Interpersonal Attraction in Exchange and Communal Relationships

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979, Vol. 37, No. 1, 12-24

Margaret S. Clark Judson Mills Carnegie-Mellon University University of Maryland

Communal relationships, in which the giving of a benefit in response to a need for the benefit is appropriate, are distinguished from exchange relationships, in which the giving of a benefit in response to the receipt of a benefit is appropriate. Based on this distinction, it was hypothesized that the receipt of a benefit after the person has been benefited leads to greater attraction when an exchange relationship is preferred and decreases attraction when a communal relationship is desired. These hypotheses were supported in Experiment 1, which used male subjects. Experiment 2, which used a different manipulation of exchange versus communal relationships and female subjects, supported the hypotheses that (a) a request for a benefit after the person is aided by the other leads to greater attraction when an exchange relationship is expected and decreases attraction when a communal relationship is expected, and (b) a request for a benefit in the absence of prior aid from the other decreases attraction when an exchange relationship is expected.

This research is concerned with how the sume that benefits are given with the expec- effects of receiving a benefit and a request tation of receiving a benefit in return. The for a benefit differ depending on the type of receipt of a benefit incurs a debt or obligation relationship one has with the other person. to return a comparable benefit. Each person Two kinds of relationships in which persons is concerned with how much he or she re- give benefits to one another are distinguished, ceives in exchange for benefiting the other exchange relationships and communal rela- and how much is owed the other for the bene- tionships. The stimulus for this distinction was fits received. Erving Goffman's (1961, pp. 275-276) dif- Since all relationships in which persons give ferentiation between social and economic and receive benefits are social, another term exchange. is needed to describe relationships in which In the present theorizing, the term exchange each person has a concern for the welfare of relationship is used in place of Goffman's the other. The term communal seems to be term economic exchange because many of the the most appropriate. The typical relationship benefits that people give and receive do not between family members exemplifies this type involve money or things for which a monetary value can be calculated. A benefit can be any- thing a person can choose to give to another 1 Benefits are not the same as rewards, when the person that is of use to the person receiving term rewards refers to "the pleasures, satisfactions, it.1 and gratifications the person enjoys" (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959, p. 12). The receipt of a benefit usually In an exchange relationship, members as- constitutes a reward, however rewards occur for rea- sons other than the receipt of a benefit. For example, the rewards that a parent receives from a new- This research was supported by a grant from the born infant would not fall within the definition of National Science Foundation. a benefit, since the infant does not choose to give Requests for reprints should be sent to Margaret them to the parent. The present theorizing is not S. Clark, Department of Psychology, Carnegie-Mellon concerned with "dependent" relationships in which University, Schenley Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania one person receives benefits from another but does 15213. not give benefits to the other.

12 INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION 13

of relationship. Although it might appear to A benefit given specifically because it ful- an observer that there is an exchange of bene- fills a need is appropriate in a communal rela- fits in communal relationships, the rules con- tionship but not in an exchange relationship. cerning giving and receiving benefits are dif- If two people have an exchange relationship ferent than in exchange relationships. and one person benefits the other, it is ap- Members of a communal relationship as- propriate for the other to give the person a sume that each is concerned about the welfare comparable benefit. The receipt of a benefit of the other. They have a positive attitude under these circumstances should lead to toward benefiting the other when a need for greater attraction. On the other hand, if two the benefit exists. They follow what Pruitt people have a communal relationship and one (1972) has labeled "the norm of mutual re- person benefits the other, it is inappropriate sponsiveness." This rule may create what ap- for the other to give the person a comparable pears to an observer to be an exchange of benefit, since it leaves the impression that the benefits, but it is distinct from the rule that benefit was given in response to the benefit governs exchange relationships whereby the received previously. The other is treating the receipt of a benefit must be reciprocated by relationship in terms of exchange, which is the giving of a comparable benefit. The rules inappropriate in a communal relationship. concerning the giving and receiving of bene- When a communal relationship does.not yet fits are what distinguish communal and ex- exist but is desired, the receipt of a benefit change relationships, rather than the specific should have the same effect as when a com- benefits that are given and received. munal relationship is assumed to exist. A From the perspective of the participants in benefit from the other after the other has a communal relationship, the benefits given been benefited should reduce attraction if and received are not part of an exchange. there is a desire for a communal relationship The attribution of motivation for the giving with the other. If an exchange relationship of benefits is different from that in an ex- is preferred, the receipt of a benefit after the change relationship. In a communal relation- other is benefited should result in greater at- ship, the receipt of a benefit does not create traction. Experiment 1 was conducted to test a specific debt or obligation to return a com- these hypotheses. parable benefit, nor does it alter the general The predictions concerning communal rela- obligation that the members have to aid the tionships might seem contrary to what would other when the other has a need. In a com- be expected from equity theory (Adams, munal relationship, the idea that a benefit is 1963). On the basis of equity theory, one given in response to a benefit that was re- might expect that a benefit from another fol- ceived is compromising, because it calls into lowing aid to that other would increase liking question the assumption that each member in any relationship, because it would reduce responds to the needs of the other. inequity. However, the predictions are not inconsistent with a recent discussion of equity theory (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Experiment 1 According to Walster, Walster, and Berscheid:

