When the study of relationships focuses on the dyadic level of analysis, it must also take account of the social context in which relationships come into being. That context is strongly bordered by talk and the rhetorical basis of normal (and scientific) discourse. Discourse and other actions typically reproduce the relationship in its own image on successive occasions, though they do not have to do so. The appearance of stability in relationships is thus the result of perpetually constructive activity of partners, not the result of `the nature' of the relationship itself.

No abstract

This paper outlines three problems that are foreseen to face us as we enter the 1990s. These are: (1) defining the nature of relationships in the face of discrepancies between the reports of partners and outsiders about the events that occur in the relationship; (2) clarifying the nature of claims that relationships are `processes'; (3) providing a better understanding of the everyday conduct and routines of relationships, particularly the role of everyday talk. It is argued that longitudinal work and work capturing the experiences and reports of both members of a dyad must solve the first problem at a theoretical level before they can be helpful. It is suggested that, after Billig's (1987) argument that thinking and arguing characterize social behavior, relationships are best conceived phenomenally as unfinished business, just as research usually is. Several suggestions are made about the nature of relationships and, in the course of the paper, some suggestions are made for future work on social and personal relationships, loneliness, social support, children's friendship and process models of relating.

Currently equivocal findings on personality similarity and attraction can be clarified if 'personality ' and 'acquaintance' are recognized as essentially generic concepts rather than single entities. A 'filtering ' process is proposed to account for longitudinal acquaintance development where 'personality ' has several different and successive places and where different measures of personality are sequentially appropriate tests of the personality-friendship relationship. A study is reported where 40 previously unacquainted subjects completed three different personality tests and then reported sociometric choices at different points of developing acquaintance ( I month; 3 months; 8 months). Whilst similarity on the CPI mediated sociometric choices at none of these points, similarity on Allport-Vernon Study of Values predicted choices only at Time 2 (P< 0.01), and the Reptest only at Time 3 ( P < 0.01). Results are discussed in terms of systematic test of models of partner's personality in acquaintance and it is suggested that a search not for the correct measure of personality but for the relative place of each measure in developing acquaintance will lead towards the resolution of several existing ambiguities in the attraction literature.

he theoretical and practical values of devotmg research efforts to the study of interpersonal attraction and fnendship formation have dictated that a diversity of studies would be earned out with a consequent identification of a large number of relevant factors (Berscheid & Walster, 1969, Byrne, 1969, Senn, 1971. Such findmgs might be expected to have a direct apphcation in the solution of a wide variety of problems associated with interpersonal relationships, such as identification of potentially effective work partnerships, advice on the suitabihty of mantal choices and understanding some causes of failure m mterpersonal relationships as a possible antecedent of emotional disturbance. The possibihty of applymg the results of research to such areas can be extended by studying both attraction (as an early predictor of an ultimate outcome) and friendship (as a paradigm of a developed relationship). It is somewhat perplexing, therefore, to find that comprehensive theoretical explanations of attraction and fnendship as parts of a unitary process have not been exphatly advanced. Nor has the nature of links between the two been thoroughly pursued.Inevitably, details of such links may be obscured by the sharp differences m methodology which characterize studies m the two areas. On the one hand, studies of attraction tend to concentrate on attraction to strangers (Byrne, 1969) and perforce to adopt an experimental |»radigm. Previously unacquainted subjects who have completed attitude profiles are led to understand that given amoimts of smiilarity exist between them on these profiles. The dependent variable is then the levels of attraction which are expressed towards strangers as a result of the mampulation of 1 My thanks are due to Jolm Moulton of Sussex University for his valuable (^ommoits on a previous draft d diis paper and for his help in die ccdlecticm of 4e pilot d^a. a-Requests for reprints should be sent to. Dr. Steven W Dude, Departmoot Psyd^, I^de CcJSege, University d Lancaster, Lancaster, E^b^