permanence, power, and gender. These dimensions describe relationship differences in organisational principles that encompass internal representations, social understanding, and interpersonal experiences. The concept of domain specificity is borrowed from cognitive development to address the shifting developmental dynamics of close relationships. Distinct relationships are organised around distinct socialisation tasks, so each relationship requires its own organisational system. As a consequence, different principles guide different relationships, and these organisational principles change with development.

Full text

http://jbd.sagepub.com/
Behavioral Development
International Journal of
http://jbd.sagepub.com/content/21/4/747
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1080/016502597384659 1997 21: 747International Journal of Behavioral Development
Brett Laursen and William M. Bukowski
Relationships
A Developmental Guide to the Organisation of Close
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development
can be found at:Development International Journal of BehavioralAdditional services and information for
http://jbd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jbd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jbd.sagepub.com/content/21/4/747.refs.htmlCitations:
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

INT ERN ATION AL JO URNA L OF BEH AVIOR AL D EVEL OPM ENT, 1997,
21 (4) , 747 –770
Requests for reprints should be sent to Brett Laursen, Department of Psychology, Florida
Atla ntic Univ ersit y, 2912 C ollege Avenu e, Fort Lauderdale, Florida , 33314-7714, USA ; e-m ail
(either author): laursen6acc.fau.ed u; bu kowsk6vax2.concordia,ca
Bre tt Laursen received support for the preparation of this manus cript from the U.S. National
Inst itute of Child Healt h and Human Development (R29 HD3 3006) .
q1997 The International So ciety fo r the S tud y of Be havio ural Develo pment
A Developmental Guide to the Organisation of
Close Relationships
Brett Laursen
Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, USA
Willia m M. Bukowski
Concordia University, USA
A developmental guide to clo se relation ships is presented. Parent-chil d,
siblin g, friend, and roman tic relation ships are described alon g dimensions th at
address perm anence, power, and gender. These d imensions describ e
relatio nsh ip differences in organisation al princip les that encompass internal
representation s, social understanding, and interpersonal experiences. The
concept of dom ain specicity is borro wed from cognitive development to
address the shifting developmental dynamics of close relation ships. D istin ct
relatio nsh ip s are organised around distinct so cialisation tasks, so each
relatio nsh ip req uires its own organisation al system . As a consequence ,
different prin ciples guide different relationships, and these organisation al
principles chan ge with development.
Across the lifespan, close relationships provide a signicant context for
development and adaptation. It is clear that competence is a product of
interpersonal interactions, but the inuence of family, friends, and romantic
partners on individual outcomes extends beyond success or failure in the
social world. Close relationships are the primar y setting for the acquisitio n
of language and motor skills, the establishment and maintenance of mental
health and self-efcacy, and the expansion and augmentation of cognitive
abilities (Hartup & Laursen, 1991). The effects run deep as well as wide:
Close relationships are one of the fundamenta l building blocks of human
culture, transmitting lessons on survival and adaptation from one generation
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

748 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
to the next (Brewer, in press). Development is bound to experience in close
relationships.
Relationships differ in their specic contributions to individual
development. Family and peer relationships proffer unique and
complementary social experiences (Hartup, 1979). Parents promote
individuality by providing a secure base from which to explore the social
world, yet it is experience with age-mates that prompts the development of
autonomy. Differences in form contribute to relationship differences in
functioning (Collins & Repinski, 1994). Peer relationships are temporary;
friends and romantic partners devote a great deal of time to the
establishment and maintenance of interpersonal ties. Family relationships
are durable; participants tend not to dwell on the details of relationship
processes. Social competence builds on success in both interpersonal arenas;
each is a critical developmental context.
Developmental tasks change with age and maturity, and so do the
contributions of parents and peers to adaptation. Early childhood tends to
be dominated by parent-child relationships but the importance of peer
relationships increases such that the inuence of friends and romantic
partners is equal to or greater than that of family members by late
adolescence (Furman, 1989). These changes coincide with a rapid expansion
of the nonfamilial social world; across childhood and adolescence, family
members represent a diminishing proportion of social experiences (Larson
& Richards, 1991). Developmental changes are linked to changes in
manifestations of close relationships; one rarely proceeds without the other.
What accounts for developmental shifts in close relationships?
Participants tend to construct relationships consistent with their
psychological goals, cognitive abilities, and social demands. This suggests
that relationship alterations are a product of psychological, cognitive, and
social development. Some theorists emphasise changes associated with the
emerging self-system; relationships reect the psychological needs of
participants, with early relationships serving as prototypes for later
relationships (Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Other theorists
emphasise changes that accompany cognitive advances; social
understanding improves as intellectual skills and perspective-taking abilities
develop which, in turn, prompt a greater appreciation of relationship
dynamics (Dunn, 1993; Selman, 1980; Youniss, 1980). Still other theorists
emphasise changes linked to expanding social experiences and social
opportunities; greater individual control over interpersonal relationships
increases concerns over the quality and distribution of social exchanges
(Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Laursen, 1996). In sum, close relationship
processes are driven by the developmental agendas of participants.
Relationships change as environments change. Different environments
present different challenges to individuals. For example, the maintenance of
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE OR GAN ISATION O F CL OSE RELATIONSH IPS 749
friendships may be less difcult in the well-structured environments of
elementary school than in the expansive environment of secondary schools
(Hirsch & Dubois, 1989). In so far as different environments present
different challenges, relationship functions should vary along with the
principles that guide them. By the same token, different environments
present different relationship opportunities. Certainly, the peer-intense
environment of child care offers more opportunities for friendship than the
home-based care environmen t (Clarke-Stewart, 1984). It follows that links
between development, relationships, and context are multidirectional.
Relationships change as a function of development and relationships
provide developmental contexts. Within relationships, norms, goals, and
standards are established. These concepts shape the subsequent force and
direction of the relationship and of the individuals who comprise it.
This paper is based on three suppositions. First, different principles guide
the organisation of different relationships. Second, organisational principles
change with development. Third, the organisational principles that guide
close relationships vary across individuals and relationships. Four sections
follow. First, close relationships are de ned and described. Discrete
dimensions are introduced that distinguish among different types of
relationships: permanence (i.e. voluntary and obligatory relationships);
power (i.e. hierarchical and egalitarian relationships); and gender (i.e.
same-sex and cross-sex relationships). Second, specic close relationships
are discussed in terms of these dimensions. Parent-child, sibling, friend, and
romantic relationships may be identied by their unique attributes. Third,
principles that prompt relationship change and that organise behaviour
within relationships are reviewed. No single developmental perspective best
accounts for alterations in close relationships across the lifespan. Instead,
interpersonal behaviour appears to be guided by domain specicity: Distinct
relationship rules apply to different relationships, and the principles that
organise each relationship change with development. Fourth, family and
peer relationship processes are considered to determine how the formation
and maintenance of a relationship contributes to individual development.
The discussion concludes with a research agenda and a developmental guide
addressing principles that organise close relationships during infancy,
childhood, adolescence , and adulthood.
IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING CLOSE
RELATIONSHIPS
“The  rst stage in the scienti c study of interpersonal relationships should
be one of description and classication” (Hinde, 1976, p. 1). Adhering to this
injunction, we describe relationships in terms of interdependent interaction
sequences. Quantitative and qualitative variations in social interactions
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