The first study reported here was based on Another characteristic of intimate relationships, the assumption, similar to that made by which may add complexity, is that intimates, through Kiesler (1966) in her study of the effect of identification with and empathy for their partners, perceived role requirements on reactions to come to define themselves as a unit; as one couple. favor-doing, that the giving of a benefit will They see themselves not merely as individuals interacting with others, but also as part of a partner- decrease attraction if it is inappropriate for ship, interacting with other individuals, partnerships, the type of relationship one has with the and groups. This characteristic may have a dramatic other. A benefit given in response to a benefit impact on intimates' perceptions of what is and is not equitable, (pp. 152-153) received in the past or expected in the future is appropriate in an exchange relationship but In Experiment 1 the desire for a communal is inappropriate in a communal relationship. relationship was manipulated by using un- 14 MARGARET S. CLARK AND JUDSON MILLS married males as the subjects and having the of them during one session. The first study involved part of the other played by an attractive having both subjects work on a vocabulary task. She suspected that people's approaches to solving woman, who was described as either married this task varied when certain conditions were or unmarried. It was assumed that people changed. In the condition to which he and Tricia desire communal relationships with attractive had been randomly assigned, they would be able to others, but only with those available for such see each other over closed-circuit television but not be able to talk to each other directly. To enhance relationships. It was further assumed that the credibility, there was a portable television camera unmarried woman would be considered avail- in the room pointing at the subject. Through the use able for a communal relationship, whereas of videotape, what appeared on the monitor was the the married woman would not. Thus, it was same for every subject. When the subject asked why he was watching the other person on the monitor, assumed that the male subjects would desire which typically happened, he was told that in the a communal relationship with the attractive, past it had been found that when people worked unmarried woman but would prefer an ex- separately on these tasks in the same room their change relationship with the attractive, mar- performance was often affected by the presence of the other person. This might have happened because ried woman. people could talk to one another or because they could see one another, and the experiment was designed to separate those variables. Method The experimenter explained that the second study would be quite different from the first, since it would Overview. Under the guise of a study of task involve much more contact with the other person. performance, unmarried male college students worked She would bring both participants into one room and on a task while a television monitor showed an at- ask them to talk over things that they had in com-, tractive woman working on a similar task in another mon. She was interested in the way in which hold- room. When the subject completed the task, he was ing common interests helped people to get to know awarded 1 point toward extra credit for finishing one another. The experimenter mentioned that in on time and given the opportunity to send some the past, people who had participated had some- of his excess materials to the other, who supposedly times gotten to know each other quite well. had a more difficult task. Following receipt of the Vocabulary task. The experimenter next pointed aid, the other completed her task and was awarded to a batch of letters printed on small cards in front 4 points. Some of the subjects received a note from of the subject and said that his task in the first the other that thanked them (no-benefit conditions), study was to form 10 different four-letter words whereas some received a note from the other that from the letters. She went on to say that there were thanked them and gave them one of her points two versions of this task and one was more difficult (benefit conditions). After receiving the note, the than the other. She had flipped a coin to determine subjects were given information indicating that the which task each of them would be working on, and other was either married (exchange conditions) or the subject would have the easier one, while Tricia unmarried (communal conditions). Shortly thereafter, would have the more difficult one. The subject's liking for the other and expectations concerning a task was easier because he had 55 letters ranging future discussion with the other were assessed. from A to Z, whereas Tricia had only 45 letters Subjects. The subjects were 96 unmarried, male ranging from A to L. The subject was to time him- students in introductory psychology courses who self on the task with a stopwatch. Although he and participated in order to earn extra course credit. Tricia were not permitted to speak to each other They were randomly assigned to one of the four directly, one type of communication was permitted: experimental conditions: exchange-benefit, exchange- They would be allowed to send and request letters. no benefit, communal-benefit, communal-no benefit. Simple forms were available for this purpose. The Procedure. Upon arriving for the experiment, the experimenter would come into the room from time subject was greeted by the experimenter and told to time to see if the subject had any messages he that another subject had already arrived and was wanted to send and would deliver them for him. in an adjacent room. The subject was seated so that The experimenter explained that time was a factor he could see a video monitor that showed an at- in the first study and that an individual's motiva- tractive female. The experimenter mentioned that tion to do well on a task would obviously affect the person appearing on the monitor was the other the time taken to complete the task. Therefore, she subject, Tricia. The experimenter told the subject was taking precautions to insure that motivation that before starting she would explain some things to do well was kept at a high level. She would about the studies in which the subject would be par- award points toward a possible extra credit for ticipating, which she had already mentioned to Tricia. finishing the task in a minimum amount of time. The experimenter said that the first study was actually one of two she would ask them to partici- The subjects were not told exactly what that amount pate in that day. Each of the two studies took less of time would be or how the conversion to credit than half an hour. Although the studies were un- would be made, but just to finish as quickly as they related, she was asking people to participate in both could. The experimenter mentioned that the award- INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION 15 ing of points to maintain motivation would obviously In the communal conditions, she said: not be necessary in the second study. The subject was told to start his stopwatch, begin Tricia is anxious to get on to the next part of working, and stop the watch when he had finished. the study, since she thinks it will be interesting. The experimenter picked up another stopwatch and She's new at the university and doesn't know left, saying she would give Tricia