Movement in social orientations: a commentary on Kelley

After reviewing some classic contributions to the truly social social±psychological literature (Lewin, Horney, Festinger), this commentary outlines how and why Kelley's analysis extends and complements more traditional approaches to interdependence. Three strengths are emphasized, suggesting that Kelley's analysis (a) offers a muchneeded situation-based taxonomy for different social orientations and interpersonal phenomena, (b) serves the ecological validity of social orientations, and (c) potentially helps us understand why classical dimensions of person judgment include not only goodness versus badness, but also movement-related orientations such as dominance versus submission, strength versus weakness, or activity versus passivity. Kelley's analysis can be extended by developing further domain-specific theory and methodology for examining the temporal and sequential aspects of social orientations, and by applying a means±end analysis to differing social orientations identified in Kelley's analysis. Finally, following Chuck McClintock (1972), it is argued that the field should reserve the concept of social value orientation to define allocational preferences relevant to valuing outcomes for self and others. This basic orientation should meaningfully `drive' the ways in which we approach interdependent others, solve interdependence problems, and utilize interdependence opportunities.