Linking Relationship and Justice Research 453communal rule, an exchange rule, an equity rule, and an equal-
ity rule. Then we had people in a number of different types of
close, personal relationships (i.e., friendships, dating relation-
ships, marriages) rate the extent to which they viewed these
rules to be ideal for their relationship (from3 indicating “not
at all ideal” to3 indicating “extremely ideal”). They also
rated each rule according to the extent to which they thought it
was realistic on a similar scale.
In each case the communal rule was rated as ideal for
these relationships and as substantially more ideal than were
any of the remaining rules (the ratings generally fell on the
“not ideal” ends of the scales). In each case the communal
rule also was rated as being on the realistic side of the scales
and as being more realistic than any of the remaining rules.
Use of Communal Norms and Relationship Satisfaction
Some evidence that a tendency to follow contingent, record-
keeping norms is associated with lower marital satisfaction
comes from studies by Murstein, Cerreto, and MacDonald
(1977) and by Buunk and VanYperen (1991). Murstein et al.
(1977) measured the “exchange orientation” of one member
of a group of married couples with a scale including items
such as, “If I do dishes three times a week, I expect my
spouse to do them three times a week.” They also adminis-
tered a marital adjustment scale to research participants.
Among both men and women, an exchange orientation to-
ward marriage was negatively correlated with marital adjust-
ment. (We would note, however, that they did not find an
analogous negative correlation between exchange orientation
and satisfaction in friendships, perhaps because the friend-
ships were weak ones.)
Buunk and VanYperen (1991) had individuals fill out an
eight-item measure of exchange orientation and a Global
Measure of Equity (see Walster et al., 1978). The latter mea-
sure asks, “Considering what you put into your relationship
relative to what you get out of it and what your partner puts
in compared to what he gets out of it, how does your rela-
tionship ‘stack up’?” Respondents could indicate that they
were getting a much better or better deal, an equitable deal, or
a much worse or worse deal than their partner. Buunk and
VanYperen also measured satisfaction with the relationship
with an eight-item Likert-type scale that measures the fre-
quency with which the interaction with the partner in an inti-
mate relationship is experienced as rewarding and not as
aversive.
As these researchers expected, perceiving oneself to be
over- or underbenefited relative to one’s spouse was linked
with lower relationship satisfaction among those high in ex-
change orientation but not among those low in exchange
orientation. More important for the present point, however,
there was a main effect of being high in exchange orientation
on marital satisfaction. Those high in exchange orientation
reported substantially lower marital satisfaction than did
those low in exchange orientation. They did so regardless of
whether they reported being underbenefited, equitably bene-
fited, or overbenefited (Buunk & VanYperen, 1991).Can We Follow Contingent Rules Anyway?Still another reason we believe that people do not keep track
of inputs and calculate fairness on some sort of contingent
basis in well-functioning close relationships is simply that
following any contingent rule in relationships in which levels
of interdependence are high is virtually impossible. Even to
make a substantial effort to do so day to day and week to
week would be so effortful as to be tremendously irritating
and painful to the relationship members involved. Consider
the impossibility of accurately keeping track of benefits first.
Think of the sheer number and variety of benefits that are
likely to be given and received in an intimate relationship for
example, between a husband and wife living together in the
same home. Each day a very large number of household tasks
(e.g., making beds, doing laundry, picking up clutter, prepar-
ing food, shopping for food, putting groceries away, vacuum-
ing, dusting, taking the mail in, feeding pets, changing light
bulbs and toilet paper, etc.) are done. So too are a variety of
nonhousehold services (e.g., dropping a spouse off at work,
picking up take-out food, dropping off dry cleaning, hav-
ing something framed, visiting relatives, etc.). Then there
are benefits that fall within the categories of verbal affec-
tion, physical affection, information, instructions, and goods
that are given and received. Furthermore, things such as re-
strained behavioral impulses might be considered benefits.
How in the world can two people in a relationship accurately
track these things and still accomplish anything else in their
lives? The answer is, we think, that they cannot.
To make matters worse, one must keep in mind that track-
ing the equality or equity of benefits given and benefits re-
ceived involves far more than simply keeping track of what
has been given by each member of a relationship. To compute
equality or equality one must place values or weights on the
diverse benefits given and received and compute the equality,
equity, or evenness of repeated specific exchanges. What is
taking the garbage out worth? Does it matter if it is cold and
rainy outside? How does it compare with another simple ser-
vice such as putting the laundry in the machine or unloading
the dishwasher? Tougher yet, how does it compare with giv-
ing a hug (and does the hug get discounted because both
people benefit)?