Interdependence theory is a social exchange theory that states that interpersonal relationships are defined through interpersonal interdependence, which is "the process by which interacting people influence one another's experiences"Van Lange, P.A., & Balliet, D. (2014). Interdependence Theory. American Psychological Association. DOI:10.4135/9781446201022.n39(Van Lange & Balliet, 2014, p. 65). The most basic principle of the theory is encapsulated in the equation I = ƒ[A, B, S], which says that all interpersonal interactions (I) are a function (ƒ) of the given situation (S), plus the actions and characteristics of the individuals (A & B) in the interaction.Van Lange, P. M. (2011). A History of Interdependence. Handbook of History of Social Psychology. Routledge Handbooks Online.   The theory's four basic assumptions are 1) The Principle of Structure, 2) The Principle of Transformation, 3) The Principle of Interaction, and 4) The Principle of Adaption.  Authors Interdependence theory was first introduced by Harold Kelley and John Thibaut in 1959 in their book, The Social Psychology of Groups.Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H., (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. This book drew inspiration from social exchange theory and game theory, and provided key definitions and concepts instrumental to the development of the interdependence framework. In their second book, Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence,Kelley, H.H. & Thibaut, J.W., (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley-Interscience." the theory was completely formalized in 1978. Harold Kelley continued the development of Interdependence theory in 2003, with the book An Atlas of Interpersonal SituationsKelley HH, Holmes JG, Kerr NL, Reis HT, Rusbult CE, Van Lange PAM. (2003). An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations. New York, NY Cambridge. 520 pp. This book expanded on the previous work by adding two additional dimensions to the dimensions of interdependence, as well as by analyzing 21 specific situation types.  In addition, the work of Kelly and Thibaut built on the work of Kurt Lewin, who first defined interdependence, and stated that ""The essence of a group is not the similarity or dissimilarity of its members, but their interdependence . . . A change in the state of any subpart changes the state of any other subpart . . . Every move of one member will, relatively speaking, deeply affect the other members, and the state of the group" (pp. 84–88).Lewin , K. ( 1948 ) Resolving social confl icts: Selected papers on group dynamics (G. W. Lewin, Ed.). New York, NY : Harper & Row. Lewin , K. ( 1952 ). Field theory in social sciences: Selected theoretical Degree/Level of dependence. This dimension focuses on the level of reliance that one member of an interaction has on another member of the interaction. This dimension is characterized by the following types of control, a) Actor Control- the impact of individual's behavior on the individual's outcomes, b) Partner Control- the impact of each individual behavior on the outcomes of the other individuals in the interaction, c) Joint Control- the joint impact of each individual's behavior on each individual's outcome.   An example of this would be if person A is able to achieve a positive outcome regardless of the actions of person B, then person A is high in Actor Control. If person A is dependent on the actions of person B to determine if he/she achieves a positive outcome, person A is high in Partner Control. If person A and person B are dependent on each other to achieve a positive outcome, they are high in Joint Control. Mutuality of dependence. This dimension focuses on the level (and equality of) dependence each individual within the interaction has with the other individual(s) within the interaction. As person A become more dependent on person B, person B gains greater control over person A. Covariation of interest. This dimension analyzes the level of gratification each individual within an interaction receives based on the outcome produced. This dimension could range from completely corresponding levels of gratification (coordination) to conflicting gratification (zero-sum) (or any range between these extremes). An example of corresponding levels of gratification would be a situation in which person A and person B both simply attempt to achieve outcomes in their own best interests, but in so doing also achieve outcomes in the best interest of the other. An example of conflicting gratification is a situation were all outcomes that are positive to one individual are completely negative to the other individual in the interaction. Basis of dependence. This dimension focuses on the means of influence that one member of an interaction has on the another member of the interaction. This dimension is characterized by the following types of control, a) Actor Control- the impact of individual's behavior on the individual's outcomes, b) Partner Control- the impact of each individual behavior on the outcomes of the other individuals in the interaction, c) Joint Control- the joint impact of each individual's behavior on each individual's outcome. Examples of means of influence include promises, threats, reliance on social/moral norms, unilateral action, and turn-taking. Temporal structure. Temporal structure focuses on the effects that timing and sequential process have on situations. Key concepts in this dimension include, 1) Situational Selection, or the "movement from one situation to another, bringing partners to a new situation that differs from the prior situation in terms of behavioral options or outcomes" (Van Lange & Balliet, 2014, p. 71), as was well as what Axelrod coined 2) "The shadow of the future" (Van Lange & Balliet, 2014, p. 79),Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books. or long term strategy of cooperating in anticipation of future reciprocal rewards from the other individual in future interactions. Information availability. Information availability focuses on the amount of information individuals have concerning the other individual's motives, potential iteration outcomes, and the potential future opportunities any given interaction may bring about. This dimension suggests that misunderstanding is often rooted in low levels of information availability. An example of this would be if person A has certain information about the goals and motivations of person B, person A's actions will be effected differently than if that information was uncertain. Complementary/ Related Theories and Frameworks 
