Mother-in-law or Monster-in-law? What kind of relationship do you have?

Julie calls her mother on the phone and says, “I just do not understand my mother-in-law, she says really mean things. She knows it hurts my feelings, yet she continues to say them.”

Julie’s mother, “Are you sure she knows it hurts your feelings?”

Julie, “I have never said anything, but she has to know.”

Hurt or confused feelings are often expressed in daily conversation, especially when a young daughter-in-law is seeking her mother-in-law's approval. The mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationship has been identified as one of the most tumultuous family relationships. We live in a society where in-law relationships are joked about on television programs and in daily conversations. As far back as 1954, research participants named the mother-in-law relationships the most difficult family relationship 74% of the time.

The question arises, does this relationship matter?

  According to Rittenour and Soliz, family relationships are important because they teach us how to communicate and while we are busy communicating we are constructing our identity, our attitudes, and values. Studies have shown that young marrieds have a more satisfying marriage if they have a good relationship with their in-laws.

So….why is this one so difficult?

Rittenour & Soliz surveyed 190 married women asking them to identify things that influenced their relationship satisfaction with their mothers-in-law. The women identified several traits. A few of the negative issues include: 1) Feeling like an outsider – not being accepted as part of the family. 2) Feeling inferior - The mother-in-law is critical (Do these sound familiar?) Conversely, the women identified positive traits as well. Some of them were; being kind, accepting the daughter-in-law to the family, being helpful, and being a good grandmother. The study showed that not all mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationships are negative – there are some women who maintain healthy relationships.

You might be asking yourself – Why are some positive and others negative? How do I create a positive relationship? There are things that will help negotiate the tensions experienced in the relationship. The first thing is to recognize there are two types of communication used in assimilating (Sounds like a Star Trek movie) a new family member. There is indirect and direct communication. Indirect communication can be recognized when the family continues with their normal routines and roles - they expect the new family member to catch on and just blend in. Another form of indirect communication exists when another family member is asked to be the mediator. This is normally the son and it may seem like a good solution – but it typically sends the message – “I do not want to talk to you” and it puts the son in the middle of the mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationship and makes him choose a side.

Direct Communication is just that – direct. Family members typically share what is on their mind. For example – a mother-in-law may say to her daughter-in-law, “We do not see you as much as we would like.”

Let’s review a couple of the issues mentioned in the Rittenour and Soliz study and consider possible communication behaviors that may be helpful. Creating shared family identity was found to be very important to relationship satisfaction. A sense of belonging is created through communication and activities.The study participants identified negative behaviors of the mother-in-law - so mothers-in-law - here are a few suggestions.

• You can help your daughter-in-law gain membership by sharing family stories and rituals. This provides family history and gives her a sense about the family she is joining.
• Recognize and respect the divergent cultures and values that your daughter-in-law brings to the relationship, this will help you accept her; your daughter-in-law could even be allowed to share a few stories of her own.
• Acknowledge the daughter-in-law's opinions during a conversation and ask for clarification and look for commonalities. This sends the message that you are important and I am interested in what you have to say.

A common complaint is the mother-in-law is critical and this may be true, but often times it is a matter of perspective.This is true for everyone, in any relationship.

Rittenour and Soliz suggest the daughter-in-law's mother may influence a daughter-in-law’s feelings toward her mother-in-law. Refer back to the conversation at the beginning of this blog. The mother has several options when she continues the conversation with her daughter. She can agree with her daughter and reinforce her daughter's feelings or she can offer alternative perspectives and guide her daughter to consider other scenarios and reasoning for the behavior of her mother-in-law.

There is not a simple formula to creating a satisfying relationship with in-laws, yet Prentice found that when individuals become aware and increase their knowledge about family members, they tend to seek understanding and develop in more positive ways. (So – there is hope!) Communication offers ways to include, support, and encourage the mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationship. Healthy relationships are continually growing and evolving as are the participants. Learning to communicate positively requires practice and an open mind and heart.

