Initially, in the Social Psychology of Groups, Thibaut, and Kelley (1959) conceptualized relationships in terms of rewards and costs. I find this model helpful as it strips the construct of relationships of its high emotional complexity to the bones and allows to add back layers for further study.
In the latter volume, Interpersonal Relations: Theory of Interdependence, Kelley, and Thibaut (1978) elaborated on relational dynamics of dyads and illustrated that two people in a relationship, though always interdependent, do not have the same level of influence over each other, and inevitably, one person’s needs or wants impose higher costs on the other. The dyad’s ability to strike a balance to satisfy or at least, appease one other will resolve a conflict, but can it explain the length, or the strength, or other qualities of relationships, such as closeness?
On the other hand, the feeling of closeness competes with negative emotions of a conflict; therefore, closeness must be transactional, and as for each person who shares it, he or she is both the producer and the product in these transactions (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). According to Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model of Development (1979), relationships are an example of “proximal processes” that shape and steer the development of a person.
If my relationship with Becky is “the progressive mutual accommodation between an active, growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives”
Leslie-Case, K. P. (1999, January). The parent-child relationship: An interdependence approach. (mutuality, control, childhood, memories). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 2986.