Models of human relationships:

Why do they matter in science,  society, and everyday life?

HSP 151   CRN 8578
Tuesdays & Thursdays
1:10pm - 3:00pm
Robsinson 206
Dr. Jeremy Osborn

At a general level, this course will examine the fundamental differences among various disciplines and research areas within the social sciences by analyzing one phenomenon that is critical to all of them—human relationships. While the human relationship represents one of the fundamental units of analysis in the social sciences, it is not a phenomenon that possesses a unitary conceptualization (let alone operationalization) across disciplines and lines of research. The various models of human relationships that have emerged provide excellent lenses through which to see the fundamental differences among these lines of research at the core level of philosophical assumptions regarding social life and activity. Furthermore, these different models often stand, at some level, as artifacts of the historical period in which they were developed and the agendas of the scholars who developed them.

While differences in the modeling of a particular phenomenon may seem to be of minimal consequence, the human relationship is a core element of both social scientific inquiry and the day-to-day experience of virtually all humans. Different models offer different explanations for the motivations underlying social action and the structural elements that define an association as a “relationship.” Social scientists and lay people alike utilize particular models of human relationships to both make sense of their experience and to make behavioral decisions. The models chosen can have serious implications for both scientific inquiry and personal decision-making. From a scientific standpoint, these models reflect several “great issues.” First, they highlight the diversity, complexity, and richness that define the social sciences. The differences among them illustrate different fundamental philosophical and methodological approaches to understanding the social world. Second, by highlighting these differences, the models help illustrate one of the reasons that true “interdisciplinary” social science research is often difficult. If differences exist at fundamental levels that are then manifested in the conceptualization of key terms and phenomenon, researchers can often have difficulty coordinating interdisciplinary research that could yield important insights. Beyond the scientific level, examining the models provides insights into the values and beliefs that were dominant at different points in history and/or were advanced either intentionally or unintentionally by researchers with particular agendas. Therefore the reflexive relationship between scientific knowledge and cultural meaning is also explored. Finally, examining the models offers individual students a set of tools to examine their own perceptual biases, the biases of others, and the biases of particular, dominant groups in society.

In order to achieve these goals, this course will be structured around the process of reading, interpreting, discussing, and reexamining. Each week students will be required to read classic and contemporary articles and chapters that both present the basic tenets of particular relationship models and illustrate the contextual application of those models. In some instances, critical pieces may also be assigned and media materials that illustrate the reflection of the models in popular culture may also be used. All materials will be designed to stimulate critical discussion of the models among students in class. Discussion will be directed toward several areas including: the fundamental philosophical and methodological assumptions of the models, the values and beliefs about social life that the models reflect, the relationship between each model and the broader cultural and historical context in which it is situated, the ways that the different models allow us to see differences among disciplines and lines of research, and both the scientific and personal implications of adoption for each model.

The course will be structured topically with different categories of models representing different “units.” Below are brief descriptions of each unit and some of the specific topics and readings that each will involve. The unit headings are general descriptors that I developed and do not represent any particular, codified taxonomic system. Sample readings that are listed represent some, but not all, of the readings that will be used.

The “Deterministic” Model
This unit will examine the various lines of research that focus on social action as the product of evolution, genetics, and neurochemical processes that occur within individuals and at a largely sub-conscious level. This approach is primarily reflective of early research on relationships in which the primary focus was on applying “objective” scientific methods to humans as objects of research. In terms of cultural and scientific values, these models reflect research that values objective scientific discovery and a historical period in which many social science researchers were concerned with objectively mapping the variables involved in interaction and their predictable associations. Human relationships are essentially modeled as the product of the joint actions of two individual actors whose behaviors are largely determined by conditioning and/or genetics (therefore the sense of individual agency is very low). Specific approaches reflecting this model include reinforcement research, behaviorism, and socio-evolutionary psychology among others. Sample readings include Buss (2004), Dillard, Solomon, and Samp (1996), and Hazan and Shaver (1994).

The Cognitive Model
Reflective of much of the research in social psychology, the cognitive model retains the individualistic focus of behaviorism but factors in a higher level of individual agency. Relationships are still conceptualized structurally as the product of the actions of individual actors; however these actors are defined as rational beings that use social relationships and behaviors as tools for individual goal attainment. Human relationships in this approach are once again defined primarily in terms of individual actions. Specific approaches we will examine include social exchange theory, research on goals and plans, etc. Some sample readings include Thibaut and Kelley (1959) and Rusbult (1983).