References 
Duvall, E. M. (1954). In-laws: Pros and con. New York: Association Press.

Prentice, C. M. (2008). The assimilation of in-laws: The impact of newcomers on the communication routines of families. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(1), p. 74-97.

Rittenour, C., & Soliz, J. (2009). Communicative and relational dimensions of shared family identity and relational intentions in mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationships: Developing a conceptual model for mother-in-law/daughter-in-law research. Western Journal of Communication, 73(1), p. 67-90.

Are you a groupie?

Research Question: How do new family members develop a family identity and acquire family membership?

Here you are – walking down the greenbelt and who should appear –The Obama's. Yes, I know that is a stretch, but stick with me.

Are you comfortable speaking with them, do you fit into their group? You will consciously decide where you belong - We all choose our groups. Scholars suggest that we access group membership by using four criteria. 

We first seek to belong – to be included into some social unit. This group would share resources, influence our behavior, and decisions would be made through consensus.  Quite often this is our family, but it does not have to be. Belonging is described this way– we share and share alike, we own things together, we share responsibilities jointly, we are obligated to be kind to each other, we have similar attitudes and values, and our relationship is unique. (1)

Secondly, we gage authority – to see if we fit into the hierarchy. What levels of dominance or submission are we willing to deal with? Authority means– Gifts are tracked (must keep things even), everything is divided equally, when one works – so does the other, equal treatment, one person- one vote, you both take turns deciding issues, consider yourselves to be peers, and you take turns if things are unable to be divided equally. (1)

Third, we look for common social status. Many of us feel that we must associate with those who are like us.  Being with individuals who are different, make us uncomfortable and we lack the confidence to shoot higher. Social status means– one is entitled to more than the other, one of you is in charge, one of you should have more respect, one is the decision maker and the other goes along,                                          the follower is loyal, one is a role model, and there is hierarchy in the relationship. (1)

Fourth we look at the costs of belonging to a particular group. Costs – you get what you put in, things are shared according to initial investment, you are entitled to a fair rate of return for what you put into this transaction, relationship weighs cost/benefits, one person pays the other person, and interactions are strictly rational. (1)

We all use these criteria to interact, and to produce, understand, and engage in a wide variety of personal and social relationship in infinitely variable cultural forms.(1) Obviously, relationships emerge from our social groupings of different types- Friends at work, neighbors with neighbors, and family with family.

Some groups are more intimate, others are more task related. We use these groups to provide structure and as a place to provide support. Interpersonal relationships are unique to each group and as an individual moves between groups – their identity changes. Self-concept is social and flexible – it shifts as we change those we interact with. (2) Think about it. How close do you want to be to your boss? Certainly, not as close as you want to be with your sweetie! You have two different identities-one at work and one at home.  This is completely normal and healthy. Everyone should have multiple identities.

Sometimes, I want to avoid certain people or situations and in that case, I think about relationship development differently. I am not interested in associating with those people, so I don’t. It makes sense that people who interact make more friends (2), but sometimes individuals do not want to be social and that is okay – unless you avoid people all the time. In that case your happiness will definitely be affected by your choice to avoid people.

Not only will your associations change the way your view yourself, they will change the way you behave (2).  If you associate with smart people, studies show that your ability to think will be affected. Those who associate with people who are sarcastic, seem to be more sarcastic (especially) when you are in the friend's compnay (2).

Let’s talk. Does all this really matter?  I think it does especially in family situations. Look at the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. They are both checking each other out and deciding if they are going to avoid each other or get involved.  They can choose to avoid, but that will have a definite impact on their happiness and self-identity. They will not belong to the group – which means they will not receive the benefits of group membership. If they do engage, what group will they choose to place their relationship? 

Choosing a cultural (family) group to join may offer both of them security and a self-concept of being a family member. What are some of the consequences of joining other groups? Let' take a look. 

Social status, how can this group membership benefit this relationship? One of them makes decisions, the other follows along. I just see resentment here.

