452 Close Relationships
Knowing When to Be Communal
Applying communal rules effectively within appropriate
bounds requires the skills and fortitudes just mentioned.
Avoiding their use in nonemergency situations outside those
bounds may require additional fortitudes. One must be able to
detect whether the other desires a communal relationship and,
if so, at what strength. Being too anxious for intimate com-
munal relationships may lead one to behave communally in
inappropriate situations. Work by attachment researchers sug-
gests that this is something that anxious, ambivalent, or pre-
occupied people often do (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson &
Rholes, 1998).
LINKING RELATIONSHIP AND
JUSTICE RESEARCH
Having reviewed some relationship work suggesting what
interpersonal processes and interpersonal skills make a per-
sonal relationship such as a friendship, romantic relationship,
marriage, or family relationship a high-quality relationship,
we turn to linking this work to work on the use of distributive
justice rules. In this regard we have already made clear that
we believe that benefits are ideally distributed according to
needs (and not inputs) in relationships such as friendships,
romantic relationships, marriages, and family relationships.
We have also made clear that we believe such responsiveness
should be noncontingent.
Our views fit well with some past work on distributive jus-
tice. Specifically, our views fit well with work supporting the
idea that use of a needs-based norm governing the giving and
receiving of benefits is preferred to using other distributive
justice norms in personal relationships (Clark et al., 1986;
Clark et al., 1987; Deutsch, 1975, 1985, for family relation-
ships; Lamm & Schwinger, 1980, 1983). At the same time,
our views conflict with the arguments of many other distribu-
tive justice researchers who have claimed that following other
rules—rules such as equity (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid,
1978; Sabatelli & Cecil-Pigo, 1985; Sprecher, 1986; Utne,
Hatfield, Traupman, & Greenberger, 1984) or equality
(Austin, 1980; Deutsch, 1975, 1985, for friendships)—are
best for friendships, romantic relationships, and family rela-
tionships. It also conflicts with the view that an individual
solely watching out for his or her own welfare is best in
such relationships (Cate, Lloyd, & Henton, 1985; Huston &
Burgess, 1979).
Are we right? Is following a noncontingent, responsiveness-
to-needs rule best for personal relationships? Is it better than
rules of equality or equity? If so, why? We think it is best, and
we make the following theoretical and empirical case for this
viewpoint.Following Communal Norms Affords Security; Following
Contingent Norms Undermines SecurityThe reason we believe that following a communal rule is ideal
for ongoing intimate relationships is that it is the only rule
that can afford members of the relationship the sense that the
other truly cares for their welfare. If another responds to one’s
needs on a noncontingent basis, the logical inference is that
the other truly cares for oneself. This, in turn should heighten
trust in the other and promote a sense of security. Instances in
which the other benefits a person at some cost to him- or her-
self should be especially likely to heighten trust (Holmes &
Rempel, 1989).
Note that, by definition, contingent distributive justice
norms (equity, equality, exchange) involve receiving benefits
as conditions of benefiting a person. In contrast, a need-based
or communal norm dictates noncontingent giving and accep-
tance of benefits. Thus, communal responsiveness should be
uniquely valuable in terms of providing recipients of care
with a sense of being valued and cared for—two of the com-
ponents Reis and Shaver (1988) pointed out as essential for
attaining a sense of intimacy in relationships.
Looking at this from the perspective of the person who
gives help also provides insight into the importance of
following a communal norm in friendships, romantic rela-
tionships, and family relationships. At the same time that
noncontingent provision of benefits should cause a recipient
to feel valued and cared for, so too should it cause the donor
of the benefit to see him- or herself as a nurturant, caring
individual. This is simply a matter of self-perception. Both
feeling cared for and judging oneself to be a nurturant indi-
vidual are, we suspect, deeply satisfying. It is just these feel-
ings, we believe, that form the essence of what people desire
from their friendships, family relationships, and romantic
relationships.People Advocate and Follow Communal NormsNot only do we believe that—ideally and often in practice—
people follow a communal rule in their intimate relationships
and do not keep track of individual inputs and outcomes from
a relationship, participants in our studies share our belief
(Grote & Clark, 1998; Clark & Grote, 2001). What we did to
examine this is straightforward: We asked people. First, we
came up with prototype descriptions of a number of ways in
which people might choose to distribute benefits within their
intimate relationships. That is, we made up descriptions of