Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979, Vol. 37, No. 1, 12-24 Interpersonal Attraction in Exchange and Communal Relationships 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 re- lationship 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 rela- tionship 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 exam- ple, 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. Copyright 1979 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/79/3701-0012$00.75 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 in- teracting 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.