 I don’t even want to think about what that outcome might be, i they choose the hierarchal group. I see trouble looming on the horizon.  They will have to decide who has the authority and there may even be some struggles with power. Their self-concept will be different with this choice. One will be subservient to the other. Ouch!

Cost vs. benefit – Do I even need to go here? You get what you put into the relationship. The relationship is rational and someone is in charge. Consider the mother-in-law who wants to visit with her grandchildren, yet the daughter-in-law refuses unless it is done her way and in her time. Or, what about the mother-in-law who tells her daughter-in-law that she is not keeping her house clean enough? I imagine the young women would consider a relationship with the mother-in-law to cost more than she thinks it is worth.

So, it really matter which groups we decide to belong to. Group membership will influence the way we interact and how we view ourselves. Being a groupie can be a good thing.

References

(1) Brito, R., Waldrus, S., Sekedej, M., & Schubert, T. (2010). The context and structures of relating to others: How memberships in different types of groups shape the construction of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(3), 406-431.

(2) Gabriel, S., Carvallo, M., Dean, K. K., Tippin, B., & Renaud, J. (2005). How I see me depends on how I see we: The role of attachment style in social comparisoin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1561-1572.

Let's talk!

How do new family members develop a family identity and acquire family membership?

 

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

I have a dreaded disease! It has caused me a great deal of pain and embarrassment. Not to mention what it has done to others. I think it is fairly common. It is not a respecter of persons, age, or gender. You are asking – What is it? Well, it is motor mouth. I like to talk and talk and talk. So, when I think about relationship development and how new family members find their identity and place in a family – talk is important. Through talk we share and they learn. For that matter they share and we learn. (If I can stop talking.) Does it matter what we talk about? Or does it just matter that we talk?

Communication scholars refer to talk as self-disclosure and define it as “…the process by which one person verbally reveals information about himself or herself (including thoughts, feelings, and experiences) to another person (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). According to their definition of talk, the content of the conversation does matter, it requires depth. A chat about the weather hardly would classify as self-disclosure. For the rest of this blog I will differentiate between talk and self-disclosure.  Talk is surface speech.  Self-disclosure is in-depth and personal.

 

 The take home message here is that in order to connect on a deeper level in a relationship, we have to self-disclose about ourselves and be willing to reveal personal information. The new family member looking to gain membership in the family must be willing to reveal and family must be willing to reciprocate. Self-disclosure is a major part of our social world and it is the key to relationship development (Dindia, Fitzpatrick, & Kenney).

 I know, I can hear you saying – I am not going to tell a stranger all my secrets. No way!  Of course not right away, but as you talk and begin to understand and trust each other (no more strangers), the discussions will become more personal. Dindia, Fitzpatrick, & Kenney say that your conversations will begin with biographic or demographic information. Such as: Where were you born? Where did you move from? Do you have children?  Where do you work? As the relationship develops, it will move to a more personal tone and the amount of personal self-disclosure will increase. Research has shown that the more your partner reveals to you – the more you reveal in return. It is not just about more revelation, it is about sharing more highly intimate feelings.

But, I have a question for you?  What if you do not like this new family member? Dindia and associates cited several scholars that claim “liking” someone as a basis for disclosing. You are less likely to disclose, or for that matter, even talk to someone you do not like, even if they are new family members. However, their (Dindia, Fitzpatrick, & Kenny) research found that “liking” did not change reciprocity levels in disclosure. They say that self-disclosure is reciprocal.  Individuals will adjust to a partner as the partner adjusts to them. So, even though I do not like my new family member, I will share with them.

Disclosing private family information is key for new family members to transition into the family group (Serewicz, Hosmer, Ballard, Griffin). New family members feel they are granted access and membership to the family through disclosure as family members share family stories and feelings. Serewics and associates identified relevant topics of disclosure in relationship development among family members, most of them being seen as “operating instructions” for gaining membership. The “operating instructions” include: relational trouble, historical identity, and acceptance as a family member.