750 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
signal relationship differences. Close relationships are marked by extensive
and inuential interconnections; many afliations qualify as relationships
but few are close. Social interactions also reveal fundamental differences
among close relationships, differences that lend themselves to classication
along several distinct relationship dimensions.
How to Recognise a Close Relationshi p
Relationships are essentially dyadic entities. That is, a relationship requires
and is limited to two participants (Berscheid & Reis, in press). These dyads
are embedded in a larger social network made up of a shifting constellation
of individuals and groups. Dyadic interchange—intermittent social
interaction over an extended period of time—is one of the dening features
of a relationship (Hinde, 1979). A single interaction, however, doth not a
relationship make: Repeated interchanges are required. Yet even an
extended series of interactions does not necessarily herald a relationship,
particularly if participants are cast in routinised roles (Hinde, in press). One
may not develop a relationship with a restaurant employee despite frequent
exchanges involving money and tacos. By the same token, a relationship may
persist in the absence of social interaction. Family members do not act like
strangers during reunions, even after a prolonged separation. Thus, the
presence of social interaction is an important clue to identifying a
relationship but it cannot serve as the sole criterion for dening one. For
interactions to serve as the basis of a relationship they must be assigned a
meaning (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1985). That is, participants need to interpret
and internalise interchanges to form a representation or understanding of
the relationship.
Properties of social interaction set relationships apart from casual
afliations. Interdepend ent, enduring, and reciprocal interactions are
assumed to be neces sary components of all relationship s (Laursen, H artup,
& Koplas, 1996). Interdepend ence re ects causal dyadic inuences, a state
in which changes in one partner effect changes in the other (Kelley et al.,
1983). Social interactions form the basis of interdependence, for it is through
interactions that individuals exert inuence. Enduring interconnections are
internalised by participants as cognitive representations. Typically, social
interactions are organised into mental schema consisting of memories and
affects, which shape expectations concerning future interactions (Fletcher &
Fincham, 1991). Participants in a relationship engage in mutually inuential
interchanges and share the perception that their interconnections are
interdependent and enduring (Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1995). Simply
put, relationships require a modicum of reciprocity in social interactions and
cogn itive representations. at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE OR GAN ISATION O F CL OSE RELATIONSH IPS 751
History suggests that close relationships are difcult to dene. “The words
used to explain the phrase close relationship often carry clouds of ambiguity,
and so people are not infrequently driven to concrete single-case
illustrations or to highly abstract analogies and metaphors to try to
communicate what they mean by the term, often with little success”
(Berscheid & Peplau, 1983, p. 12). In response to this problem, scholars have
taken to dening closeness in the objective language of social interaction. A
widely accepted denition describes close relationships in terms of dyadic
interactions that reect a high degree of interdependence, manifest in
frequent, strong, and diverse interconnections maintained over an extended
period of time (Kelley et al., 1983). Consistent with an emphasis on
objectivity, indices of interdependence are usually limited to readily
measured and observable relationship features (Clark & Reis, 1988).
Subjective participant states may be an important aspect of relationship
satisfaction, but they are not good markers of closeness: Happy partners are
not necessarily involved in the most interdependent relationships and vice
versa.
Extensive relationships networks are common. These networks typically
include kin and neighbours, peers, and work associates (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). Developmental research has yet to identify systematically changes in
the size or composition of these networks across the lifespan, nor has the
exact proportion of relationships that qualify as close during each
developmental period been made clear. In a North American study of
middle childhood, social networks that encompassed all relationships
included an average of 39 different participants (Feiring & Lewis, 1989). In a
comparable study of adolescence , social networks limited to important
relationships included an average of 15 different participants (Blyth, Hill, &
Thiel, 1982). Taken together, these studies suggest that something less than
half of all relationships during childhood and adolescence qualify as close.
This limited set usually consists of some combination of parent-child, sibling,
friend, and romantic relationships (Argyle & Furnham, 1983; Furman &
Buhrmester, 1992). The size and diversity of the total relationship network
appear to have little impact on the composition of the close relationship
network.
How do you recognise a close relationship? Objective assessments of
social interaction are the best indices of closeness, providing greater validity
and reliability than subjective reports of affective experience (Berscheid,
Snyder, & Omoto, 1989). Measured in these terms, a close relationship
displays interdepende nt interconnections in the form of frequent, diverse,
and enduring interactions. A degree of differential responsivene ss must be
evident, such that the actions of one participant are contingent upon those of
the other. Any relationship may qualify as close, although the term is usually
reserved for kin and companions.
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

752 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
How to Distinguish Among Different Types of
Close Relationships
Relationship taxonomies abound and multiple dimensions have been used
to characterise relationships. Not all relationships differ along the same set
of underlying dimensions. Accordingly, the challenge to the development of
a model of relationships is to identify structural dimensions that avoid
constructs specic to a single relationship or developmental period.
Differences between relationships may be qualitative as well as quantitative,
so some dimensions may be more relevant than others. Contextual diversity
poses another challenge; relationship manifestations may vary across and
within settings. In this section, we describe classication schemes that avoid
these difculties, grouping them into three global relationship dimensions:
(1) permanence; (2) power; and (3) gender. Each offers a universal metric
for comparing relationships that is independent of variation ascribed to
setting or ontogeny .
The rst relationship dimension, permanence, describes the degree to
which a relationship is stable. Permanence encompasses several related
constructs: voluntariness, kinship, and commitment. Individuals freely enter
into voluntary relationships; open eld exchanges continue so long as
participants perceive them to be bene cial (Murstein, 1970). Obligatory
relationships, in contrast, are difcult or impossible to dissolve, closed  eld
exchanges continue regardless of perceived inequities. Relationships
involving kin are governed by rules that are unrelated to interdependence,
and that may supersede it (Blumstein & Kollock, 1988). Relationships
involving nonkin, in contrast, tend to be built around interdependent
interconnections. Commitment describes one’s desire or intent to continue
in a relationship (Rusbult, 1980). Participants in committed relationships
tend to focus on maximising dyadic outcomes, whereas the uncommitted
tend to focus on maximising self benets.
Interactions in stable relationships differ from those that are potentially
unstable. Principles of social exchange are more apt to govern tenuous
relationships than those in which continuity is assured (Thibaut & Kelley,
1959). In permanent relationships, participants need not worry about the
ramications of each social interaction. It follows that equitable outcomes
are not a priority in obligatory, kin, and committed relationships because the
ties that bind participants together are unrelated to interaction outcomes. In
impermanent relationships, the threat of relationship dissolution alters the
dynamics of social interaction. Equitable outcomes are particularly
important in voluntary, nonkin, and uncommitted relationships because
individuals tend to participate only so long as interactions remain mutually
advantageous.
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE OR GAN ISATION O F CL OSE RELATIONSH IPS 753
The second relationship dimension, power, describes the degree to which
dominance shapes the relationship. Power structures may be hierarchical or
egalitarian, vertical or horizontal, authoritative or mutual. Hierarchical
relationship interconnec tions are prescribed by rank; customs dictate
whether interchanges between the unequal favour the socially advantage d
or disadvantaged (Fiske, 1992). Egalitarian relationships differ in that
communality is prescribed; interconnections must re ect equality and
respect for one another’s needs (Clark & Mills, 1979). Vertical relationship
interconnections build on acknowledged complementarities; the less
capable depend on the more able (Hartup & Laursen, 1991). Horizontal
relationships differ in that reciprocity guides participants; equivalent
contributions from each partner are assumed. Authoritative relationships
assume discrepancies in the relative inuence of participants; the strong tend
to dominate the weak (Youniss, 1980). Mutual relationships differ in that
they are premised on collaboration; partners co-construct rules and
responsibilities.
Social interaction in relationships with a power differential are
fundamentally different from those involving participants with similar
power (Piaget, 1932/1965). Unequal power leads to unidirectional
interactions; most exchanges consist of one partner doing something for or
requesting something of the other. Collaboration is difcult, if not
impossible, because participants cannot behave as equals. Equivalent power
prompts bidirectional interactions. Both participants share the
responsibility for outcomes because neither can unilaterally dictate the
terms of interdependence. Horizontal, vertical, and authoritative
relationships are predicated on a lack of equivalence. Participants expect
unequal outcomes from interactions and attribute them to the power
differential. In contrast, participants in egalitarian, horizontal, and mutual
relationships share power and expect equitable interactions. Similarity, it
seems, breeds concent.
The third relationship dimension, gender, describes the degree to which
the organisation of a relationship reects sexual dimorphism. Three
distinctions fall under this rubric: differences based on participant sex,
differences based on gender roles, and differences based on sexual
attraction. The sexual composition of a dyad establishes the parameters of a
relationship (Maccoby, 1990). Men demand similar interconnections in
same-sex and cross-sex relationships, forcing women to modify
interconnections that prevail in female-female relationships to conform to
men’s preferences in male-female relationships. Participant gender roles
dene a relationship as masculine, feminine, or traditional (Hendrick, 1988).
Masculine relationships tend to be hierarchical and inclusive, feminine
relationships are often communal and exclusive, and traditional
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