The Systems Model
In relationship research the systems approach was developed in part to address the limitations of individualistic models. The systems model conceptualizes relationships as inherently social achievements between interdependent actors. While individual goals and actions are one component of the system, this model redefines the relationship as the cooperative achievement of multiple actors and also calls for consideration of external, contextual influences. In this unit students will examine general readings such as von Bertalanaffy (1973) that illustrate how this model reflected shifts in science and society, as well as specific relationship applications such as Watzlawick, Beavin-Bavelas, and Jackson (1967), and Parsons (1965).

The “Interaction-Focused” Model
Based to a large extent on the philosophical premises of Symbolic Interactionism, the interaction-focused model represents another conceptualization of human relationships that runs counter to individualistic models. This unit will focus on research that suggests that relationships are inherently social achievements and that frames everything from individual self-concept to societal norms as a product of social activity. In this model a premium is placed on external influences as primary determinants of behavior and privileges the influence of others over individual agency. Readings will cover Symbolic Interactionism (Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1959), contemporary communication research by Duck (1995) and colleagues, and social constructionism (Gergen, 1994, for example) among other topics.

The Dialectical Model
This unit will focus primarily on the various chapters of Montgomery and Baxter’s (1998) book, Dialectical Approaches to Studying Human Relationships. These contemporary models reflect a holistic approach to relationships focused on flexibility and Eastern philosophical ideals. The various researchers associated with this model encourage open dialogue and a collaborative effort to repair limited, prescriptive, deterministic models represented in other approaches.

Critical Approaches
Rather than focusing on a particular model, per se, this unit will explore critical research that highlights the ways that human relationships function as tools of oppression controlled by particular dominant groups. Special attention will be offered to feminist scholarship examining areas such as egalitarian marriage and gender roles. This unit will also emphasize the unique goal of critical scholars to use research to enact positive social change. Sample readings include Andersen (1991), and Risman and Johnson-Sumerford (1998).

(Tentative Syllabus)
HSP 154 Great Issues in Social Science
Models of human relationships: Why do they matter in science, society, and everyday life?

Instructor: Jeremy Osborn, PhD Office Phone: 629-0329
Office: Herrick 513 E-mail: josborn@albion.edu

Course Description
At a general level, this course will examine the fundamental differences among various disciplines and research areas within the social sciences by analyzing one phenomenon that is critical to all of them—human relationships. While the human relationship represents one of the fundamental units of analysis in the social sciences, it is not a phenomenon that possesses a unitary conceptualization (let alone operationalization) across disciplines and lines of research. The various models of human relationships that have emerged provide excellent lenses through which to see the fundamental differences among these lines of research at the core level of philosophical assumptions regarding social life and activity.

Different models offer different explanations for the motivations underlying social action and the structural elements that define an association as a “relationship.” Social scientists and lay people alike utilize particular models of human relationships to both make sense of their experience and to make behavioral decisions. The models chosen can have serious implications for both scientific inquiry and personal decision-making. From a scientific standpoint, these models reflect several “great issues.” First, they highlight the diversity, complexity, and richness that define the social sciences. The differences among them illustrate different fundamental philosophical and methodological approaches to understanding the social world. Second, by highlighting these differences, the models help illustrate one of the reasons that true “interdisciplinary” social science research is often difficult. If differences exist at fundamental levels that are then manifested in the conceptualization of key terms and phenomenon, researchers can often have difficulty coordinating interdisciplinary research that could yield important insights. Beyond the scientific level, examining the models provides insights into the values and beliefs that were dominant at different points in history and/or were advanced either intentionally or unintentionally by researchers with particular agendas. Therefore the reflexive relationship between scientific knowledge and cultural meaning is explored. Finally, examining the models offers individual students a set of tools to examine their own perceptual biases, the biases of others, and the biases of particular, dominant groups in society.

Course Format
This course is designed to stimulate critical analysis, careful interpretation, and thoughtful discussion. Each week students will be assigned particular readings that illustrate the basic concepts germane to the model under scrutiny and readings that illustrate the application and usage of the model. These readings will serve as the basis for class discussions directed toward several areas including: the fundamental philosophical and methodological assumptions of the models, the values and beliefs about social life that the models reflect, the relationship between each model and the broader cultural and historical context in which it is situated, the ways that the different models allow us to see differences among disciplines and lines of research, and both the scientific and personal implications of adoption for each model. Students are expected to complete the readings and come to class prepared to actively discuss these areas.

