448 Close Relationships
characterized by unhappiness. Interdependence theorists pro-
vide straightforward explanations as to why this is sometimes
the case (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Rusbult, Arriaga, &
Agnew, 2001; Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996). Satisfaction,
they point out, is just one determinant of commitment to stay
in relationships. Other powerful determinants of relationship
stability can keep people in relationships despite unhappiness
with that relationship.
First, the more one has investedin a relationship, the
less likely one is to leave that relationship (Rusbult, 1983).
Investments include such things as joint memories, financial
investments, friends, possessions, and children. Second, the
poorer one’s alternativesto a relationship, including the
alternative of being on one’s own, the less likely one is to
leave the relationship (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Rusbult &
Martz, 1995). A woman might stay in an abusive relationship
if she perceives her alternatives to be worse, including the
option of being alone with no job skills and no financial
resources. Finally, personal and social prescriptivesagainst
leaving relationships can keep a person within a relationship
in which satisfaction is low (Cox, Wesler, Rusbult, & Gaines,
1997). A person may have a quite miserable relationship with
his or her child yet stay due to very strong personal and soci-
etal beliefs that one should never abandon one’s child.
Satisfaction Is Not Enough
What about satisfaction? Are relationship members’ ratings
of their own satisfaction with their relationship valid indexes
of the existence of a good relationship? Such ratings often
have been used in this way, and we do believe that these are
better indexes of the existence of a good relationship than is
relationship stability. Problems remain, however, and interde-
pendence theorists again provide us with good reasons not to
accept satisfaction as the sine qua non of a good relationship.
They point out that satisfaction is only partially deter-
mined by the rewards and costs associated with our rela-
tionships. A person’s comparison levelfor a relationship is
another important determinant of satisfaction (Kelley &
Thibaut, 1978). A person’s comparison level for a particular
relationship is what that person expects (or feels he or she de-
serves) from that relationship. It is the person’s set of stan-
dards for the relationship. If a person has had poor-quality
relationships in the past, a current relationship that objective
observers judge to be a bad relationship might, to that person,
seem quite good compared to his or her expectations. In con-
trast, if a person has had terrific-quality relationships in the
past, a current relationship that objective observers judge to
be quite good might seem, to that person, to be quite unsatis-
factory by comparison.
Another reason satisfaction ratings are not terrific mea-
sures of relationship quality is that they are generally collected
from a single individual or, at best, from each member of a re-
lationship independently. However, relationship quality is the
characteristic of a dyad. It is certainly possible for one person
to report being very satisfied with a relationship and his or her
partner to report being very unsatisfied with the relationship.
What would we then say the quality of the relationship was?
For these reasons we do not believe that member satisfaction
is the ideal way to judge the quality of a relationship.Lack of Conflict Is Not EnoughAlthough many researchers have used the absence of conflict
as an index of high-quality relationships and the presence of
conflict as an index of low-quality relationships, we believe
that such measures are flawed for two reasons. First, it is cer-
tainly possible for a relationship to be characterized by low
conflict and, simultaneously, by low mutual sharing of con-
cerns and low mutual support. We would not consider this to
be a high-quality relationship. For instance, two spouses may
lead largely independent lives while sharing the same home.
Each may go about his or her business with little or no re-
liance on the other. Conflict in such a relationship would be
quite low, but so too would mutual sharing of concerns, com-
fort, and support. Indeed, many researchers define interde-
pendence as the very essence of a relationship. They would
not view such a relationship as being much of a relationship
at all, much less a high-quality one.
Second, we would not consider all conflict to be bad for
relationships. Conflict often arises when one person in a rela-
tionship feels that his or her needs have been neglected. Rais-
ing this as a concern and working it out with a partner may
give rise to conflict. However, at the same time, if the conflict
is resolved to both persons’ satisfaction, the relationship is
likely to have been improved relative to what it had been prior
to the conflict. This logic suggests that the presence of some
conflict in a close relationship (as long as it is dealt with in a
constructive fashion) may actually be a positive indicator of
relationship quality.Good Relationships Foster Members’ Well-BeingHaving rejected stability and satisfaction as valid indexes of
good relationships, we suggest that high-quality relationships
are ones in which members behave in such a manner as to
foster the well-being of their partners. We define well-being,
in turn, as each member’s good physical and mental health
and each member’s being able to strive toward and reach
desired individual and joint goals.