the watch and many people. She has to be at the administration start her on her task. The 55 letters that the sub- building in about half an hour and she wants to ject had to work with allowed him to complete the finish before then. task within 10 minutes. When approximately 10 Dependent measures. The experimenter then left minutes had elapsed, the experimenter returned and asked if the subject had any letters he wanted to the room for approximately 5 minutes. When she send to Tricia. All subjects gave the experimenter reappeared she brought two forms, mentioning that some letters for Tricia. At this point, the experimenter these were the forms she had told the subject about. She reminded the subject that the second study in- looked at the subject's stopwatch and told him that volved having the participants talk over things he had finished the task in time to get 1 point to- they had in common with each other. She said that ward extra credit. As she did so, she also filled out a form indicating the time the subject had taken to before starting it was necessary to get some idea of what their expectations were in order to control complete the task and that he had earned 1 point. She explained that if Tricia finished her task in for them, since they would vary from person to time she would earn 4 points, since her task was person. The subject was asked to fill out a form more difficult. The experimenter went on to say that indicating what he expected the interaction would be like and, in addition, another form indicating since she allowed participants in the study to send and request letters, she also allowed them to share what his first impressions of the other person were. points they earned. Thus, Tricia could send the sub- The experimenter said that these forms would be ject some of her points if she wanted to do so. The kept completely confidential and left the room while they were filled out. experimenter left the room saying she would give Tricia the letters. Tricia continued to work on her The first-impressions form, which was given to task for about 5 minutes and then finished. The ex- the subject on top of the form concerning expecta- perimenter handed Tricia a form similar to that tions about the discussion, asked him to rate how given the subject earlier. Tricia smiled, wrote a note well 11 traits applied to the other, on a scale from 0 on a slip of paper, folded it, and gave it to the ex- (extremely inappropriate) to 20 (extremely appropri- perimenter. ate). The traits were considerate, friendly, insincere, intelligent, irritating, kind, open-minded, sympa- Benefit manipulation. Within a few moments, thetic, understanding, unpleasant, and warm. The the experimenter returned to the subject's room subject was also asked to indicate his degree of lik- and turned off the monitor. She mentioned that ing for the other, on a scale from 0 (dislike very Tricia had completed her task within the necessary much) to 20 (like very much). The other form time and had received 4 points. She handed the asked the subject to indicate how friendly, spon- subject a folded note that she said Tricia had taneous, relaxed, enjoyable, and smooth he expected asked be given to him. In the no benefit condition, the discussion to be, on scales from 0 to 20. the note said, "Thanks for sending the letters." In the benefit conditions, the note said, "Thanks for Suspicion check. After the subject had completed sending the letters. The experimenter said it would both forms, the experimenter casually mentioned be OK to give you one of my points. She said she that there was something more to the study and asked whether the subject had any idea what it would add it onto the points you've already earned might be. The responses of eight persons indicated before the end of today's session." Which message the note contained was unknown to the experi- suspicion of the instructions, and they were not in- menter at the time she handed it to the subject. cluded as subjects. Four persons thought the experiment was designed to test reactions to the note, This was accomplished by having the experimenter pick the note out of a container of folded notes of one thought the points might have something to do both types. with the ratings, two thought Tricia was a part of the experiment, and one questioned whether Tricia Relationship manipulation. The experimenter told was actually married. Four of these persons were the subject that there was one more thing to be run under the exchange-benefit condition, two under done before getting on to the next study. She said the exchange-no-benefit condition, one under the she was going to give Tricia some questionnaires to communal-benefit condition, and one under the fill out and would then get some more forms for communal-no-benefit condition. In addition, 12 the subject. In the exchange conditions, the experi- other persons were not included as subjects. Six menter said: could not finish the task within the 10 minutes allowed, one did not read the note before filling out Tricia is anxious to get on to the next part of the the forms, two failed to follow instructions when study, since she thinks it will be interesting. Her filling out the forms, one discovered the concealed husband is coming to pick her up in about half videotape recorder beneath the monitor, and two an hour and she wants to finish before then. were married. 16 MARGARET S. CLARK AND JUDSON MILLS

Finally, the true purpose of the experiment was Table 1 fully explained, and the subject promised not to Means for the Measure of Liking in discuss it with anyone, Experiment /

Benefit from the other Results Relationship Benefit No benefit A measure of liking for the other was calculated by summing the scores for each of Exchange 193 176 the 11 traits and the direct measure of liking Communal 177 194 on the impressions questionnaire. The scores Note. The higher the score, the greater the liking. for the favorable traits and for the direct Scores could range from 0 to 240. re = 24 per cell. rating of liking were the same as the subject's ratings. The scores for the unfavorable traits were obtained by subtracting the subject's interaction between the type of relationship ratings for those characteristics from 20. and benefit was not significant. The main ef- The means for the experimental conditions fects were also not significant. for the measure of liking are presented in Table 1. Discussion From the hypotheses, it would be expected that the scores on the measure of liking The results of Experiment 1 provide sup- would be greater in the exchange-benefit con- port for the hypothesis that when a com- dition than in the exchange-no-benefit con- munal relationship is desired, a benefit fol- dition and would be lower in the communal- lowing prior aid decreases attraction. When benefit condition than in the communal-no- the attractive woman they had aided was benefit condition. From Table 1 it can be unmarried (communal conditions), the un- seen that the results are in line with the pre- married male subjects liked her less when dictions. An analysis of variance of the mea- she gave them a benefit than when she did sure of liking revealed that the interaction not. When the attractive woman who was between type of relationship and benefit was aided turned out to be married (exchange significant, /?