Defining Quality Relationships 449We further suggest that the best way to define such rela-
tionships is in terms of the interpersonal processes (and their
impact on individual well-being) that characterize relation-
ships. By identifying interpersonal processes likely to foster
well-being in relationships, not only can we define high-
quality relationships, but, simultaneously, we can also come
to understand just whysuch relationships are of high quality.
This said, recent research suggests that good relationships
are those in which each member (a) feels an ongoing respon-
sibility for the other member’s welfare and acts on that feel-
ing by noncontingently meeting the needs of the partner and
(b) feels comfortable and happy about that responsibility; in
addition, in most mutual, adult, equal-status relationships
each member (c) firmly believes that his or her partner feels a
similar sense of responsibility for his or her own welfare and
relies on that feeling by turning to the other for support with-
out feeling obligated to repay and (d) believes that the other
feels comfortable and happy about that responsibility.
Members of high-quality mutual friendships, romantic rela-
tionships, and family relationships trust each other, feel secure
with each other, and derive satisfaction from nurturing each
other. They understand, validate, and care for each other.
They keep track of each other’s needs (Clark, Mills, &
Powell, 1986), help each other (Clark, Ouellette, Powell, &
Milberg, 1987), and feel good about doing so (Williamson
& Clark, 1989, 1992). They feel bad when they fail to help
(Williamson, Pegalis, Behan, & Clark, 1996). They respond to
one another’s distress and even anger with accommodation and
support (Finkel & Campbell, 2001; Rusbult, Verette, Whitney,
Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991) rather than with reciprocal expres-
sions of distress and anger or with defensiveness (Gottman,
1979). They express their emotions to their partners (Clark,
Fitness, & Brissette, 2001; Feeney, 1995, 1999). They turn to
one another for help (Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992).
They are willing to forgive one another’s transgressions
(McCullough, 2000). Further, members of such relationships
are likely to hold positive illusions about partners that, in turn,
bring out the best in those partners (Murray & Holmes, 1997;
Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b; Murray, Holmes,
Dolderman, & Griffin, 2000) and to possess cognitive struc-
tures in which even their partner’s apparent faults are linked to
virtues (Murray & Holmes, 1993). Finally, members of such re-
lationships appear ready to engage in some active relationship-
protecting processes such as viewing their own relationship as
being better than those of others (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989;
Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990; Van Lange & Rusbult,
1995). All these things contribute to a sense of intimacy be-
tween partners (Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988)
and relationship members’ having the sense that their relation-
ship is a safe haven (Collins & Feeney, 2000).
Relationship researchers do not have a single name for
what we are describing as a high-quality relationship. Rather,
several terms currently in use describe different aspects of
such a relationship. We have called relationships in which
people assume responsibility for another’s well-being and
that benefit that person without expecting repayments com-
munal relationships(Clark & Mills, 1979, 1993). However,
assuming responsibility for another person’s needs and striv-
ing to meet those needs on a noncontingent basis does not
necessarily imply that one is competent or successful at so
doing. Other terms in the literature for relationships imply
success at following such norms. For example, relationships
in which members successfully attend to, understand, vali-
date, and effectively care for one another have been called
intimate relationshipsby Reis and Shaver (1988; Reis &
Patrick, 1996). Relationships in which members view the
other as one who does care for their welfare and themselves
as worthy of such are have been called secure relationships
by attachment researchers (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978; Collins & Allard, 2001; Hazan & Shaver, 1987;
Simpson et al., 1992). From our perspective, the exact ter-
minology is not that important—an understanding of the in-
terpersonal processes characterizing these relationships is
important.Agreement on Levels of Responsibility MattersIt is not sufficient just to characterize high-quality friend-
ships, romantic relationships, marriages, and family relation-
ships as those in which members assume responsibility for a
partner’s welfare. It is also important, in our opinion, for
members to assume the “right” levels of such responsibility.
Of course, it is possible and easy to understand that a rela-
tionship might be of low quality because members of a
relationship do too little to foster the other’s welfare. That
seems obvious. A parent who fails to feed his or her child
adequately clearly does not have a high-quality relationship
with that child. Spouses who ignore one another’s needs
clearly do not have a high-quality relationship. Less obvi-
ously, it is also possible for members to do too much to foster
the other’s welfare. A person who receives an extravagant,
expensive present from a casual friend is likely to feel quite
uncomfortable and indebted and is unlikely to describe the
relationship as high quality. A very young child might feel as
if he must comfort his constantly distressed mother and do so.
Objective observers would not consider this to be a sign of a
high-quality relationship. Indeed, they are likely to consider
this to be a sign of poor parenting. So, how are we to under-
stand what degree of responsiveness to another’s needs is
right for a relationship?