754 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
relationships may adhere to sex-segregated stereotypes. Sexuality lends a
nal dimension to relationships (Laursen & Jensen-Campbell, in press).
Sexual attraction between participants affords a set of interconnections that
are unavailable to other dyads.
Gender exercises a pervasive inuence over social interaction (Berscheid,
1994). Relationships between men and relationships characterised by
masculine gender roles tend to emphasise participation in activities, many of
which require the establishme nt of a dominance hierarchy. Relationships
between women and relationships involving feminine gender roles tend to
emphasise mutual need satisfaction, which entails the expression of intimacy
and affection. Relationships between men and women and relationships
characterised by traditional gender roles are unique in that interactions may
be masculine in style but feminine in content. Sexuality adds yet another
dimension to dyadic behaviour. Social interaction patterns attributed to
gender roles and sexual composition may be augmented by sexual
attraction. Interactions between those who are sexually attracted to one
another are the product of a unique set of behavioural contingencies that
may be traced to societal expectations and evolved mechanisms designed to
encourage procreation and pair bonding.
How do you distinguish among different types of close relationships?
Taxonomies that confound a specic relationship with a typological
distinction create unhelpful tautologies (Berscheid & Reis, in press). The
three descriptive dimensions previously identi ed circumnavigate this
problem; each applies to all relationships and is unique to none. Permanence
describes the extent to which social interactions are premised on stability.
Pow er describes whether soc ial interactions are a manifestation of
dominance. Gender describes how social interactions are shaped by
sex-based attributes. In the section that follows, these dimensions are
applied to different close relationships, delineating distinctions among
relationship categories.
DISTINCTIONS AMO NG FAMILY AND PEER
RELATIONSHIPS
“The nature, structure, dynamics, demands, and rewards of children’s
relationships with parents, siblings, and friends are different in important
respects, and the quality of each depends on both individuals involved in the
particular relationship” (Dunn, 1993, p. 115). Setting individual variation
aside for the moment, we begin with an examination of group characteristics.
Consistent differences among parent-child, sibling, friend, and romantic
partner relationships may be identi ed. We consider each in turn, describing
interconnections within close relationships as a function of permanence,
power, and gender. Taken together, the portraits reveal aspects of
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE OR GAN ISATION O F CL OSE RELATIONSH IPS 755
dimensions that are shared across relationship s. Taken separately, each
portrait reveals a unique combination of relationship attributes.
How Parent-Child Relationships are O rganise d
Stability and power dominate the landscape occupied by parents and
offspring. Social interactions reect the inuence of each on the organisation
of parent-child relationships: Interconnections between participants persist
in the face of unequal, unilateral interchanges. Gender alters the specic
manifestations of these features, but not the overall pattern.
Parent-child relationships are obligatory (Maccoby, in press). Kinship
creates a closed-eld for social interactions. Continued transactions are
assured because participants are not free to leave the relationship. Social
and biological imperatives require commitment to obligatory kin
relationships, forcing parents and children to accept dyadic benets in lieu of
personal ones. Parent-child relationships are also hierarchical and
authoritative (Barker & Wright, 1955). Their interconnections are
complementary. Parents dominate interactions with children by virtue of
greater power and wisdom, and children depend on the control and guidance
of parents. This vertical structure rests on the paradox of inequitable
exchange: Resources ow from the powerful to the weak. Children may be
involved in same-sex and opposite-sex parent-child relationships, but the
specic gender role patterns in these relationships differ for daughters and
sons (Scanzoni, Polonko, Teachman, & Thompson, 1989). Cross-sex parent-
child relationships tend to be based on traditional gender roles, especially
those between fathers and daughters. Father-son relationships are
invariably masculine, whereas there is more latitude in the degree to which
mother-daughter relationships are feminine. Overt sexual attraction is not
normative in these relationships, although sexuality may play an important
role in social interactions.
How Sibling Relationships are Organised
Stability is inherent in sibling relationships but dominance varies according
to the age and gender of participants. Same-sex siblings who are similar in
age are more apt to treat one another as equals than cross-sex siblings who
are substantially different in age. Social interactions reect the permanent,
quasi-symmetrical nature of the sibling relationship: The equitable
outcomes expected of interchanges between those who share power are
often incongruous with the realities of a relationship based on permanent
interconnections.
Relationships between siblings are obligatory (Berscheid, 1994); some
participants describe them as involuntary. The relationship and the setting in
which the relationship is embedded are closed-elds; kinship assures
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