(!, 92) = 8.35, p < .01. Neither conditions), she was liked more when she of the main effects approached significance. gave the subject a benefit than when she A planned comparison indicated that the did not. The results for the married woman difference between the exchange-benefit con- are consistent with the hypothesis that the dition and the exchange-no-benefit condition receipt of a benefit after the other is bene- was significant, /?(!, 92) = 4.17, p < .05. A fited leads to greater attraction when an second planned comparison indicated that exchange relationship is preferred. the difference between the communal-bene- It might be thought that the lower liking fit condition and the communal-no-benefit of the unmarried woman in the benefit condi- condition was also significant, F(l, 92) = tion than in the no-benefit condition could 4.37, p< .05. be explained by a difference in the anticipa- A measure of anticipated pleasantness of tion of future interaction, a variable which the discussion was calculated by summing has been shown to influence liking in previ- the ratings for the questions concerning how ous research (Barley & Berscheid, 1967; friendly, spontaneous, relaxed, enjoyable, Mirels & Mills, 1964). Such an interpreta- and smooth the subjects expected the discus- tion would make the assumption that the sion to be. As expected, the means for this repayment by the unmarried woman with measure were greater for the exchange-bene- whom the subject wished to interact sug- fit condition than for the exchange-no-bene- gested that she did not wish to interact with fit condition and were lower for the com- him. However, this assumption is reasonable munal-benefit condition than for the com- only if the future interaction is of the kind munal-no-benefit condition. However, the referred to here as a communal relationship. INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION 17

If the future interaction involved an explicit was perceived as available for a communal exchange of benefits, there is no reason the relationship in the communal conditions but repayment would have suggested that the un- also that she was regarded as an attractive married women did not wish to interact with partner for such a relationship. If the other is the subject. Since an interpretation in terms unattractive, a communal relationship with of the anticipation of future interaction re- her should not be desired even if she is avail- quires a distinction between different types able for such a relationship. People do not of interaction similar to the distinction be- desire communal relationships with people tween communal and exchange relationships, they dislike. An exchange relationship should it is not an alternative explanation but es- be preferred with an unattractive other, and sentially the same interpretation in some- thus a benefit from such a person after he what different language. or she has been aided should lead to greater A different interpretation might be sug- attraction. gested that has to do with the role relation- Since the effect found in the first study ships of males and females. It might be ar- involves the assumption that the benefit that gued that the male subjects subscribed to a the person received from the other is per- "traditional" rule that males should give ceived as a response to the previous benefit gifts to females, who should gracefully ac- that the other received, it should not occur cept them and not attempt to repay their if the other had not received something of benefactor, and the unmarried woman who value from the person. The receipt of a bene- gave them a point violated this rule. Such an fit when the other has not been aided previ- interpretation would assume that the males ously should lead to greater liking when a did not apply the same rule to their rela- Gommunal relationship is expected or de- tionships with a woman who is married, sired. The rule in communal relationships is which does not seem consistent with tradi- to respond to a need rather than to recipro- tional values concerning the role of men cate benefits. The giving of a benefit when vis-a-vis women. If the interpretation is re- no prior help has been received is appropri- stricted to the relation of men and women ate for a communal relationship if there is or in romantic relationships, then it is not an might be a need for the benefit. alternative explanation, since romantic re- Some evidence that the receipt of a bene- lationships are communal relationships. fit when the other is not aided previously That the desire for a communal relation- produces greater liking when there is a com- ship was induced by creating a situation in munal relationship than when there is not is which there was a possibility of a romantic provided by the study by Kiesler (1966). relationship with an attractive member of She found that a partner on a cooperative the opposite sex was not fortuitous. A ro- task was liked more when he shared his win- mantic relationship that might lead to the de- nings with the subject than when he did not velopment of a family relationship through share, whereas an opponent on a competitive marriage is a particularly appropriate situa- task was liked about the same when he tion for the study of communal relation- shared and did not share. Partnership on a ships, since relationships between family cooperative task should create the expecta- members are the most typical kind of com- tion of a communal relationship, and in munal relationships. However, the distinc- Kiesler's study the subject always lost, so tion between communal and exchange rela- the partner did not receive any aid from tionships is not restricted to romantic rela- the subject prior to benefiting the subject. tionships with members of the opposite sex. However, the possibility that the subject's The same effect should occur in situations losing could have been construed as a kind in which a communal relationship, such as of aid for his opponent in the competitive friendship, is desired or expected with a conditions complicates the comparison of member of the same sex. the cooperative and competitive conditions It was assumed not only that the other of Kiesler's study. 18 MARGARET S. CLARK AND JUDSON MILLS

Experiment 2 ask for a benefit than when he or she does ask for a benefit. The distinction between communal and However, requesting a benefit in the ab- exchange relationships also has implications sence of prior aid is appropriate in a com- for reactions to a request for a benefit. If it munal relationship. Such a request implies is true that in an exchange relationship any that the other desires a communal relation- benefit given by one member to the other ship and, assuming that beginning or main- creates a debt or obligation to return a com- taining such a relationship is desirable, it parable benefit, a request for a benefit from should result in increased liking. Jones and another after one has been given aid by that Wortman (1973) suggest that asking another other creates an opportunity to repay the for a benefit is a way of conveying that we debt. Thus, such a request following aid think highly of them. They say, "This tactic should be appropriate in an exchange rela- is likely to convey that we feel good about tionship. Since it provides an opportunity to our relationship with the target person, since