Communal relationships, in which the giving of a benefit in response to a need for the benefit is appropriate, are distinguished from exchange relationships, in which the giving of a benefit in response to the receipt of a benefit is appropriate. Based on this distinction, it was hypothesized that the receipt of a benefit after the person has been benefited leads to greater attraction when an exchange relationship is preferred and decreases attraction when a communal relationship is desired. These hypotheses were supported in Experiment 1, which used male subjects. Experiment 2, which used a different manipulation of exchange versus communal relationships and female subjects, supported the hypotheses that (a) a request for a benefit after the person is aided by the other leads to greater attraction when an exchange relationship is expected and decreases attraction when a communal relationship is expected, and (b) a request for a benefit in the absence of prior aid from the other decreases attraction when an exchange relationship is expected.

No abstract

Communal strength refers to a person's degree of motivation to respond to a communal partner's needs. The development and testing of a questionnaire measure of communal strength is described. Study 1 involved item selection. Studies 2 and 3 found that the 10‐item communal strength measure taps a construct distinct from behavioral interdependence as measured by the Relationship Closeness Inventory of Berscheid, Snyder, and Omoto (1989) and distinct from liking for the partner. As expected, the measure correlated highly with Rubin's (1970) Love Scale. Studies 4 and 5 found the measure predicted allocation of benefits to peers and reports of giving help to, and receiving help from, friends. Study 6 found that, when answered in relation to the respondent's spouse, the measure predicted the spouse's marital satisfaction, after controlling for the respondent's communal orientation and own marital satisfaction.

No abstract

Keeping track of needs in communal and exchange relationships was investigated in two experiments. In both, subjects could check to see if another person needed help. The first experiment tested the hypotheses that When there is no opportunity for the other to reciprocate in kind, keeping track of the other's needs will be greater if the person desires a communal relationship with the other than if the person desires an exchange relationship with the other. If the person desires an exchange relationship with the other, keeping track of the other's needs will be greater when an opportunity for the other to reciprocate in kind exists than when it does not. If a communal relationship is desired, the existence of an opportunity for the other to reciprocate in kind will not influence keeping track of the other's needs. The results of the first experiment supported all three hypotheses. The second experiment tested and found support for the hypothesis that even when nothing can be done to help the other, keeping track of the other's needs will be greater if a communal relationship is desired with the other than if an exchange relationship is desired.