756 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
continued close quarters and social interaction, regardless of the
consequences. Commitment is expected of siblings, but it may not be
displayed in a manner consistent with the goal of maximising dyadic benets.
Sibling relationships contain vertical and horizontal properties (Dunn,
1983). Complementarity and reciprocity coexist. Measured in real terms, the
power difference between most siblings is slight, and relationships contain
more elements of a horizontal structure than a vertical one. An older child
may assume authority over a younger child, but this usually arises during a
temporary power vacuum. Once the authority gure returns, egalitarianism
and mutuality are expected. Gender alters patterns of sibling interaction
(Buhrmester, 1992). Daughters are more apt to be given authority over
siblings than sons, yet this does not translate into a hierarchy among brothers
and sisters that favours the latter; if anything, the reverse is true. Some
sibling competition is tolerated, but after a certain point a communal norm
consistent with feminine gender roles is apt to be enforced, especially when
the rivalry involves sisters. Sexual attraction among siblings is atypical.
How Friendships are Organised
Friendships are noteworthy because they are not obligatory, therefore they
are potentially impermanent. Most friendships are based on equality;
dominance is not normative. Interactions are predicated on sharing power
and averting instability. Faced with the potential threat of relationship
dissolution, interchange s are carefully monitored to keep outcomes
mutually satisfying. Friendships usually involve same-sex partners, with
males and females differing in the speci cs of their interconnections.
Friendships are voluntary (Palsi & Ransford, 1987) in the sense that the
setting and the relationship are an open-eld; interconnections owe no
allegiance to kin or environment, leaving participants free to disconnect at
any time. Friends initially focus on the distribution of personal benets
because they lack commitment to one another, but dyadic concerns grow as
commitment to the relationship increases. Friendships are prototypic
horizontal relationships (Hartup, 1979). Participants expect reciprocity,
which implies a mutual system for sharing the rewards and costs of
interactions. Interconnections are jointly constructed; working together,
friends establish, monitor, and revise the rules of exchange. Egalitarianism is
the norm, but friendship can thrive within a hierarchical structure.
Friendship is an overwhelmingly same-sex phenomenon (Rubin, Bukowski,
& Parker, in press). The better adapted may also have opposite-sex friends,
but those whose friends are exclusively of the opposite-sex tend to be poorly
adjusted. Males typically have more friends than females, perhaps because
the masculine form of the relationship is limited to participation in common
pastimes, whereas the feminine form also demands intimate expression. By
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE OR GAN ISATION O F CL OSE RELATIONSH IPS 757
denition, platonic friendship lacks a sexual component but, in practice, the
two are dif cult to disentangle when the participants are a male and a
female.
How Romantic Relationships are Organised
Romantic relationships are unique in that participants may attempt to
increase the stability of their impermanent interconnections. Social
interactions reect alterations in the organisation of the relationship, as
individual goals give way to dyadic concerns. Gender and the distribution of
power within romantic relationships are closely linked, which typically
results in some form of dominance based on traditional gender roles.
Most romantic relationships begin voluntarily (Berscheid & Walster,
1969). Participants approach the relationship intent on maximising personal
outcomes, and open-eld conditions permit them to withdraw should
interactions prove dissatisfactory. Mutually benecial exchanges promote
interconnections. To ensure a stable source of benets, participants may
resort to increasingly public vows of commitment intended to transform a
voluntary nonkin relationship into a nonvoluntary kin relationship. The
establishment of a closed-eld hinders relationship dissolution, diminishing
the importance of equitable outcomes. There are vast cultural differences in
romantic relationships, differences predicated on the relative power of
participants. Contemporary Western romantic relationships tend to be more
horizontal than vertical; most contain some elements of reciprocity and
complementarity (Huston, 1983). Although partners usually hold
egalitarianism as a goal, status differences make hierarchical arrangements
difcult to avoid. Romantic relationships are customarily authoritative; the
presence of mutual inuence does not preclude differences in absolute
inuence. Power and sex, however, are a tangled skein (Peplau, 1983).
Dominance in heterosexual romantic relationships has origins in traditional
gender roles. Status and authority differences spawn hierarchical
interactions. By minimising these differences, feminine and masculine
relationships encourage mutual and egalitarian interactions.
Interconnections based on sexual attraction may have origins in evolved
complementarities; the extent to which distal mechanisms inuence same-
sex and opposite-sex romantic relationships is not fully understood.
How are close relationships organised? Parent-child and sibling
relationships are permanent, friendships are not, and romantic relationship s
run the gamut of transient to indissoluble. Parents dominate children,
friends behave as equals, and siblings and romantic partners distribute
power in a manner that falls somewhere in between these extremes.
Same-sex and cross-sex relationships are common among parents and
children, and both may be present among siblings. In contrast, cross-sex
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

758 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
relationships prevail among romantic partners and same-sex relationships
typify friendships. Although gender roles may transcend sexual
composition, relationships between men tend to be masculine, those
between women tend to be feminine, and cross-sex relationships tend to
reect traditional gender roles. In most cases, the inuence of sexual
attraction is limited to romantic relationships.
FACTORS THAT SHAPE THE O RGANISA TIO N OF
CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS
“The development al capabilities and concerns of the child must have
bearing on the dimensions of a relationship that are most important, on how
a relationship is experienced, and on what its course will be” (Radke-
Yarrow, Richters, & Wilson, 1988, p. 65). The search for organisational
principles leads us to examine variation within and between relationships.
Individuals and dyads differ in terms of their orientation toward specic
relationship dimensions, differences that ow from the traits and
ontogenetic timetables of participants. This systematic variability suggests
that domain specicity offers the most parsimonious account of relationship
organisation. We conclude that different relationships are structured
according to different principles during different development al periods.
How Individual Differences Inuence Close
Relationships
Participant characteristics help to dene salient relationship attributes.
Discrete populations present different schemas and relationship
orientations (Berscheid, 1994). Individuals may be distinguished by
perceptions of security and trust (Bowlby, 1969). The secure express
condence in the responsive care proffered by relationships, whereas the
insecure fear disappointm ent. Individual exchange orientations also differ
(Murstein, Cerreto, & MacDonald, 1977). Maintaining a strict balance of
interaction rewards and costs is important to some, whereas others make
little attempt to account for relationship transactions. When individual
differences in organisational preferences are extended to dyads, the
relationship may be described as secure or insecure, communal or exchange.
Linkages between individual preferences and dyadic characteristics are
intuitively obvious, but the lack of a direct correspondence between the two
suggests a complicated interplay of inuences (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). As a
consequence, insecure individuals may have secure relationships and secure
individuals may be involved in insecure relationships.
Parents and children, friends, siblings, and romantic partners tend not to
place the same value on organisational attributes. Instead, the features
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE OR GAN ISATION O F CL OSE RELATIONSH IPS 759
prominent within each reect the interconnections that typify the
relationship (Hinde, 1979). Power may be more important than permanence
in social interactions between parents and children; the reverse may be the
case for friends. Yet beneath what appear to be consistent organisational
rules, differences within relationships may be lurking in the extent to which
participants adhere to these principles (Hartup, 1993). Interactions between
friends usually reect a concern with permanence because most individuals
value balanced exchanges. Friends with a low exchange orientation,
however, may place a premium on an equal distribution of power.
Develop ment further co mplicates the picture in that organisational
tendencies of individuals and their relationships change over time (Laursen,
1996). Young children have little appreciation for the nuances involved in
maintaining outcome equality. In contrast, dominance is an attribute that
they readily grasp. Thus, power rather than permanence may be the
prevailing theme in early relationships. With age, comes the social
experience and cognitive maturity required to understand principles of
exchange. As a consequence, permanence may be of greater concern than
power in the relationships of adolescents and adults. Changes in individuals
are accompanied by developmental alterations in relationships (Youniss &
Smollar, 1985). For example, parent-child relationships are premised
initially on power differentials, but increasing autonomy brings about a need
to recast interactions in terms of benet outcomes. Finally, relationships
themselves have development al histories, and interactions are organised
differently during the beginning, middle, and end of a relationship
(Berscheid & Reis, in press). For example, sexual attraction waxes and
wanes over the course of a romantic relationship, as does the importance of
the construct to participants.
How Domain Specicity Accounts for Individua l
Differences
Confronted with a bewildering array of individual and dyadic in uences, one
might be tempted to invoke a chaos theory interpretation of the organisation
of close relationships. But other attractive alternatives beckon. Domain
specicity—originally applied to performance distinctions in cognitive
development (Piaget, 1972)—may be adapted to t the challenges of
interpersonal behaviour (Bugental & Goodnow, in press). The domain-
specic approach argues that no single socialisation principle directs
relationships. Instead, interactions are guided by a varied set of socialisation
rules. Different relationships are organised around distinct socialisation
tasks, so each relationship requires its own unique canon (Maccoby, in
press). In other words, there are no universal organisational principles, only
relative ones. To suggest a domain-specic structure within close
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

