ICPR Abstracts: Session 21

---

Session 21: Papers

Social Exchange Theories

21.1
Keeping One's Head Above Water: The Process of 
Nonvoluntary Commitment

Michael Orin Wexler
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Rusbult's (1983) commitment may not always lead to 
improvements, for a nonvoluntary commitment (based 
upon a decline in satisfaction) could induce stabilizing 
behaviors over enhancements. Satisfaction may be a key 
moderator (vs. the additive model of Rusbult's) on the 
impact of alternatives and investments on performing of 
relationship behaviors.  A study manipulating change in 
satisfaction, alternatives and investments had college 
undergraduates think they were interacting with each other 
while the computer controlled all feedback; measures 
included commitment, willingness to terminate, sacrifice, 
and accommodation to negative actions.  Results were 
consistent with expectations: Declines in satisfaction 
enhanced impact of alternatives and investments on 
commitment and willingness to terminate (stabilizing 
behaviors) while increasing satisfaction enhanced impact 
of alternatives and investments on sacrifice (enhancement 
behavior).

21.2
Do Relationship Costs Predict Lower Satisfaction? 
Not Necessarily

Margaret S. Clark & Nancy Grote
Carnegie Mellon University

A popular view of relationship satisfaction is that the 
greater the relationship rewards and the fewer the costs, 
the greater satisfaction should be.  However, while 
rewards do predict higher satisfaction, costs do not 
consistently predict lower satisfaction. We argue that 
while "simple costs"  (those having nothing to do with 
following or neglecting communal rules), and "anti-
communal costs" (those inflicted upon one as a result of 
the other's lack of caring) should be negatively associated 
with satisfaction, "communal costs" (those incurred while 
meeting the other's needs) should not be.  This hypothesis 
received clear support in studies on friendship, romantic 
relationships and marriages.

21.3
Desire for Caring Relationships:
Communal or Affective-Exchange Orientation?

Robert Eisenberger, Hilda Speicher, Allison Leeds,
Patrick Lynch and Lisa Banicky
University of Delaware

Desire for mutual caring, promoted by Western culture's 
romantic tradition, may cause people to apply the 
reciprocity norm to the exchange of positive regard.  
Margaret Clark has argued, in contrast, that interpersonal 
relationships depend on communal norms in which aid 
creates no obligation to reciprocate.  A total of 451 college 
students were administered scales measuring the 
presumptive affective-exchange and communal 
orientations. Factor analysis and correlational analysis 
provided evidence for an affective-exchange orientation 
but not a communal norm.  A second study with 198 
female students found affective exchange orientation to be 
positively related to behavioral measures of verbal and 
nonverbal intimacy. 

21.4
Endorsing Distributive Justice Norms
 for Friendships and Marriage

Margaret S. Clark and Nancy Grote
Carnegie Mellon University

Various authors have endorsed equality, exchange, equity, 
need-based (communal) norms, or simple concerns with 
acquiring benefits and avoiding costs as "the" guideline 
governing the giving of benefits in intimate relationships.  
However, no one has examined all guidelines 
simultaneously.  In this study subjects rated prototypes of 
each guideline in terms of how ideal and realistic each was 
for an existing close friendship.  Need-based rules were 
seen as far more ideal and realistic than exchange, 
equality, equity or reward/cost rules.  Only need-based 
rules were rated as less realistic than ideal.  Exchange, 
equity, equality and reward/cost rules were all rated as 
more realistic than ideal (but still less realistic than need-
based rules.)

21.5
Development of Social Value Orientation

Paul A. M. Van Lange
Free University Amsterdam

People differ in the manner in which they approach 
interdependent others, with some taking a prosocial 
approach (i.e., maximizing joint well-being), some taking 
an individualistic approach (i.e., maximizing own well-
being with no or little regard for others' well-being), and 
some taking a competitive approach (i.e., maximizing 
relative advantage over others).  This research addresses 
the developmental aspects of social value orientation by 
examining its relationship with: (a) attachment styles, (b) 
family circumstances, and (c) age differences.  Four 
studies provide good evidence for the proposition that 
differing social value orientations are rooted in - and 
further shaped by - different circumstances of 
interdependence.