Relational trouble begins with the disclosure of negative feelings about the new family member or when family members are intrusive. This trouble can be averted by family members disclosing acceptance and sharing positive feelings. It is also important to recognize boundaries. Clearly, self-disclosure is not always positive. The amount and type of information disclosed will have an effect on the way it is received. I think that no disclosure is harmful as well.  As we have already discussed, there is reciprocity with self-disclosure. Therefore, if no self-disclosure exists – there is no relationship development.

Historical identity refers to storytelling and traditions. Disclosing family stories and traditions to new family members gives them the opportunity to develop their own family identity. It also opens up the discussion about their stories and birth family’s traditions. This self-disclosure helps to navigate the blending of cultures.

 

So, I want to build a strong relationship with a new family member. It is clear that I must be willing to self-disclose (not just talk) with the new member. The relationship will be weak at the beginning, but ties tend to become stronger over time. Research has shown that they will respond by sharing intimate information with me as well. If I want the relationship to be positive, I must be careful about disclosing positive accepting information. Self-disclosure is important for the development of family identity and is a tool that is available to all family members to strengthen family ties. 

A couple of interesting side notes, Dindia and associates found that self-disclosure is not a personality trait and that women do not disclose more than men.

References

Derelega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Magulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dindia, K., Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Kenny, D. (1997). Self-disclosure in spouse and stranger interaction – A social relations analysis. Human Communication Research, 23, 388-412.

Serewicz, M. C. M., Hosmer, R., Ballard, R. L., & Griffin, R. A. (2008). Disclosure from in-laws and the quality of in-law and marital relationships. Communication Quarterly, 56, 427-444.

Creating the Sense of Belonging With the In-law Family

How do new family members develop a family identity and acquire family membership?

Do you remember a time when you were in a new situation - one that pushed you out of your comfort zone?  You may have chosen this experience and quite possibly been very excited for the journey – BUT you were still uncomfortable.  I can think of many times in my life this has happened to me – most of them social situations. Like the new job, a move to a new city, and yes – a new marriage. I not only became a wife, but also a daughter-in-law and sister-in-law. I did not know exactly what those titles meant and what my role in the family was. Supposedly, I belonged to a new family, except they were not my family. In legal terms they were kin, but in my mind they were nice people that were related to my husband.

 Since my new husband whisked me off to a new city, many miles from our families, neither of us had to worry about interacting with them on a regular basis. But what of you women and men who live in the same town? How often do you want to be around these nice people? Studies have shown that 57% (Lopata) of us practice some type of avoidance when it comes to the mother-in-law. The only way I could avoid contact was not to answer the phone, which I did occasionally. Back to those of you who live closer to your in-laws.  C. M. Prentice discovered that a foundation for relationships is laid during the dating and courtship period that will affect the in-law relationship. By interacting during the dating process, individuals come to know and recognize the routines of the family.  They learn the way they communicate and what some of the family traditions and stories are.  This helps prepare us for the time when membership in the family becomes available. Although this is good for  relationship building, it is not always possible to interact before the marriage. For all of us, adjusting to a new family produces many direct and indirect ways for us to communicate. Everyone has the opportunity to share verbally and socially.  Did your spouse’s family explain the way they conducted their family life or did they just expect you to figure it out? According to C. M. Prentice most families expect you to figure it out and it is only verbalized when there is tension.

 

Tension is a normal part of family life and it can be addressed or swept under the rug. C. M. Prentice found that often the spouse/son or daughter is the mediator between their family and their spouse. This seems to help deal with the conflict and keeps it “cordial”, but it also creates a couple of problems. The mediator is now in the middle of the tension and therefore, there is no communication between the parents-in-law and child-in-law.  This diminishes the opportunity for direct conversation and interferes with relationship development for the pair. It also interferes with the new marriage as it often makes the spouse choose sides between their parents or their new partner.