eliminate any tension caused by the presence it is not customary to ask people to do favors of the debt, it should increase liking for the for us unless our relationship is a relatively other. good one" (Jones & Wortman, 1973, p. 13). The idea that the recipient of a benefit The implications of the distinction between will like his or her benefactor more if he or communal and exchange relationships for re- she can return the benefit has been expressed actions to requests for a benefit in the con- before (Mauss, 1954). Several studies have text of prior aid or lack of prior aid were shown that recipients of benefits like the investigated in Experiment 2. A situation donor more if they are able to repay the was arranged in which aid could be given to benefit than if they are not able to repay, the subject and, later, a different benefit re- whether the opportunity is provided by the quested from the subject. The anticipation donor's specifically requesting that the other of a communal relationship was created by repay the benefit (Gergen, Ellsworth, Mas- leading the subject to believe that the other lach, & Seipel, 197S) or whether the op- wanted to meet people and that she would portunity to repay is provided but repayment be discussing common interests with the is not specifically asked for (Castro, 1974; other. The anticipation of an exchange rela- Gross & Latane, 1974). tionship was created by not mentioning any- In a communal relationship, to request a thing about the other wanting to meet people, benefit after having given another person aid implying that the other was very busy and is inappropriate. It may imply that the leading the subject to believe that she would original aid was not given with the intent of be discussing differences in interests with satisfying a need but rather with the expec- the other. tation of receiving something in return, which The following hypotheses were tested in may be taken as an indication that the other the second experiment: does not desire involvement in a communal 1. A request for a benefit from another relationship. Assuming that beginning or after the person is aided by the other leads maintaining a communal relationship with to greater attraction when an exchange rela- another is desirable, such an implication tionship is expected. should be frustrating and therefore result in 2. When a communal relationship is ex- decreased liking. pected, a request for a benefit after the per- If one has not been previously aided by son is aided by the other decreases attraction. another and there is no opportunity to aid 3. A request for a benefit in the absence the other in the future, a request from that of aid from the other decreases attraction other is inappropriate in an exchange rela- when an exchange relationship is expected. tionship. In an exchange relationship, a per- 4. When a communal relationship is ex- son who has not been aided by another should pected, a request for a benefit in the absence like the other more when he or she does not of aid from the other increases attraction. INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION 19

Method What we're going to do is bring you both into one room. We want you to talk over common in- Overview. Under the guise of a study of task terests. We're interested in finding out how peo- performance, female college students worked on a ple get to know one another. We try to create a task while a television monitor showed another relaxed atmosphere, and actually, in the past we've female working on a similar task in another room. found that some of the people have gotten to Some of the subjects were told that the other was know one another quite well. married, had a child, and lived far from the university, and that she and the subject would be dis- In the exchange conditions she continued: cussing differences in interests in a second study (exchange conditions). Other subjects were told What we're going to do is bring you both into that the other was new at the university and did one room. We want you to talk over differences in not know many people, and that she and the sub- interests. We're doing this because most people ject would be discussing common interests in a avoid talking about differences in interests and second study (communal conditions). The other we're interested in getting people's reactions to female finished the task, received 1 point, and gave doing so. the subject aid on her supposedly more difficult task or did not give the subject aid. The other female Vocabulary task. After the subject had signed then requested a point from the subject or did not an experimental consent form, the procedure for request a point. Finally, the subject's liking for the vocabulary task was explained in the same the other and expectations concerning the future manner as in Experiment 1, except that the subject discussion with the other were assessed. was told that she would be performing the more Subjects. The subjects were 80 female, intro- difficult task while the other person would be per- ductory psychology students who received extra forming the easier task. The experimenter pointed credit toward their course grade for their participa- out that since the subject's task was the more dif- tion. They were randomly assigned to one of the ficult one, she would have a chance to earn 4 points eight experimental conditions: exchange-aid-request, toward the extra credit, whereas the other person, exchange-aid-no request, exchange-no aid-request, Tricia, only had a chance to earn 1 point, since she exchange-no aid-no request, communal-aid-request, had the easier task. As in Experiment 1, the ex- communal-aid-no request, communal-no aid-request, perimenter mentioned that the awarding of points and communal-no aid-no request. to maintain motivation obviously would not be Procedure. Upon arriving for the study, the sub- necessary in the second study. ject was greeted by the experimenter and told that After the same instructions concerning the stop- the other subject scheduled to participate at the watches as in Experiment 1, the subject was left same time had already arrived and was waiting in another room for the experiment to begin. The ex- alone to work on the task for a short time. With the 45 letters the subject had it was impossible for perimenter explained that it would take a little time for the equipment to warm up before the experi- her to finish the task in that time. Subjects typically finished between five and seven words. During the ment could begin. time the subject was working, the experimenter, Relationship manipulation. In the communal con- who always wore a lab coat so that changes in ditions, the experimenter casually stated that the clothing over days could not be detected, could be other person was anxious to begin because: seen on the monitor starting Tricia on her task and then leaving the room. Tricia finished her task She thinks it will be interesting. She's new at the easily. After a short time the experimenter reentered university, doesn't know many people, and she's the other room, and Tricia could be seen pushing interested in getting to know people. some extra letters to the front of the table. At this point the experimenter stepped in front of the In the exchange conditions, the experimenter casually camera, blocking the subject's view of