760 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
relationships is to imply that rules of engagement differ within the spheres
circumscribed by parent-child, sibling, friend, and romantic relationships.
Each of these relationships occupies a specic niche in the lives of
participants; maturation and experience independently alter their
interactions and functions. It follows that the rules governing these distinct
spheres must inevitably change to accommodate the needs of the
participants and the relationship. Beyond describing differences between
relationships, domain speci city provides an account of variation within
relationships. The ability to change behavioural guidelines provide s
participants with the exibility to adapt the relationship to situational
demands, developmental timetables, and relationship histories (Bugental &
Goodnow, in press). As a consequence, parents may invoke outcome
equality when it suits their needs without threatening their dominant
position with children. Similarly, friends may resort to coercion now and
then without threatening the equivalent distribution of power. The
important point is that organisational principles are constructed within each
relationship; individual differences arise as dyads adapt general relationship
rules to their specic needs.
What factors shape the organisation of close relationships? Inspection
reveals that relationships are more variable than static. When it comes to
organisational principles, one size does not t all. Systematic differences
between relationships are augmented by individual differences predicated
on participant characteristics and dyadic attributes. Although anarchy might
seem the logical result, what evolves instead is a sophisticated system of rules
catered to individuals and relationships. These organisational principles are
understood to be speci c to each relationship domain.
At this point, a traditional conceptual paper would conclude with an
explicit typology of the topic at hand, but we are forced to deviate from the
prescribed nale because domain specicity is incompatible with taxonomic
inexibility (Maccoby, in press). So instead we close with a discussion of
issues concerning the creation of a developmental model that accounts for
age-related differences in the establishment, maintenance, functions, and
contributions of parent-child, sibling, friend, and romantic partner
relationships across the lifespan.
CONSTRUCTING A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF
RELATIONSHIPS: A RESEARCH AGENDA
Unique challenges await those constructing a developmental model of close
relationships. Developmental models are often guided by the concept of a
developmental goal or end-point. According to this view, the model should
account for changes in an individual from a relatively immature state to a
nal state recognised as maturity. This approach offers clear advantages in
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE OR GAN ISATION O F CL OSE RELATIONSH IPS 761
that it provides a relatively unambiguous end-point for the model.
Unfortunately, development al end-points in the study of relationships tend
to be ambiguous and elusive. Certainly, humans move from a state in which
relationships are simple and lack organisation to a state in which
relationships are complex and structured. This richness is manifest in so
many different ways, however, that development al end-points are usually
cast in either elementary or abstract terms.
Relationships typically have multidimensional developmental goals.
Individuals engage in different types of relationships with different
participants, so a developmental model of relationships must necessarily
account for experiences in multiple relationship domains. This
multidimensionality is compounded by age-related variations in the types of
relationships in which individuals participate and in the skills and
developmental histories that each brings to the relationship. Different
domains of relationship experiences are linked together, concurrently and
over time. Multidimensionality presents three challenges to the construction
of a developmental model of relationships. First, a developmental model
must describe properties of different relationships that are constant as well
as those that vary as a function of age and maturation. Second, a
developmental model must be sensitive to the fact that individual abilities
and needs vary with age and maturation, as do the requirements participants
place on relationships. These requirements determine the types of
interactions that occur between participants and de ne the developmental
functions of the relationship. Third, a development al model must account
for patterns of inuence among relationships. Experiences in one type of
relationship inuence experiences in others, each with mutually
compensatory potential. As a consequence, one relationship may be pressed
into the service of another.
Our research agenda, adapting Hinde’s (1979) framework for
understanding relationships, begins with a descriptive goal: The
comprehensive developmental depiction of characteristics of different
relationships. To this end, age-related changes in interactions must be
identied in a manner that describes how partners create a relationship and
how they maintain it (e.g. Collins & Russell, 1991; Rubin, Bukowski, &
Parker, in press). In addition, age-related variations in the meanings that
participants ascribe to relationships must be identied in a manner that
describes conscious and unconscious constructs concerning
interconnections and interactions (e.g. Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986; Youniss,
1980). Finally, age-related changes in the basic dimensions of relationships
must be identied. Different relationship dimensions are appropriate for a
developmental model of close relationships. We have suggested three that
appear to be particularly salient: permanence, power, and gender. Their
developmental patterns are discussed in the nal section.
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

762 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
A development al model of relationships must describe changes in the
signicance of each relationship system. It has been argued, for example,
that peer relationships gradually supplant family relationships (Sullivan,
1953), and evidence supports this assertion (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992,
Laursen & Williams, in press). A developmental model must reect the
complicated interplay of person and setting, for ontogenetic variation is
likely across domains. For example, although adolescents increasingly look
to friends for guidance, there are specic topics over which they still turn to
parents for advice (Youniss & Smollar, 1985). A develop mental model must
distinguish between differences in the salience of a relationship that are due
to age-related variations in behaviour, and those that are a product of
internal representations. For instance, at the onset of dating, heterosexua l
behaviour designed to enhance reproductive tness coincide with the
internalisation of a romantic attachment gure (Furman, in press). These
challenges illustrate the importance of a research agenda that integrate s
interactions, relationship trajectories, and features that moderate their
interplay.
Relationship systems are interconnected and these interconnections are
sensitive to developmental variations. Evidence suggests that interactions in
one domain inuence those in other domains. For example, greater levels of
rough and tumble play with fathers at home are associated with greater
levels of popularity with peers at school (MacDonald, 1987). Evidence also
suggests that experiences in one relationship may compensate for those in
another. For example, positive interactions with friends buffer against the
developmental difculties of nonoptimal families (Gauze, Bukowski,
Aquan-Assee, & Sippola, 1996). These interconnections and their
compensatory effects are the product of relationship features and the
developmental demands each is supposed to meet.
To summarise, we propose a research agenda for the construction of a
developmental model of relationships that emphasises three interrelated
themes. (1) A description of the characteristics that dene relationships, the
interactions within relationships, and the meaning derived from
relationships. (2) An account of changes in the developmental salience or
signicance of different types of relationships. (3) An assessment of
relationship interconnections, concurrent and across time. In so far as
relationship experiences reect participant attributes, this research agenda
cannot be considered independent of broader developmental considerations
of relationship change. We close with a discussion of developmental
principles that underlie relationship change and their potential impact on
the organisation of the social world.
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE OR GAN ISATION O F CL OSE RELATIONSH IPS 763
A DEVELOPMENTAL GUIDE TO PRINCIPLES THAT
ORGANISE FAMILY AND PEER RELATIONSHIPS
Development is an ongoing series of interactions between a changing
organism and a changing environment. Individuals and environments are
inextricably bound; individuals gravitate toward environmental niches as a
function of needs (real or perceived) and environments are shaped by the
individuals who occupy them. This interplay may involve deliberate steps by
individuals who actively choose from among available social environments,
or it may involve passively submitting to a prescribed environmen t
constructed for the individual (Scarr & McCartney, 1983). To put it another
way, some relationships are constructed by participants and others are
constructed for participants. As the needs and skills of individuals change
with development, relationships are revised accordingly. Once formed,
however, all relationships must balance changes in participants with changes
in the social world that encompass the relationship.
Although it is dif cult to argue that there is a normal developmental
trajectory, human develop ment across cultures adheres to a basic set of
continuities and discontinuities (Benedict, 1949). Essentially, individual s
move from a state of being dependent, passive, and relatively asexual to a
state of being responsible, assertive, and capable of sexuality. Changes in
these states occur within the context of relationships and they motivate
changes in relationships. Development in at least three arenas prompts
relationship alterations: changes in internal representations, changes in
social understandi ng; and changes in interdependence. Internal
representations encompass conscious and unconscious psychological
processes that shape the individual’s view of the world and his/her place
within it (Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Social understanding
encompasses cognitive advances that prompt an awareness of relationships
and an appreciation of the unique features of participants (Dunn, 1993;
Selman, 1980; Youniss, 1980). Interdependence encompasses experiences
that promote social exchange and afford opportunities to explore the
mechanics of interpersonal transactions (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Laursen,
1996). The form and function of relationships are guided by developmental
chan ges in thes e arenas.
The parent-child relationship is initially involuntary, with the child
dependent on the parent. Interactions entail the regulation and satisfaction
of the child’s basic needs so as to establish physical and emotional security.
Once regulation is internalised, the relationship becomes less organised
around dependency and caretaking (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). Greater levels
of social understanding on the part of the child prompt changes in
relationships with parents that diminish the role of internal representations
(Dunn, 1993). Vertical interactions give way to an increasingly horizontal
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