There were other things involved with my integration into my husband’s family. There were expectations of what the relationship should be (for all of us) but there were no clear definitions of what my role was. I already had a mother and preferred to keep a close relationship with her and my mother-in-law seemed to understand that. I was lucky and realize that many of you have not experienced this understanding because multiple studies report that the mother-in-law is critical and intrusive. I did not have to worry about criticism from my mother-in-law.  However, it wasn’t just my mother-in-law that I had to interact with. There was an entire or group of people, all with their own routines, expectations of me, and day-to-day activities. 

I think of my first experience with my spouse’s entire family.  It was overwhelming, there were a lot of people and the conversations flowed freely. (I should say rampaged freely.) This was foreign to me because I came from a small family. They all talked at the same time.  They teased incessantly.  I did not know what to say or how to contribute.  So I didn’t.  Not an unusual feeling for a new family member. Research shows that the size of the family-of-origin will influence the way we converse.  Large families usually have many conversations going on at the same time. Those of us who are used to one conversation because our family was small, will either have to learn new techniques for conversing or seek out our own private two-party conversations. As for the teasing – well – I adjusted and learned to tease with the best of them. It is possible that the in-law family could be willing to make adjustments too, but most often the family communication style has been practiced for generations and it is difficult for a family to make the change.  Bottom line here is that the new member will usually have to make the adjustment as is supported by C. M, Prentice's study.

So when did I start feeling like I was part of the family? That is really hard to pinpoint, but it started small and simple.  His mother would call weekly for an update and many times it was me who spoke to her.  When children arrived it was me who told her the cute stories.  When my father-in-law was ill and needed care, it was me who took care of him. I was the one who remembered to send the birthday cards.  This is not unusual, as many women care for family members and relate family stories and activities. Communication scholars would say that I had adopted the role in the family as a kinkeeper and caregiver, through this process I began to self-identify with my husband’s family. C.  M. Prentice identified other roles that are assumed by new comers and they are: entertainers, kitchen helper, jokester, child entertainer, and many others. By adopting these roles, we begin to enter into the family.

According to Lopata, a sociologist, we gain our knowledge from everyday routines, from our ability to monitor our own behavior and explain it to others, and an understanding of what motivates our actions. Routines are then part of the foundation of our family interactions- some good, some bad- and are part of our family communication patterns. When a newcomer is introduced to the family those communication patterns are disrupted and therefore tension may be created.  This is normal. Those who are new should understand that gaining memberships is a process which most often happens through our communication activities and patterns. Family identity is created by the roles we assume in the family and continued social interaction. Through communication we begin to blend into a family.  We recognize our own behavior and have the ability to explain it to others.  We also have the ability to recognize why we act the way we do and why we say what we say. Through these processes their family can become our family and we are recognized as part of their family.

A final note.  The process for me did not happen in a blink. It took many years and of course, there were difficult times. My final thought is to remember that this is a process. While I was learning to blend into my husband's family I regularly pondered this – It took my mother and me many years to become close and create the relationship that we had. Therefore, it will take time for me to develop a close relationship with my husband’s family. I am no longer blessed to have either my mother or my mother-in-law in my life, but I can tell you that when they left this world – they were both my family.

References

Lopata, H. Z. (2012. In-laws and the concept of family. Marriage and Family Review, 28, 161-172.

Prentice, C. M. (2008). The assimilation of in-laws: The impact of newcomers on the communication routines of families. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 74-97.

Workplace and Friendship Development

Research Question: How does the relationship development literature apply to in-law relationships?

We have all experienced that first day at a new job - the nervousness, the anticipation, and vulnerability of being the new employee. As you begin your new job, you are probably assigned a mentor.  Someone you hope will guide you through this awkward stage until you can become comfortable.  Until you can find people who support you and have your back.  Did you know that many friendships begin at the workplace?  Have you ever considered how this happens and why you would become friends with people you did not voluntarily choose to bring into your life?

Patricia Sias and Daniel Cahill conducted research to answer just those questions. They interviewed 38 individuals about their perceptions of their workplace friendships. Their research showed that workplace relationships often develop into friendships, many of them close. Friendships in the workplace offer support and a system of allies.