the other said: so that the subject could not see whether the other handed the letters to the experimenter. Finally, the She wants to finish soon. Her husband is coming experimenter could be seen leaving the room, and by to pick her up, then they have to pick up her Tricia sat back in her chair. child and go home to Columbia (a city some dis- Aid manipulation. Shortly thereafter, the ex- tance from the university). perimenter reentered the subject's room and said that Tricia had finished her task and received 1 The experimenter said that the first study was point. The experimenter turned off the monitor, actually one of two short, unrelated studies they commenting that it wouldn't be needed any more. would be asked to participate in that day. The ra- In the aid conditions she said, "Tricia asked me to tionale for the first study was the same as in Ex- give you these letters," and handed the subject some periment 1. The experimenter went on to say that letters. In the no-aid conditions there was no the second study would be quite different from the mention of the letters. The experimenter then left first. In the communal conditions she continued: the room, telling the subject she would be back 20 MARGARET S. CLARK AND JUDSON MILLS

Table 2 Suspicion check. The experimenter left and Means for the Measure of Liking in watched through a one-way mirror until she could Experiment 2 see that the subject had finished the forms. She then waited approximately 30 additional sec and reentered the room. As she picked up the forms, she casually Aid from & request for benefit from said that there was something more to the study the other than she had mentioned before and asked the subject if she had any idea of what it might be. The Relation- Aid- Aid- No aid- No aid- responses of eight persons indicated suspicion of ship request no request request no request the instructions, and they were not included as subjects. Five persons suspected that the other person Exchange 173 149 149 173 was not actually in the other room, one thought Communal 156 191 179 177 that the other's task had been intentionally made easy, one thought that the request did not actually Note. The higher the score, the greater the liking. come from the other person, and one thought that Scores could range from 0 to 240. n = 10 per cell. neither the aid nor the request came from the other person. All five people who suspected that the other shortly. In approximately 3 minutes, she returned, person was not actually in the other room had been and regardless of whether the subject had finished in another study by a different experimenter, in (none in the no-aid conditions did, whereas most which they were told that another person partici- in the aid conditions did), she told the subject she pated but later found out that there was no such had done well enough to receive the 4 points toward other person. Three of the eight persons were run extra credit. She filled out a form indicating this under the exchange-aid-request condition, two under and handed it to the subject. The experimenter said the exchange-aid-no-request condition, one under that was all there was to the first study, except for the exchange-no-aid-request condition, one under filling out a form if the subject wanted to request the communal-aid-request condition, and one under any points from Tricia. Before the subject had an the communal-aid-no-request condition. In addition, opportunity to look at the form, the experimenter four other people were not included as subjects. Two said she would check with Tricia and see if she requested points from the other person, one did not wanted to fill out a form and left the room for ap- read the request for a point before filling out the proximately 2 minutes. questionnaires, and one asked so many questions that Request manipulation. When she appeared, the the experimenter could not leave the room before experimenter handed the subject a folded note, sup- appearing on the monitor. posedly from Tricia, in which a box was checked Finally, the true purpose of the experiment was fully explained, and the subject promised not to dis- indicating either that she wished to request 1 point cuss it with anyone. from the subject (request conditions) or that she did not wish to request any points (no-request conditions). The experimenter was unaware of how Results the form was checked, having drawn it from a container of folded forms checked in both ways. If the A measure of liking for the other was cal- subject wished to fill out a form to request points culated in the same way as in Experiment 1. from the other, the experimenter took it. The means for the experimental conditions Dependent measures. Next, the experimenter reminded the subject that the second study would in- for the measure of liking are presented in volve having both subjects talk over common in- Table 2. An analysis of variance of the mea- terests (communal conditions) or differences in insure of liking revealed that the main effect terests (exchange conditions). Before starting the of type of relationship was significant, F(l, study it was necessary to get some idea of what 72) = 6.21, p < .05. Neither of the other their expectations were about the forthcoming interaction in order to control for those expectations, main effects nor any of the two-way interac- since they might vary from person to person. There- tions were significant. The three-way interac- fore, she was asking the subject to fill out two forms tion between type of relationship, aid, and indicating what her first impressions of the other request was significant, F(l, 72) = 12.73, p < person were and also what she expected the discus- .001. sion to be like. The subject was told that these forms would be kept completely confidential. From the first hypothesis, it would be ex- The first-impressions form, which was given the pected that scores on the measure of liking subject on top of the form concerning expectations would be greater in the exchange-aid-request about this discussion, was the same as the first-im- condition than in the exchange-aid-^no-request pression form used hi Experiment 1. The other form asked the subject to indicate how friendly, spon- condition. As can be seen in Table 2, the taneous, strained, enjoyable, and awkward she ex- difference was in the predicted direction. A pected the discussion to be, on scales from 1 to 20. planned comparison indicated that this dif- INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION 21 ference was significant, F(l, 72) =4.03, p Table 3 < .05. Means for the Measure of Anticipated From the second hypothesis, it would be Pleasantness of the Discussion in expected that liking would be less in the com- Experiment 2 munal-aid-request condition than in the Aid from & request for benefit from communal-aid-no-request condition. As can the other be seen in Table 2, the difference was as predicted. A planned comparison indicated Relation- Aid- Aid- No aid- No aid- that this difference was significant, F(l, 72) ship request no request request no request = 8.60, p< .01. Exchange 56 59 58 59 From the third hypothesis, it would be ex- Communal 63 72 70 52 pected that liking would be less in the exchange-no-aid-request condition than in the Note. The higher the score, the more positive the exchange-no-aid-no-request condition. As can