Close Romantic Relationships

Maintenance and Enhancement

John H. Harvey, Amy Wenzel

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2001
• eBook ISBN: 9781135659417
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

With contributions from the leading experts on relationships, this book covers important issues, such as love as self-expansion, equity in maintaining close relationships, commitment, social support, self-verification, and minding the relationship. The end result is a comprehensive account of the reasons why close relationships are or are not maintained and the manner in which these principles can be applied to current social issues and clinical interventions.

Divided into two sections, Part I describes models developed to characterize how relationships are maintained over time, accounts of specific mechanisms at work in close relationships, and conceptualizations of the maintenance and enhancement of close relationships using existing theoretical paradigms. Part II addresses contemporary social issues, as well as clinical applications.

Close Romantic Relationships will appeal to students, researchers, and professionals due to its broad sampling of theory and research on relationship maintenance and enhancement.

I
THEORETICAL APPROACHES

1
Viewing Close Romantic Relationships as Communal Relationships: Implications for Maintenance and Enhancement

Judson Mills
University of Maryland

Margaret S.Clark
Carnegie Mellon University

In this chapter, we discuss implications of our work on communal and exchange relationships (Clark & Mills, 1979, 1993; Mills & Clark, 1982, 1994) for understanding the maintenance and enhancement of close romantic relationships. At the outset, we need to make clear that we consider close romantic relationships to be communal relationships as we have used that term in our previous writings. That is, a close romantic relationship is a relationship in which each member has a concern for the welfare of the other. In a communal relationship, benefits are given to the other when that other has a need for the benefit or to show concern for the other. Members provide each other with help of many kinds, including providing resources, information, and companionship, sometimes because the other has a specific need for those things and sometimes just to show they care for the other. Members of a communal relationship are motivated to provide benefits to the other without expecting a specific benefit in return, as would be the case in an exchange relationship. (By a benefit we mean something that one person intentionally gives to another, or does for another, that is of use to the person receiving it.)

An important aspect of communal relationships is that they vary in strength, which refers to the degree of motivation to be responsive to the other’s needs. For instance, if a person asks a stranger for the time of day and the stranger responds by stating the time without expecting anything in return, that would constitute a very weak communal relationship. The cost of providing the benefit (looking at one’s watch and stating the time) is minimal, requiring very weak motivation. We assume close romantic relationships are strong communal relationships in which there is a very high degree of motivation to be responsive to the other person’s needs and thus willingness to incur large costs to meet the other’s needs. Communal relationships can be one-sided, such as the relationship between a parent and an infant. We assume that close romantic relationships are mutual communal relationships. In a strong mutual communal relationship, both partners have a high degree of motivation to be responsive to the other’s needs.

In close romantic relationships, typically the strength of the communal relationship that each partner has with the other is equal, meaning that each has the same high degree of motivation to be responsive to the other’s needs. Often the strength of the communal relationship that close romantic partners have with each other is greater than the strength of the communal relationship each has with any other person. Assuming needs are equally large, the needs of the partner take precedence over the needs of other persons with whom weaker communal relationships exist, such as relationships that might exist with a sibling or best friend. We also assume that, in American and many other cultures, close romantic relationships are voluntary—formed out of a desire by both partners to have a strong mutual communal relationship with one another. (We do not assume lay persons use or would grasp our terminology.)

Before proceeding further, it is important to point out that not all marriages or all dating relationships are, in fact, strong mutual communal relationships. Marriage partners or dating partners may continue to stay together for a variety of reasons but cease to care about one another’s welfare and cease to provide benefits to each other on a communal basis. Marriage partners may stay together for sake of the children, for financial reasons, because religious beliefs prohibit divorce, or for social appearances despite not caring about one another’s welfare. In such cases, the partners may give benefits to one another on an exchange basis, such that a benefit is given only when a specific comparable benefit is expected in return. Alternatively, the relationship may be exploitative, in which one person with more power takes advantage of the other. We do not consider such relationships to be strong mutual communal relationships. They have become (or perhaps always were) something qualitatively different.

Adherence to the exchange rule may keep a relationship together in some cases, but the processes involved are qualitatively distinct from those involved in maintaining and enhancing a communal relationship. Moreover, although adhering to the exchange rule may keep a relationship together, it is unlikely that that will promote the happiness and security of members of the relationship. Enhancing such relationships, we believe, requires a qualitative change from the present basis of the relationship back to adherence to the communal rule or to the communal rule when it was not followed before. Such change is likely to be a very difficult process. How it can be accomplished goes beyond maintaining and enhancing a close romantic relationship as we use that term.