Although it appears that we have no choice in our workplace friendships, Rawlins disagrees. He states, “Friendship cannot be imposed on people; it is an ongoing human association voluntarily developed and privately negotiated.” So, while I may not choose whom I work with, I do get a choice in those I befriend.

Then, how do I choose my friends at work? According to Sias & Cahill, there are three things that contribute to friendships at work.  The first one is the proximity.  We are spending all day together working on related projects for our organization. Maybe we are in the same department or our cubicles are side by side. Because of this we will begin to “size” each other up through day to day talk, looking for similarities (which is step 2) we have in common.  Do you like sports? So do I.  Do you have children?  So do I.  Are you quiet and reserved? So am I. This communication process allows us to identify with our co-workers.  Many studies have stated that if we find enough similarities we progress in our friendship. We talk more and more freely.  We begin to share ideas and feelings (step 3). Sias & Cahill found that this is not the only indicator of relationships development.  When individuals who are dissimilar are given the opportunity to work together on tasks – they are given the opportunity to create a friendship that might not have otherwise blossomed.

Teboul and Cole have identified a more complex development process for friendship in the workplace. They focus on the evolutionary aspect of the relationship, which includes reciprocal altruism, preference for similarity, and sensitivity toward prestige hierarchies.      

Reciprocal altruism is defined as the expectation of repayment. For example, a co-worker helps you finish your report that is due within the hour.  They expect you will repay them when they have a need. This also helps control precious resources. Those resources can be time, talent, love, money, goods, services, and knowledge. Most co-workers strive to keep the favors in balance; no one likes a free loader. There are times when co-workers will expend valuable resources with no expectation that the favors will be repaid.  This usually happens when the relationship has become very close.

Preference for similarity as discussed by Sias & Cahill incorproate some of the research of Teboul & Cole yet, they note that we look for similarities in order to coordinate our efforts. Like minded individuals will perform similarly. Think of groups who work well together – often they are individuals with common goals and values. It removes some of the doubt and frustration of working together in a group.

Sensitivity toward prestige hierarchies focuses on group status and power. Part of your day when you are a new employee is looking for individuals that will help you succeed.  Do they have knowledge of the skills you need to learn? Are they in a position of power over me?  Can they help me climb the ranks in the organization? You are deciding what relationships will benefit you.  Once you have identified those who can help you, you many use one of these strategies according to Teboul & Cole when approaching those with influence.  You might offer a favor, use friendship or loyalty, speak kindly to those in power, or ask for advice.

Social interaction helps employees regulate their activities and emotion daily. It is through joint effort that employees find relationships that help with the creation of individual well-being. This can be recognized through willingness to train or teach a new employee about their job. If questions are met with kindness and patience, there is greater likelihood that a friendship could develop.  

Relationship development is not linear at work. Because relationships ebb and flow, it is more of a scatter approach to development. Teboul & Cole found that employees will choose friendships based on what the other individual has to offer them in addition to what they have in common.

When a relationship becomes a “best friend” relationship they are beginning to spend time together outside of work. There is freedom to discuss work-related problems and there is a feeling of closeness. Sias & Cahill found that employees turned to their friends for support and assistance when confronted with frustrations with their supervisors. They often sought advice from their friends. Many individuals will stay at their present jobs because of close relationships.

Relationships definitely develop at work and the research identifies several of the factors used by individuals as they initiate relationships.  Those are proximity, similarity, reciprocal altruism, shared feelings and emotion, and sensitivity toward prestige hierarchies. It is clear that individuals have choice in friendship development at work.

With this discussion of friendship development at work some questions have occurred to me. It has become more common for individuals to work from home using technology, which means employees do not share proximity.

If friendship is an important part of personal identity and health, how does the use of computer mediated workplace affect the spectrum of friendship development? When people do not share proximity and space, will they fail to develop those needed friendships?  Are relationships important in the workforce? Will proximity be replaced as an influential factor in workplace friendship development? If so, what will replace it? Tell me what you think.