Interdependence theory is a social exchange theory that states that interpersonal relationships are defined through interpersonal interdependence, which is "the process by which interacting people influence one another's experiences"Van Lange, P.A., & Balliet, D. (2014). Interdependence Theory. American Psychological Association. DOI:10.4135/9781446201022.n39(Van Lange & Balliet, 2014, p. 65). The most basic principle of the theory is encapsulated in the equation I = ƒ[A, B, S], which says that all interpersonal interactions (I) are a function (ƒ) of the given situation (S), plus the actions and characteristics of the individuals (A & B) in the interaction.Van Lange, P. M. (2011). A History of Interdependence. Handbook of History of Social Psychology. Routledge Handbooks Online. Van Lange, P.A., Balliet, D. (2014). Interdependence Theory. American Psychological Association. DOI:10.4135/9781446201022.n39 The theory's four basic assumptions are 1) The Principle of Structure, 2) The Principle of Transformation, 3) The Principle of Interaction, and 4) The Principle of Adaption. Van Lange, P. M. (2011). A History of Interdependence. Handbook of History of Social Psychology. Routledge Handbooks Online. Authors Interdependence theory was first introduced by Harold Kelley and John Thibaut in 1959 in their book, The Social Psychology of Groups.Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H., (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. This book drew inspiration from social exchange theory and game theory, and provided key definitions and concepts instrumental to the development of the interdependence framework. In their second book, Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence,Kelley, H.H. & Thibaut, J.W., (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley-Interscience." the theory was completely formalized in 1978. Harold Kelley continued the development of Interdependence theory in 2003, with the book An Atlas of Interpersonal SituationsKelley HH, Holmes JG, Kerr NL, Reis HT, Rusbult CE, Van Lange PAM. (2003). An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations. New York, NY Cambridge. 520 pp. This book expanded on the previous work by adding two additional dimensions to the dimensions of interdependence, as well as by analyzing 21 specific situation types. Kelley HH, Holmes JG, Kerr NL, Reis HT, Rusbult CE, Van Lange PAM. (2003). An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations. New York, NY Cambridge. 520 pp In addition, the work of Kelly and Thibaut built on the work of Kurt Lewin, who first defined interdependence, and stated that ""The essence of a group is not the similarity or dissimilarity of its members, but their interdependence . . . A change in the state of any subpart changes the state of any other subpart . . . Every move of one member will, relatively speaking, deeply affect the other members, and the state of the group" (pp. 84–88).Lewin , K. ( 1948 ) Resolving social confl icts: Selected papers on group dynamics (G. W. Lewin, Ed.). New York, NY : Harper & Row. Lewin , K. ( 1952 ). Field theory in social sciences: Selected theoretical Degree/Level of dependence. This dimension focuses on the level of reliance that one member of an interaction has on another member of the interaction. This dimension is characterized by the following types of control, a) Actor Control- the impact of individual's behavior on the individual's outcomes, b) Partner Control- the impact of each individual behavior on the outcomes of the other individuals in the interaction, c) Joint Control- the joint impact of each individual's behavior on each individual's outcome. Van Lange, P.A., Balliet, D. (2014). Interdependence Theory. American Psychological Association. DOI:10.4135/9781446201022.n39 An example of this would be if person A is able to achieve a positive outcome regardless of the actions of person B, then person A is high in Actor Control. If person A is dependent on the actions of person B to determine if he/she achieves a positive outcome, person A is high in Partner Control. If person A and person B are dependent on each other to achieve a positive outcome, they are high in Joint Control. Mutuality of dependence. This dimension focuses on the level (and equality of) dependence each individual within the interaction has with the other individual(s) within the interaction. As person A become more dependent on person B, person B gains greater control over person A. Covariation of interest. This dimension analyzes the level of gratification each individual within an interaction receives based on the outcome produced. This dimension could range from completely corresponding levels of gratification (coordination) to conflicting gratification (zero-sum) (or any range between these extremes). An example of corresponding levels of gratification would be a situation in which person A and person B both simply attempt to achieve outcomes in their own best interests, but in so doing also achieve outcomes in the best interest of the other. An example of conflicting gratification is a situation were all outcomes that are positive to one individual are completely negative to the other individual in the interaction. Basis of dependence. This dimension focuses on the means of influence that one member of an interaction has on the another member of the interaction. This dimension is characterized by the following types of control, a) Actor Control- the impact of individual's behavior on the individual's outcomes, b) Partner Control- the impact of each individual behavior on the outcomes of the other individuals in the interaction, c) Joint Control- the joint impact of each individual's behavior on each individual's outcome. Examples of means of influence include promises, threats, reliance on social/moral norms, unilateral action, and turn-taking. Temporal structure. Temporal structure focuses on the effects that timing and sequential process have on situations. Key concepts in this dimension include, 1) Situational Selection, or the "movement from one situation to another, bringing partners to a new situation that differs from the prior situation in terms of behavioral options or outcomes" (Van Lange & Balliet, 2014, p. 71), as was well as what Axelrod coined 2) "The shadow of the future" (Van Lange & Balliet, 2014, p. 79),Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books. or long term strategy of cooperating in anticipation of future reciprocal rewards from the other individual in future interactions. Information availability. Information availability focuses on the amount of information individuals have concerning the other individual's motives, potential iteration outcomes, and the potential future opportunities any given interaction may bring about. This dimension suggests that misunderstanding is often rooted in low levels of information availability. An example of this would be if person A has certain information about the goals and motivations of person B, person A's actions will be effected differently than if that information was uncertain. Complementary/ Related Theories and FrameworksVan Lange, P.A., Balliet, D. (2014). Interdependence Theory. American Psychological Association. DOI:10.4135/9781446201022.n39
A
Van Lange, P.A.,
A
Balliet, D. (2014). Interdependence Theory. American Psychological Association. DOI:10.4135/9781446201022.n39
A
Van Lange, P. M. (2011). A History of Interdependence. Handbook of History of Social Psychology. Routledge Handbooks Online.
A
Kelley HH, Holmes JG, Kerr NL, Reis HT, Rusbult CE, Van Lange PAM. (2003). An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations. New York, NY Cambridge. 520 pp
A
Van Lange, P.A.,
A
Balliet, D. (2014). Interdependence Theory. American Psychological Association. DOI:10.4135/9781446201022.n39
R
Frameworks
FrameworksVan Lange, P.A.,
A
Balliet, D. (2014). Interdependence Theory. American Psychological Association. DOI:10.4135/9781446201022.n39