764 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
power structure (Lollis, Ross, & Tate, 1992). The parent-child relationship is
further transformed by the emergence of adolescent autonomy (Steinberg &
Silverberg, 1986). Yet it is not the case that detachment severs parent-child
attachment. Instead, autonomy introduces a new element into the parent-
child relationship, namely that of interdepende nce. As children move
through adolescence and into adulthood, social exchange grows in
prominence because family exchanges are increasingly voluntary (Laursen
& W illiams, in press). That is, parents and children choose when and how
often to interact, so outcomes are apt have a powerful in uence on future
exchanges.
The transformation of parent-child relationships is linked to an increase in
the salience of peer relationships. As friendships grow closer, the intensity
and exclusivity of parent-child relationships decrease. Interactions between
young children are often based on simple forms of initiation and
responsiveness to gestures and expressions. As social understanding
develops, interactions become more complex and co-ordinated (Dunn,
1993). Although primarily organised around play and common activities,
early friendships build on internal representations, setting the stage for the
development of new interpersona l skills (Davies, 1984; Elicker, Englund, &
Sroufe, 1992). Across middle childhood and adolescence, friendships grow
to incorporate abstract concepts such as loyalty and intimacy (Hartup, 1993).
It is for this reason that some have argued that adolescent friendships
represent the rst true relationship experiences (Sullivan, 1953). Certainly
friendships are the earliest voluntary relationship ; children acquire social
exchange rules in interactions with friends and apply them in other close
relationships (Graziano, 1984). Autonomy promotes the relative
importance of these principles, as exchanges in voluntary relationships
increasingly take place in open-eld settings apart from adult supervision
(Laursen, 1996). Taken together, friendships resemble parent-child
relationships in that internal representations form the basis of later advances
in interdependence and social understanding.
Sibling relationships appear to follow a distinct developmental trajectory.
In contrast to age-related changes in parent-child and friend relationships,
positive features of sibling relationships decrease across childhood and
adolescence and negative features increase (Brody, Stoneman, & McCoy,
1994; Buhrmester & Furman, 1990). Little is known about how internal
representations impact sibling relationships, although there is evidence that
they shape qualitative features of the relationship (Teti & Ablard, 1989).
Sibling relationships gradually shift from being involuntary to being
voluntary; the more children control their own environment, the more say
they have in the extent to which they socialise with siblings. Moreover, the
asymmetries between siblings that derive from age differences diminish as
the relationship grows more egalitarian with progressive advances in social
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE OR GAN ISATION O F CL OSE RELATIONSH IPS 765
understanding (Dunn, 1983). It follows that the importance of
interdependence in sibling relationships increases as a function of social and
cogn itive development.
In their earliest phases, romantic relationships are predicated on
principles of social exchange. Participants are attracted to one another by
the promise of mutually benecial interactions (Berscheid & Walster, 1969).
Although the salience of particular benets may change as a function of
development, the importance of a favourable ratio of rewards to costs does
not (Laursen & Jensen-Campbell, in press). Interdepend ence declines in
importance as romantic relationships grow more committed and less
voluntary. Internal relationship representations formed early in life may be
recreated later in romantic relationships (Shaver & Hazan, 1988). That
adolescents have a lower incidence of secure romantic attachments than
adults has prompted some to speculate that advances in social understanding
and social experience facilitate improved internal representations of
romantic relationships (Furman & Wehner, 1994). This suggests a
progressive decline in the importance of environmental and psychological
processes, as cognitive processes increasingly guide the behaviour of
romantic partners.
Most close relationships respond to changes in other relationships. For
instance, friends help adolescents renegotiate relationships with parents
(Ryan & Lynch, 1989). The ascription of new meanings to friendship may be
a critical aspect of the successful transformation of parent-adole scent
relationships (Blos, 1962). As the quality of adolescent relationships with
parents declines, some functions may be transferred to friends. Friendships,
in turn, are eventually supplanted by romantic relationships. Just as
supportive functions shift from parents to friends during early adolescence,
they shift again from friends to romantic partners during late adolescence
and early adulthood (Furman, 1989). On the surface, alterations in
relationship interdependence appear to drive these changes, but there may
also be deep structure revisions in attachment processes that contribute to
relationship realignment.
Variability in the principles that guide relationships demonstrates the
need for a domain-specic developmental model. Domain specicity was a
messy and disruptive notion when introduced into the eld of cognitive
development and it is likely to prove likewise for the  eld of social
development. Particularly challenging will be the task of disentangling
normative individual development and normative relationship development
from differences between individuals in relationship preferences and
experiences, and differences between relationships in patterns of social
interaction. Yet it is clear that the most parsimonious formulation of close
relationship processes is one that recognises different relationship principles
during different developmental periods.
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