subjects' expectations for the discussion. Scores be seen in Table 2, the difference was as pre- could range from 5 to 100. n = 10 per cell. dicted. A planned comparison indicated that this difference was significant, F(l, 72) = no-aid-no-request condition. Although the 4.07, p < .05. means were in the expected direction, the From the fourth hypothesis, it would be planned comparison indicated that this dif- expected that liking would be greater in the ference was not significant. communal-no-aid-request condition than in A measure of anticipated pleasantness of the communal-no-aid-no-request condition. the discussion was calculated by summing the As can be seen in Table 2, the means for these scores on the questions concerning how two conditions were very similar. A planned friendly, spontaneous, strained, enjoyable, and comparison indicated that the difference be- awkward the subjects expected the discus- tween these two means was not significant. sion to be. The scores for the favorable char- Another way of looking at the results is to acteristics were the same as the subjects' compare the aid and the no-aid conditions. ratings. The scores for the unfavorable charac- It would be expected that liking would be teristics were obtained by subtracting the greater in the exchange-aid-request condition subjects' ratings for those characteristics from than in the exchange-no-aid-request condi- 21. The means for the experimental condition. As can be seen in Table 2, this expected tions for the measure of anticipated pleasant- difference was obtained. A planned compari- ness of the discussion are presented in Table 3. son indicated that the difference was signifi- An analysis of variance of the measure of cant, F(l, 72) = 3.99, p < .05. It would be anticipated pleasantness of the discussion re- expected that liking would be less in the com- vealed that the main effect of type of rela- munal-aid-request condition than in the tionship was significant, F(\, 72) =5.01, p communal-no-aid-request condition. As can < .05. The main effects of aid and of request be seen in Table 2, this expected difference and the interactions between type of relation- was obtained. A planned comparison indicated ship and aid and between type of relationship that the difference was marginally significant, and request were not significant. The inter- F(l, 72) =3.93, p< .06. It would be ex- action between aid and request was significant, pected that liking would be less in the ex- F(l, 72) = 7.31, p < .01, and the three-way interaction between type of relationship, aid, change-aid-no-request condition than in the and request was also significant, F(l, 72) = exchange-no-aid-no-request condition. As can 5.61, p < .05. be seen in Table 2, this expected difference As can be seen in Table 3, anticipated was obtained. A planned comparison indi- pleasantness was approximately the same in cated that it was significant, F(l, 72) = 4.10, all four of the exchange conditions, but there p < .05. Finally, it would be expected that were differences within the communal condi- liking would be greater in the communal-aid— tions. Anticipated pleasantness was lower in no-request condition than in the communal- the communal-aid-request condition than in 22 MARGARET S. CLARK AND JUDSON MILLS the communal^aid-no-request condition. A behave in an appropriate way for a communal simple comparison indicated that this differ- relationship. This could explain why the re- ence approached significance, F(l, 72) = quest did not result in increased liking for the 2.99, p < .10. Anticipated pleasantness was other in the communal-no-aid-request con- greater in the communal-no aid-request condition. dition than in the communal-no-aid-no-re- As would be expected from the distinction quest condition. A simple comparison of this between communal and exchange relation- difference was significant, F(l, 72) = 11.19, ships, liking was greater in the exchange-^aid- p < .001. request condition than in the exchange-no-aid- request condition, marginally less in the Discussion communal-aid-request condition than in the communal-no-aid-request condition, and less In general, the results supported the hy- in the exchange-aid-no-request condition than potheses concerning reactions to a request in the exchange-no aid-no-request condition. for a benefit based on the distinction between The greater liking in the exchange-aid-re- communal and exchange relationships. As ex- quest condition than in the exchange-no-aid- pected from the hypothesis that a request request condition could be due to a general for a benefit after the person is aided by the tendency for aid to increase liking, as well as other leads to greater attraction when an ex- to the appropriateness of the request. How- change relationship is expected, it was found ever, the fact that liking was less in the ex- that liking for the other was higher in the change-aid-no-request condition than in the exchange-aid-request condition than in the exchange-no-aid-no-request condition is op- exchange-aid-no-request condition. As pre- posite to what would be expected from a dicted from the hypothesis that a request for general tendency for aid to increase liking, a benefit after the person is aided decreases but follows from the idea that differences in attraction when a communal relationship is liking are due to the appropriateness of the expected, liking was lower in the communal- other's behavior for the type of relationship. aid-request condition than in the communal- That liking was less in the communal-aid- aid-no-request condition. In line with the request condition than in the communal-no- hypothesis that a request for a 'benefit in the aid-request condition is also opposite to the absence of aid from the other decreases at- tendency for aid to increase liking and con- traction when an exchange relationship is ex- sistent with the effect on liking of the appro- pected, liking for the other was lower in the priateness of the other's behavior for the type exchange-no-aid-request condition than in the of relationship. exchange-no-aid-no-request condition. Since the focus was on the interactive ef- The hypothesis that a request for a benefit fects of type of relationship, a main effect of in the absence of aid from the other increases type of relationship was not specifically pre- attraction when a communal relationship is dicted. However, the significant main effect expected was not supported; there was no that was obtained for liking is understandable difference in liking between the communal- in view of the operations used to manipulate no-aid-request condition and the communal- type of relationship. Among other things, no-aid-no-request condition. The subjects in subjects in the communal conditions may have the communal-no-aid-request condition may expected the other to be more similar than have been somewhat uncertain about the in- did subjects in the exchange conditions. tentions of the other. Although the request The results for the measure of anticipated may have indicated to the subject that the pleasantness of the interaction were also con- other wanted a communal relationship with her and consequently led the subject to ex- sistent with the distinction between communal pect such a relationship, it also may have and exchange relationships. Anticipated pleas- reminded the subject that the