Personality and Social Psychology Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clark, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Grote, N. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Clark, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Grote, N. K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2-17 (1998)
DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_1

Why Aren't Indices of Relationship Costs Always Negatively Related to Indices of Relationship Quality?

Margaret S. Clark

Nancy K. Grote

Department of Psychology Carnegie Mellon University

Many researchers have made the seemingly straightforward predictions that relationship rewards will be positively, and relationship costs will be negatively, associated with indices of relationship quality. Existing literature supports the hypothesis for rewards, but evidence regarding costs is mixed. Depending on the study, indices of costs have been observed to be negatively associated, unassociated, and even positively associated with relationship quality. We argue that the mixed results may have been due in part to past cost measures tapping three separate constructs: (a) a partner's intentional poor behavior directed at the participant, (b) negative things associated with the relationship (but not caused by the partner's intentional behavior), and (c) behaving in such a manner as to meet a partner's needs—something which often may involve performing undesirable activities, foregoing desired opportunities, or giving up money, time, or goods. We believe the first two types of costs should be negatively associated with relationship quality. However, we argue that the last type, because it involves adhering to communal norms (Clark & Mills, 1979, 1993) will often tend to be either negligibly or even positively associated with relationship quality. In two studies the occurrence of these three categories of events in close relationships as well as the quality of those relationships were measured. The overall pattern of results supports our specific hypotheses as well as the general idea that a lack of conceptual clarity regarding "costs" has contributed to the current mixed nature of our literature on links between relationship costs and relationship quality.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?