766 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
CONCLUSION
Relationships are the bread and the thread of life, they dene existence and
provide it with meaning (Vandenberg, 1991). Developmental needs
motivate individuals to engage in relationships and cultural prescriptions
dene relationship responses to these needs. Thus, relationships are a
context for development as well as a product of it.
We have proposed a developmental guide to the organisation of family
and close peer relationships. As with most guides, this one has limitations: It
takes the intrepid traveller only so far down the well-trod trail before
reaching uncharted territories. Yet, developmental scholars are uniquely
suited to the challenge ahead. Our trademark emphasis on description and
concern for the individual in context offers a compelling approach to the
study of relationships. A basic descriptive account of relationships reveals a
dynamism in relationship experiences and in their adaptive inuences,
suggesting that the study of relationships and the study of development must
necessarily be joined if either is to be properly understood.
Manuscript received June 1997
REFERENCES
Arg yle, M ., & Fur nham , A . (1983). Sources of satisfact ion and con ict in long- term
relati onsh ips. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 481–4 93.
Bar ker, R.G., & Wright, H.F . (1955). Midwest and its children. Ne w York: H arper.
Ben edict , R . (1949). Continuities and dis cont inuities in cu ltural condition ing. In P . Mullah y
(Ed.), A study of interp ersona l relations. N ew Yo rk: Herm itage.
Ber schei d, E . (1994). Interpersonal relationship s. Annual Review of Psychology, 45 , 79– 129.
Ber schei d, E., & Pep lau, L.A. (1983) . The em erging science of relation ship s. In H.H. K elley ,
E. B erscheid, A. C hristen sen, J.H. H arvey, T.L. H uston, G. Levinger, E . McClintock, L.A.
Pepl au, & D.R . P eters on (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 1–19). New York : Fre eman.
Ber schei d, E., & Reis, H.T . (in press). Attractio n and close relationship s. In S. Fiske, D.
Gilb ert, & G . Lin dzey (Ed s.), The ha ndbook of so cial psycho logy (4th edn.). New York:
McG raw Hill.
Ber schei d, E., S nyd er, M., & Omo to, A .M. (1989). T he Relatio nsh ip Closeness Inventory:
Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Socia l
Psychology, 57, 792– 807.
Ber schei d, E., & Walst er, E.H. (1969) . Interpersonal attraction. Reading, M A: Addison
Wes ley.
Blo s, P . (1962 ). On adolescence: A psyc hoanalytic interpretation. N ew Yo rk: Free Press.
Blu mste in, P , & Kol lock , P. (1988) . Personal relatio nships. Annual Review of Sociology, 14,
467– 490.
Blyt h, D.A., Hill, J.P., & Th iel, K.S. (1982) . E arly ado lescents’ signi cant oth ers: G rade and
gender differences in perceived relationships with familial and nonfamilial adults and young
peo ple. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 425–450.
Bo wlby , J. (1969). A ttachmen t and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. N ew Yo rk: Basic Book s.
Bre wer, M.B. (in p ress). On the social origin s of huma n nat ure. In C. M cGarty & A. Haslam
(Eds.), The mess age of social psychology: Per spective s on mind and society. London:
Blac kwe ll.
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE OR GAN ISATION O F CL OSE RELATIONSH IPS 767
Bro dy, G ., Stoneman, Z ., & McC oy, J.K. (1 994) . Forecasting sibling relationships in early
ado lescen ce from childho od temperamen ts and family pro cesses in middle childhood. Child
Development , 65, 771– 784.
Bro nfenbren ner, U . (1979). The ecology of human development. C amb ridge, M A: Harvard
Univ ersit y Press.
Bu genta l, D.B ., & Good now, J.J. (in pres s). S ociali zatio n processes. In W. Damon (Ser ies
Ed. ), N. E isenberg (Vol. Ed .), The handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional,
and personality development. N ew Yo rk: Wiley.
Bu hrm ester , D. (1992) . The develo pment al cou rses of sibling and peer relatio nsh ips. In F.
Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Children’s s ibling relationships: Developmental and c linical issues
(pp . 19 –40). Hi llsdale , NJ: Erlbaum.
Bu hrm ester , D., & Furm an, W. (1990). Perceptio ns o f siblin g relations during ch ildho od and
adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1387–13 98.
Clar k, M .S., & Mills , J. (1979). Interperson al attraction in exchange an d comm unal
relati onsh ips. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–2 4.
Clark, M.S., & Reis, H.T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual
Review of P sychol ogy, 39, 60 9–6 72.
Clar ke-S tew art, A . (1984). Day care: A new context f or research and devel opment . In M .
Perlmutter (Ed.), The Minneso ta Symposia on Child Psychology: Vol. 17. Parent-child
interac tion and parent-child relations in child deve lopment (pp. 61 –100). Hillsdale, N J:
Law rence E rlbaum Associates Inc.
Co llins, W.A ., & R epinski, D.J. (1994). Relationships during a dole scenc e: Con tinuity and
chan ge in interpersonal pers pecti ve. In R. Montemayor, G.R . Adams, & T.P. Gullo tta
(Eds.), Pers onal relationships duri ng adolescence (pp. 7–36). Thou sand Oaks, CA : Sage.
Co llins, W.A. , & Ru ssell, G. (1 991) . Mother-child and father-child r elatio nsh ips in midd le
childhood and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 11, 99– 136.
Davie s, B. (1 984) . Life in the classroom and playgr ound. London: Rou tledge & Kegan Paul.
Dun n, J. (1983) . Sib ling relationships in ea rly childho od. Child Development , 54, 787– 811.
Dunn, J. (1993). Young children’s close relationships: Beyond attachment. New bur y Park,
CA : Sage.
Elick er, J., Eng lund , M ., & Sroufe, L.A . (1992) . Predicting peer com peten ce and peer
relati onsh ips in child hoo d f rom early parent-child relationships. In R.D. Par ke & G.W.
Ladd (Eds.), Family -peer relationships: Modes of linkage s (pp. 77 –106). H illsdale, NJ:
Law rence E rlbaum Associates Inc.
Feirin g, C., & Lewis, M. (1989) . The social netw ork s of girls and b oys from early through
midd le childhood. In D. Belle (Ed .), Children’s social networks and social supports (pp.
51–172). New Yor k: W iley.
Fisk e, A.P . (1992). The four elem entary fo rms of socialit y: Framework for a unied th eory of
social relations. Psycho logical Review, 99, 689– 723.
Fletc her, G.J.O., & Fincham, F.D. (Eds.) (1991) . Cognition in close relationships. H illsdale,
NJ: Law rence Erlb aum A ssociates In c.
Fur man , W . (1989). The develo pment of child ren ’s social netw orks. In D. Belle (Ed.),
Childre n’s s ocial networks and social supports (pp. 151–172). New York: W iley.
Fur man , W. (in press). Friends and lov ers: The role of peer rela tion ship s in adoles cen t
hete rose xual romantic r elatio nships. In W.A. Collins & B. Lau rsen (E ds.), The Minn esota
Sympos ia on Child Psy chology: Vol. 29. Relationships as developme ntal co nstructs.
Hillsd ale, NJ: Lawr ence E rlbaum Associates Inc.
Fur man , W., & Bu hrm ester , D. (1992). Age and sex di ffere nces in percep tions of networ ks of
personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115.
Fur man , W ., & Wehner, E.A . (1994) . Roman tic views: To war d a theory o f ad olesc ent
rom antic relation ships. In R. M ontema yor, G.R . Adam s, & T.P. Gullotta (E ds.), Personal
relation ships during adoles cence (pp. 168– 195). Thou sand Oaks, CA: S age.
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