other had not antness was similar in the four exchange given her aid earlier. This reminder may have conditions, marginally less in the communal- raised doubt about whether the other would aid-request condition than in the communal- INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION 23 aid-no-request condition, and greater in the terms communal and exchange relationships. communal-no-aid-request condition than in It is also not assumed that everyone makes the communal-no-aid-no-request condition. the distinction in the same way. Some people The results for the measure of pleasantness restrict their communal relationships to only can be understood in terms of the assumption a very few persons, whereas others have com- that one will anticipate interaction with the munal relationships with a wide circle of other to be more pleasant if one expects a others. There are some people who do not communal relationship than if one expects an make the distinction at all. Some people treat exchange relationship. In the exchange condi- every relationship, even relationships with tion, subjects were led to expect an exchange members of their own immediate family, in relationship by the experimental instructions terms of exchange. given in those conditions. Subjects in the com- It is possible for a person to have both a munal-aid-request condition should have ex- communal relationship and an exchange re- pected an exchange relationship, because the lationship with the same other, for example, rules of a communal relationship were vio- when a person sells something to a friend or lated by the request following the prior aid. hires a family member as an employee. In Subjects in the communal-no-aid-no-request such instances, a distinction is typically made condition should also have expected an ex- between what is appropriate for the business change relationship, because the rules of a (exchange) relationship and what is appro- communal relationship were violated by the priate for the family or friendship (com- other's failure to respond to their needs or munal) relationship. Exchange relationships to request something from the subject for sometimes can develop into communal rela- which the other presumably had a need. tionships, such as when a merchant and a The interpretation of the results for the customer become close friends or when an measure of anticipated pleasantness might employer and an employee marry. appear inconsistent with the fact that liking The lack of attention paid to communal was not significantly higher in the communal- relationships in previous research on inter- no-aid-request condition than in the com- personal attraction may be accounted for by munal-no-aid-no-request condition. However, the fact that almost all of the past research it is possible that the request for a benefit in has involved attraction toward persons who the absence of prior aid was sufficient to are not only previously unknown to the sub- create an expectation of a communal rela- ject but who are not expected by the subject tionship yet insufficient to increase liking. As ever to be known in the future. Communal mentioned earlier, the request for aid in the relationships involve an expectation of a long- communal-no-aid-request condition may have term relationship, whereas exchange relation- been taken as an indication that the other ships need not be long-term. However, the felt positively toward the subject and thus variables of communal versus exchange rela- led the subject to expect a communal relationship and expected length of the relation- tionship with that other, but it may also ship are conceptually independent. Exchange have reminded the subject that the other had relationships may be expected to continue not fulfilled her needs earlier, resulting in over a long period. ambivalent feelings toward the other. If it is true that treating a communal relationship in terms of exchange compromises General Discussion the relationship, then exchange theories of interpersonal attraction (e.g., Secord & Back- While it is assumed that the distinction be- man, 1974, chapter 7) may create a mislead- tween communal and exchange relationships is made implicitly by most people in their ing impression about the development and interactions with others, it is not assumed breakup of intimate relationships. The idea that they are explicitly aware of the distinc- that exchange is the basis of intimate relation- tion or are able to describe how it affects ships may actually have the effect of impair- their reactions. Certainly they do not use the ing such relationships. For example, the rec- 24 MARGARET S. CLARK AND JUDSON MILLS ommendation, which seems to be growing in Barley, J. M., & Berscheid, E. Increased liking as a popularity, that prior to marriage a marriage result of the anticipation of personal contact. Hu- man Relations, 1967, 20, 29-40. contract be drawn up that specifies in detail Gergen, K. J., Ellsworth, P., Maslach, C., & Seipel, what each partner expects from the other, M. Obligation, donor resources, and reactions to should, if followed, tend to undermine the aid in three cultures. Journal of Personality and relationship. Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 390-400. Goffman, E. Asylums. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor If the theoretical viewpoint of this research Books, 1961. is correct, a communal relationship will be Gross, A. E., & Latane, J. G. Receiving help, re- strained by dickering about what each of the ciprocation, and interpersonal attraction. Journal partners will do for the other. Of course, if of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 210-223. Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. Ingratiation: An at- one of the partners in a communal relation- tributional approach. Morristown, N.J.: General ship is convinced that he or she is being ex- Learning Press, 1973. ploited by the other because that person is Keisler, S. B. The effect of perceived role require- concerned about the other's welfare while the ments on reactions to favor doing. Journal of other is not concerned about his or her wel- Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 198-210. Mauss, M. The gift: Forms and functions of ex- fare, the communal relationship has disin- change in archaic societies. Glencoe, III.: Free Press, tegrated. If this happens in a marriage, there 1954. may be attempts to preserve the marriage by Mirels, H., & Mills, J. Perception of the pleasantness changing it into an exchange relationship and competence of a partner. Journal of Abnor- mal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 456-459. through dickering. Pruitt, D. G. Methods for resolving differences of interest: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Social References Issues, 1972, 28, 133-154. Secord, P. F., & Backman, C. W. Social psychology Adams, J. S. Toward an understanding of inequity. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. The social psychol- 67, 422-436. ogy of groups. N.Y.: Wiley, 1959. Castro, M. A. C. Reactions to receiving aid as a Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. Equity: function of cost to donor and opportunity to aid. Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1978. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 194-209. Received November 7, 1977 •