450 Close Relationships
We suspect that almost everyone has a hierarchy of what
we call communal relationships. By this we mean that people
have a set of relationships with others about whose needs
they believe they oughtto care and to whose needs they be-
lieve they oughtto strive to be responsive in a noncontingent
fashion (Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills & Clark, 1982). These
relationships vary from weak to strong, with strength refer-
ring to the degree of responsibility the person believes he or
she ought to assume for the other’s welfare. One end of the
hierarchy is anchored by relationships in which the person
feels a very low degree of responsibility for the partner’s
needs (e.g., a relationship with an acquaintance for whom the
person might provide directions or the time of day with no
expectation of compensation). The other end of the hierarchy
is anchored by relationships in which the person assumes
tremendous responsibility for the other’s needs (e.g., a
parent-child relationship in which the parent would do just
about anything at any cost to ensure the child’s welfare.)
Figure 18.1 depicts one hypothetical person’s hierarchy
of communal relationships. Communal relationships, from
weak to strong, are depicted on the x-axis. The costs one is
willing to incur to meet the other’s needs (noncontingently)
are depicted on the y-axis. The dashed line in the figure
depicts the costs the person is willing to incur in order to ben-
efit the other on a communal basis.
Beneath the implicit cost line benefits will be given and
accepted on a communal, need, basis. Thus, for instance,
strangers give one another the time of day, neighbors take in
one another’s mail on a temporary basis, friends throw birthday
parties for one another and travel to one another’s weddings,
and parents spend years raising children and tremendous
amounts of money to support those children.
Above the cost line benefits are generally not given or
even considered. When they are given, they are given on an
exchange basis. Consider, for instance, a relationship partner
who needs a car. This is a costly benefit and one that falls
above the cost line for most relationships, such as those with
acquaintances, neighbors, or friends. Under most circum-
stances this means that this benefit will not be given (or asked
for) in such relationships. The topic simply will not come up.
However, a person might sellhis car to a friend (an economic
exchange in which the parties agree that the money and the
care are of equal value). Neighbors might agree to provide
each other’s child with rides to and from soccer practice fol-
lowing a rule of equality (half the days one person drives,
half the days the other drives), and so forth.
Recognizing the existence of hierarchies of communal
relationships should help to understand the nature of high-
quality personal (communal) relationships. As we said earlier,
these relationships are characterized by assumed, noncontin-
gent responsibility for a partner’s needs. Here we add that the
level of responsibility actually assumed on the part of a care-
giver or expected on the part of a person in need (in the ab-
sence of true emergencies) ought also to be appropriate to the
location of that relationship in its members’ hierarchy of
relationships. If the costs involved in meeting the need fall
beneath the implicit cost boundary shown in Figure 18.1, the
responsiveness ought to be present. If costs exceed the bound-
ary, benefits shouldnotbe given, except for emergencies or in
instances in which both members wish to strengthen the com-
munal nature of the relationship. Indeed, giving a benefit that
falls above the implicit cost boundary might harm the quality
of the relationship. So too may asking for too costly a benefit
or implying the existence of too strong a communal relation-
ship by self-disclosing too much (Chaiken & Derlega, 1974;
Kaplan, Firestone, Degnore, & Morre, 1974) be likely to hurt
the relationship.
This should help to explain why responsiveness must be
within appropriate bounds even though responsiveness to
needs is a hallmark of good relationships. A casual friend
should not give one an extravagant present. It exceeds the
appropriate level of responsiveness to needs. A young child is
not supposed to assume a great deal of communal responsi-
bility for his or her parent. Thus, a child consistently com-
forting a troubled parent is not a sign of a high-quality
relationship. In contrast, a parent issupposed to assume great
communal responsibility for his or her child. Thus, a parentNo benefits are given
or exchange rules applyHighLowWeak Strong
Strength of communal relationshipCosts involved in meeting the other’s needsCommunal
rules applyStrangersAcquaintancesNeighborsFriendsBest friendsSpouse/childFigure 18.1 The costs one hypothetical person is willing to incur to meet
the needs of members of his or her social network on a communal basis.