Readings
All readings are required and must be completed prior to the class in which they are scheduled for discussion. Readings will be made available either in hard copy or in electronic form on the course web. Specific readings will be announced prior to their assigned date, but a tentative reading list is attached at the end of the syllabus.

Requirements
Grades in this course will be assigned on the basis of performance in the following areas.

Participation:
Students are expected to complete the readings each week and to actively engage in thoughtful discourse with their classmates and instructor. Participation will be worth a total of 100 points (22.2% of the final grade).

Response Papers:
Students must complete 3 response papers over the course of the semester. Each response paper involves a careful analysis of one of the models that focuses on the societal, scientific, and personal implications involved with the adoption of that model. Each paper is worth 50 points (11.1% of the final grade), for a total of 150 points (33.3% of the final grade).

Final Paper:
Students must complete a major paper near the end of the semester in which they must choose a particular model that they feel is the “best” and present a cogent argument explaining why and how it is superior to the others. This paper must integrate sound reasoning with research from the assigned readings as well as additional research and must address societal, personal, and scientific utility. Further details will be provided later. The paper is worth 150 points (33.3% of the final grade).

Presentation/Paper Defense:
Students must present the case constructed in the final paper to the class and defend their assertions. Details will be provided later, but the format will include a prepared presentation by the student, followed by a period of questioning and refutation by the instructor and class. The presentation and defense are worth 50 points (11.1% of your final grade).

Course Outline: The following provides a tentative course outline.

Date Topics

Week 1 (8/21 & 8/23) Course Introduction
Core Concepts in the Study of Human Relationships

Week 2 (8/28 & 8/30) Essential Features of Relationship Models
Overview of Relationship Models

Week 3 (9/4 & 9/6) The “Deterministic” Model

Week 4 (9/11 & 9/13) The “Deterministic” Model (cont.)

Week 5 (9/18 & 9/20) Cognitive Model

Week 6 (9/25 & 9/27) Cognitive Model (cont.)
Week 7 (10/2 & 10/4) Systems Model

Week 8 (10/11) Systems Model (cont.)

Week 9 (10/16 & 10/18) Interaction-Focused Model

Week 10 (10/23 & 10/25) Interaction-Focused (cont.)

Week 11 (10/30 & 11/1) Dialectical Approaches

Week 12 (11/6 & 11/8) Critical Approaches

Week 13 (11/13 & 11/15) Presentations and Refutations

Week 14 (11/20) Presentations & Refutations

Week 15 (11/27 & 11/29) Review of Presentations
Course Synthesis

Preliminary Reading List

**Below is the tentative reading list for the class. Readings will be added and deleted as the semester approaches and the course unfolds.

Andersen, M. L. (1991). Feminism and the American family ideal. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 22, 235-246.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol 2 (193-281). New York: Random House.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (2nd ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments. Communication Research, 23, 703-723.

Duck, S. (1995). Talking relationships into being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 535-540.

Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

Goldsmith, D. A., & Baxter, L. A. (1996). Constituting relationships in talk: A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 23, 87-114.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Kelley, H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J., Huston, T., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L., & Peterson, D. (1983). Analyzing close relationships. In Kelley, et al. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 20-81). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Montgomery, B. M. & Baxter, L. A. (1998). Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Murray, S. & Holmes, J. (1996). The construction of relationship realities. In G. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge Structures in Close Relationships (pp. 99-120). Hillsdale, CA: Erlbaum.

Parsons, T. (1965). The normal American family. In S. M. Farber, P. Mustacch, & R. H. L. Wilson (Eds.). The Family’s Search for Survival. New York: McGraw Hill.

Risman, B. J., & Johnson-Sumerford, D. (1998). Doing it fairly: A study of postgender marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60, 23-40.

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.

Schutz, W. C. (1973). Elements of encounter. Big Sur, CA: Joy Press.

Schutz, W. C. (1992). Beyond FIRO-B—three new theory-derived measures—element B: behavior, element F: feelings, element S: self. Psychological Reports, 70, 915-937.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1973). General System Theory (Revised Edition). New York: GeorgeBraziller.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin-Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.

Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Werner, C. M., & Baxter, L. A. (1994). Temporal qualities of relationships: Organismic transactional, and dialectical views. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed.) (pp. 323-379). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.