Are Contingent Rules Ever Used in Close Relationships? 455But sometimes spouses do not respond in such an accom-
modating manner or by connecting their partner’s faults to
virtues. Instead, they may conclude that their partner really is
not a good partner or that they themselves are not worthy of
care. In such instances, people may well experience an incli-
nation to switch to contingent rules of distributive justice,
and they may actually do so. Doing so, we believe, is trig-
gered by the judgment that one’s partner has not met one’s
need combined with a judgment that this is due to a lack of
true caring for the self. One might say that trust in the partner
has evaporated. At such times, the adoption of a contingent
distributive justice rule in place of a communal rule is likely
to seem adaptive. It seems adaptive, we contend, because it is
judged to be a more effective means of getting what one
needs from one’s partner than is trusting that partner to be
noncontingently responsive to one’s needs.
Consider once again the woman who lives far from her
family of origin and misses them terribly. This time, after she
suggests that they could go just for a weekend and he refuses
again, saying that he really wants her to stay home and that he
needs her company, she becomes increasingly distressed at
her husband’s refusal to respond in any way to her needs. She
may attribute his behavior to himself rather than to the situa-
tion (“He’s selfish”). Alternatively, or perhaps additionally,
she may attribute his behavior to herself (“I’m not loveable”).
His faults may also bring other faults to mind (“He’s selfish;
he’s often inconsiderate”). He is really not very insightful or
intelligent. In general, he is an embarrassment to be around.
In any case, the wife may conclude that the only way her
husband is going to respond to her needs is if he mustdo so in
order to receive benefits himself (a contingent, exchange per-
spective). Thus, she may counter his responses by thinking,
“Well, OK, if that’s the way he’s going to be,” and saying,
“Look, if you’re not willing to visit my family, then you cer-
tainly can’t expect me to go visit yours next May when we
were planning on going. I’m only going to go if you do the
same for me.”
This threat may well work in that the spouse agrees to go
visit her family. Unfortunately, we propose, it works with
some costs. Switching from a communal to an exchange
norm sacrifices important things. First, the donor of a benefit
will no longer be able to derive the same sense of nurturing
the other. He or she must attribute at least part (or maybe all)
of their motivation to their own selfish interests. Second, the
recipient of the benefit no longer derives the same sense of
being cared for and security from acquiring the benefit. He or
she must attribute at least part (or maybe all) of the donor’s
motivation to the donor’s own self-interest rather than to
the donor’s sense of caring for them. Trust is also likely to
deteriorate.
When Will People Switch?We already suggested that switches from communal to ex-
change norms are likely to be triggered when a person feels
that his or her needs have not been met. We have also sug-
gested, however, that this will not always occur. Thus, an
important question becomes when it will and will not occur.
We have two answers to this question, one having to do with
the situation in which a person finds him- or herself and one
having to do with the personality of the person whose needs
have been neglected and who is, therefore, vulnerable to
switching.The Situation MattersOur first answer is straightforward. We predict that people
will be more likely to switch from communal to exchange
equality or equity norms when they perceive that their needs
are being neglected. This may occur because a partner who
has normally been quite responsive to the person’s needs
ceases to be so responsive to that person’s needs. This could
occur because the partner has become interested in someone
or something else or because the partner is under consider-
able stress or is distracted from the partner’s needs. It also
may occur because the person who needs help has experi-
enced a large increase in needs that the partner cannot meet.
If this is the case, and if the partner continues to neglect needs
despite any attempts on the person’s part to rectify the situa-
tion, the person mightswitch to an exchange norm.
Of course, there are other options available to the person
who has lost faith in the communal norm. The person could
leave the relationship altogether or switch immediately to
simply watching out for his or her own needs without adopt-
ing a norm such as equity or equality.
How are decisions between these options made? We can
only speculate at this point, but it seems to us that certain
variables that have long been discussed by interdependence
theorists are relevant to making these decisions. If there
are few barriers to leaving (i.e., in interdependence terms, if
the person has good alternative options, such as being alone
or forming alternative relationships), if investments in the
relationship are low, and if there are few social or personal
prescriptives to leaving, the person whose needs are being
neglected might simply leave. A switch to contingent, record-
keeping norms might never take place. We suspect this often
happens in friendships. If a friend neglects one’s needs, peo-
ple usually have other friends (or potential friends) to whom
they can turn. There are typically not great social or personal
prescriptives against letting a friendship lapse, and invest-
ments in friendships tend to be lower than those in other close