FOLLOWING THE COMMUNAL RULE

From our perspective, maintaining and enhancing a close romantic relationship is the same as maintaining and enhancing a strong mutual communal relationship. Whether a close romantic relationship is maintained and enhanced depends on how well the partners follow the norm or rule of a communal relationship. It depends on whether they both share a strong concern for the welfare of the other and both are strongly motivated to benefit the other when the other has a need, and also on whether they have the ability to follow through on that motivation.

Research by Grote and Clark (1998) has found evidence that the communal rule is considered to be the ideal rule for romantic relationships. Specifically, the communal rule was judged to be much more ideal than other rules for dating relationships and marriages, including the rules of exchange, equity, and equality. The same research also revealed that, although the communal rule was considered to be less realistic than it was ideal, the communal rule was judged to be more realistic for romantic relationships than were the exchange, equity, or equality rules. Following the communal rule in close romantic relationships appears to be the cultural norm in American society (and, we would surmise, in virtually every society). When the normative communal rule is followed in a close romantic relationship, that should prove satisfying to the relationship members. It should result in the members feeling cared for and secure. When the communal rule is not followed, that should prove dissatisfying. It should lead the relationship members to feel insecure and question whether their partner truly cares about them.

In our society, close romantic relationships are generally formed on the basis of a strong mutual attraction between the two individuals. The strong mutual attraction motivates the partners to behave in ways that relate to adherence to the communal rule. The attraction leads them to want to please the other person. It leads them to be concerned about the other’s welfare and to experience negative feelings when the other has an unfulfilled need. It also leads them to want the other to care about them and to give them help (benefits) when needed. In general, mutual attraction leads the romantic partners to follow the communal rule in their relationship with one another and to want to continue to have a strong mutual communal relationship with one another. (In the case of arranged marriages, which occur in some societies, the initial impetus for behaving communally does not depend on strong mutual attraction.)

As a close romantic relationship becomes established, mutual attraction will probably not be the sole motivation for following the communal rule in the relationship. The cultural norm that the communal rule should be followed in close romantic relationships is likely to be applied to the relationship by the partners. Motivation to follow the communal rule based on application of the cultural norm will supplement the motivation to follow the communal rule originally based on mutual attraction and may supplant it. The close romantic partners will be motivated to be responsive to the needs of their partner because they feel they should follow the communal rule with the partner. The relationship may change from one in which the communal rule is followed as a result of the initial mutual attraction to one in which there is a feeling of obligation to be a good communal partner and place importance on meeting the needs of the other. (Such a sense of obligation may provide the impetus for behaving communally in arranged marriages.)

Contrary to what is sometimes assumed about close romantic relationships, we believe they do not begin as exchange relationships, in which benefits are given with the expectation of receiving a specific comparable benefit in return. Rather, they start out as communal relationships (Berg & Clark, 1986). Close romantic relationships often begin, we believe, as strong mutual communal relationships based on strong mutual attraction, or they may start out as less strong communal relationships and evolve into strong mutual communal relationships. The establishment of a strong mutual communal relationship does not mean that the relationship will be inherently self-sustaining. Whether a strong mutual communal relationship persists and strengthens depends on the continued motivation of the partners to follow the communal rule in their interactions with one another and their ability to do so.

DEPARTURES FROM THE COMMUNAL RULE

As a strong mutual communal relationship continues over time, the motivation to be concerned about the other’s welfare may decline for a variety of reasons. One possible reason is that uncertainty about the relationship has become so low that the relationship has ceased to command attention. As a result, low priority may be given to meeting the partner’s needs. Another reason that a strong mutual relationship may decline is that the attraction to the partner has waned and, with that, the desire to please the partner originally stemming from that attraction. Still another reason it may decline is that a strong communal relationship has been established with another person that takes precedence. For instance, a woman may have a child and consider her communal relationship with the child to be stronger and to take precedence over her relationship with her husband.

If one partner’s motivation to be concerned about the second’s welfare wanes, the first may fail to be responsive to the second’s needs to the extent expected in a strong mutual communal relationship. The partner whose needs are not being met may then begin to question the other partner’s motivation to follow the communal rule in their relationship. In cases in which the communal rule has fallen into disuse but has not been abandoned, reminders of the communal basis of the relationship may suffice to restore adherence to the communal rule (e.g., “I thought you cared about me”). If one partner’s lack of responsiveness to the needs of the other persists, the second partner will begin to doubt the continued existence of a strong mutual communal relationship. With that, the second’s own motivation to continue the strong mutual communal relationship, and the second’s responsiveness to the first’s needs, may drop.

If one person in a close romantic relationship observes that the other is not following the communal rule, the first person may suspect that the other is taking advantage of the relationship to get benefits for him or herself in an exploitative manner. Th...

Table of contents

• Contents
• Introduction: The Movement Toward Studying the Maintenance and Enhancement of Close Romantic Relationships
• I THEORETICAL APPROACHES
• II APPLIED ISSUES
• Author Index
• Subject Index