768 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
Gau ze, C ., Buko wski, W.M ., Aquan -Assee, J., & S ippo la, L.K. (1996) . In teractions between
fami ly envir onm ent and friendsh ip and associations with self-perceived well-being during
early adolescence. Child Development , 67, 2201–22 16.
Graz iano , W.G . (1984). A developm ent al approach to social exchan ge processes. In J.C.
Mas ters & K. Yark in-Levin (Eds.), Boundary areas in social and developmental psychology.
Orlan do, F L: A cademic P ress.
Hart up, W.W. (1979) . The social w orlds o f childhood . American Psychologist, 34, 944– 950.
Hartup, W.W. (1993). Adolescents and their friends. In B . Laursen (Ed.), Close friendship in
adolesc ence: New directions for child development (pp. 3–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hart up, W.W ., & Lau rsen, B. (1991) . Relatio nships as devel opm ent al co ntexts. In R. C ohen
& A.W . Siegel (Eds.), Context and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Law rence Erlbaum
Associates Inc.
Haza n, C., & Shaver, P .R. (1987) . C onc eptualizing romantic love as an attachment process.
Journa l of Personality an d Social Ps ycholog y, 52, 511– 524.
Hen drick , C. (1988) . R oles and gend er in relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of
person al relationship s (pp. 429–448). New Yor k: W iley.
Hin de, R.A. (1976). On describing relatio nships. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 17, 1–19.
Hin de, R.A . (197 9). Towa rds und erstanding relationships. New York: Academic Press.
Hin de, R.A . (199 7). Relati onships : A dialectical perspective. Ho ve, UK : Psychology Press.
Hirs ch, B.J., & Dub ois, D.L. (1989). The schoo l–nonschool ecology of early adolescent
frien dsh ips. In D. Belle (Eds.), Childr en’s social networks and social supports (pp. 260–274) .
New York: Wiley.
Hus ton , T.L. (1983) . Power. In H.H. Kelley, E . Bers cheid , A. Ch ristensen , J.H. Harvey,
T.L. Husto n, G. Levinger, E. McClin tock, L.A. Peplau, & D.R. Peterson (Eds.), Close
relationships (pp . 169 –219 ). New York: Freeman .
Kelley, H.H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J.H., Huston, T.L., Levinger, G.,
McC lintock , E ., Peplau, L.A., & Peterson, D.R . (1983). Close re lationshi ps. New Y ork:
Freeman.
Kelle y, H.H., & Th ibaut, J.W. (1978) . Inter perso nal re lations: A theory of interdependence.
New York: Wiley.
Lars on, R ., & Richards , M.H . (19 91) . Daily co mpanionship in late childhood and ear ly
ado lescen ce: Chang ing deve lopm ental context s. Child Development, 62, 284–300.
Laur sen, B. (1996). Closeness and co n ict in ad olescent peer relation ships: In terd epen dence
with friend s and ro mantic partne rs. In W.M. Bukowski, A.F. Newcomb, & W .W. H artu p
(Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in c hildhood and adole scence (pp. 186–212).
New York: Cambridge Univers ity Press.
Laur sen, B., Hart up, W.W ., & Koplas, A.L. (1996). Towards under stan ding peer coni ct.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 76–1 02.
Laursen, B., & Jensen-Cam pbell, L.A. (in press). The nature and functions of social
exchange in adolescent romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B.B. Brown, & C. Feiring
(Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on romantic relationships. New York: C amb ridge
Univ ersit y Press.
Laur sen, B., & Williams, V. (in press). Perceptions of interd ependence an d closeness in famil y
and peer r elatio nsh ips amon g adolesc ents w ith and without ro mantic partners. In S.
Shu lman & W.A . Collins (E ds.), Romantic relationships in adolescence: New directions for
child development. San Francisco: Jossey-B ass.
Lollis , S.P., Ross, H.S., & Tate, E. (1 992) . Parents’ regu lation of child ren ’s peer interactions:
Direct inuences. In R.D. Parke & G.W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relations: Modes of
linkage (p p. 255–281). H illsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbau m Associates I nc.
Maccoby, E.E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental accou nt. American
Psychologist , 45, 513– 520.
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE OR GAN ISATION O F CL OSE RELATIONSH IPS 769
Maccoby, E.E. (in pres s). In W.A. Collins & B. Laursen ( Ed s.), The Minnesota Symposia on
Child Psychology: Vol. 29. Relationships as developmental contexts. Hillsd ale, NJ: Law renc e
Erlb aum Associates In c.
MacDonald, K. (1987). Parent-child ph ysical play with rejected, neglected, and popular boys.
Develop mental Psychology, 23, 705– 711.
Murstein, B.I. (1970) . S timulus valu e role: A theory of mari tal choice. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 32, 465–481.
Murstein, B.I., Ce rret o, M., & MacDonald, M.G. (1977). A theory a nd investigation of the
effect of exchange-orientation on marriage and friendship. Journal of Marriage and the
Family , 39, 543– 548.
Palsi, B.J., & Ransford, H.E. (1987). Friendship as a voluntary relationship: Evidence from
national surveys. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship s, 4, 234– 259.
Pep lau, L.A. ( 1983) . Roles and gend er. In H .H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J.H.
Harv ey, T.L. Huston, G. Levin ger, E. McClintock, L .A. Peplau , & D.R . P eterson (Eds.),
Close relationships (pp. 220 –264). N ew Yo rk: Freeman .
Piage t, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. (Or iginal work
published in English 1932.)
Piage t, J. (1972). Intellect ual evo lution from ad olescence t o ad ulth ood. Human
Development , 15, 1–1 2.
Rad ke-Y arrow, M., R ichters, J., & Wilson, W.E . (1988). Ch ild develop men t in a network of
relati onsh ips. In R.A. Hinde & J. S tevenson-H inde (Eds.), Relationships within families:
Mutual inuences (pp. 48–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rub in, K.H., Buko wski, W.M., & Parker, J.G . (in pres s). Peer int eract ions, relationship s and
groups. In W. Damo n (Series Ed .), N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), The handbook of child
psycho logy: Vol. 3. Social, emot ional, and personality development. N ew Yo rk: Wiley.
Rus bul t, C.E. (1980) . Com mitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the
inves tmen t model. Journal of Experimental Social Psyc hology, 16, 96–105.
Ryan , R., & Lynch, J. (1989) . E motion al auton omy ver sus det achm ent : R evisiting the
viciss itud es of adolescence and yo ung adulth ood. Child Dev elopmen t, 60, 340 –35 6.
Sara son , I.G ., Sarason, B .R., & Pierce, G.R . (1995). Social and personal relationships:
Current issues, fu ture directions. Jour nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 613– 619.
Scan zon i, J., Po lonko, K ., Te achm an, J., & Thompson, L. (1989) . The sexual bond:
Rethink ing fa milies and close relationships. New bury P ark: Sage.
Scar r, S ., & M cCartne y, K. (19 83) . How peop le make th eir own environments: A theo ry of
genotype environment correlatio ns. Child Deve lopment, 54, 424– 435.
Selm an, R.L. (1980 ). The growth of inter perso nal understanding: Developm ental a nd clinical
analyse s. San D iego, CA: Academic Press.
Sro ufe, L.A ., & Fleeson , J . (19 85) . The coherence of fam ily relat ionship s. I n R.A . Hind e & J.
Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual inuences (p p. 27–47).
Oxfo rd: Oxford University Press.
Sro ufe, L.A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Att achm ent and the construction of relationships . In
W.W . Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development (p p. 51–71). H illsda le, N J:
Law rence E rlbaum Associates Inc.
Stei nber g, L., & Silverberg, S. ( 1986) . Th e vicissitudes of auton omy in adolescence. Child
Development , 57, 841– 851.
Sull ivan, H.S. (1953) . Th e inter perso nal theory of psych iatry. New York: No rton.
Teti, D.M., & Ablard, K.E. (1989). Security of attachment and infant-sibling relationships: A
labo rato ry s tud y. Child D evelopm ent, 60, 1 519 –1528 .
Thib aut , J.W ., & Kelley, H.H . (195 9). The social psychol ogy of grou ps. N ew York: Wiley .
Van den berg, B . (1991). Is epistemolog y enough? A n existe ntial con sideratio n of
develo pment . American Psychologist, 46, 127 8–1286 .
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

770 LAU RSE N AND BUKOW SKI
You niss, J. (1980) . Par ents and peers in social development: A Sullivan–Piaget perspective.
Chi cago, IL: U niversity of Chicago Press .
Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers an d friends.
Chi cago, IL: U niversity of Chicago Press .
at FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIV on February 6, 2011jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from