Resources

Rawlins, W.K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialects, and the life course. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Sias, P.M. & Cahill, D.J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The development of peer friendships in the workplace. Western Journal of Communication, 62, p. 273-299.

Teboul J.C. & Cole, T. (2005). Relationship development and workplace integration: An evolutionary perspective. Communication Theory, 15, p. 389-413.

Friendship Development

Research Question: How does the relationship development literature apply to in-law relationships?

Researcher Robert Hayes tells us that having friends promotes good health and makes our lives richer. It appears that friendships are an important part of our social circles, especially for those in adulthood who do not have a significant other.  Do you remember having a best friend?  Someone you could tell anything to and they would still like you. Is that friend still in your life? Or have you moved on – finding others to befriend?

I have no contact with my childhood friends, my life took me away from my beginnings. Therefore, friends had to be found wherever I landed.  Sometimes there was loneliness. Sometimes there was a longing for solitude. Is there a process for making friends?  Do all friendships develop in the same way? What makes a person decide to invest in a friendship or to walk away?

All relationships start with the initial introduction, at which time we decide whether to pursue a more involved status. When I consider pursuing a relationship, I am looking for someone with common interests and compatible personality. According to research conducted by Robert Hays, those are typical qualities others look for as well. However, friendships are multi-faceted and there are many layers and factors involved in friendship development; such as geographic location, time constraints, companionship and others. We are also heavily influenced by our age, sex and nationality as we find and keep friendships. The society we live in has expectations of how we will act according to those categories.

We often weigh the benefits and costs of the relationship.  What will I get and what will I have to give? According to "A Longitudinal Study of Friendship Development" this often happens within the first six weeks of a relationship. Men will spend increased time together.  Women will increase their communication and verbal interplay.  After the initial flurry (those first six weeks) we have often decided if the benefits outweigh the cost.  If so, we continue the friendship. If not, the relationship moves to a casual acquaintance.

Some of those early benefits include affection which women rate most highly, while men rate companionship highly. But, as the relationship matures for both men and women, both of these traits are considered most desirable.  Additionally, everyone is looking for a confidant and emotional support in their friendships. Secure friendships include intimacy, warmth, and a balance of control. Many relationships are seeking individuals to share with, to trust, and to dream with. These are often realized through disclosure – those things that we share as noted by Walker & Wright in their study of "Self-disclosure in Frienship."

Rober Hays found that men and women seem to develop their friendships in different ways.  Men share activities like sports or outdoor recreation; whereas, women like to talk by going to dinner or visiting on the phone. Women tend to share more information with people that they like. However, communication is important for both male and female relationships. As a relationship matures - it also slows down. Research shows that developed friendships do not require a great deal of time.   Instead people are looking for quality time spent with their friends. The relationship deepens and becomes more rewarding as individuals spend time together and share information. There is a cost with deepening relationships and that is emotional anxiety as lives become intertwined.  This seems to exist in all relationships and most individuals view it as a normal part of close friendships.

It appears that it only takes 6 weeks to find a friend that you       may keep for a life time. Through that friendship you will share and dream together. The more you share, the more the friend will share and the deeper the friendship will become. Women and men both need and look for similar characteristics in a friendship; yet, they do develop them a bit differently.  Men like activity and women like to talk.

So, I wonder if this is important or relates to in-law relationships. Are in-law relationships similar to friendships? Or are the different? Most notably, in-law relationships are forced. But I do think there is a choice in the depth of the relationship, just like a friendship.  It can be deep and satisfying or just casual. What do you think?  I do find tension in calling an in-law relationship friendship because friendship is often identified as a place to share confidences.  Is this a good idea for an in-law relationship? Shouldn’t the confidant be the spouse not his/her parent?

Resources

Walker, L. S. & Wright, P. H. (1976). Self-disclosure in friendship.  Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 735-742.

Hays, R. B. (1985). A longitudinal study of friendship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 909-924.