Exchange and Communal Relationships
As humans, we are fundamentally social beings whose connections to others are vital
to our health and happiness. As we have noted in many places throughout this book,
the evidence connecting well-being to relationships is overwhelming (see Chapters 3
and 5). David Myers referred to the contribution of relationships to health and happiness as
a “deep truth” (1992, p. 154). The “truth” of the well-being/relationship connection appears
to be universal. Of the many factors that contribute to well-being, only social relationships
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Defining Close Relationships
Characteristics
Exchange and Communal Relationships
On the Lighter Side
Teasing and Humor
Focus on Research: Sharing What Goes Right in Life
Friendship and Romantic Love
Clarity of Rules
Complexity of Feelings
Expectations
Varieties of Love
Passionate versus Companionate Love
Triangular Theory of Love
Cultural Context of Love, Marriage, and Divorce
Why Don’t Marriages Last?
Increased Freedom and Decreased Constraints
Getting Married and Staying Married: Is Love the Answer?
Realism or Idealism?
Satisfaction and Conflict
What People Bring to Romantic Relationships
Attachment Style
Conflict and Communication Skills
Focus on Research: The Power of the “Bad”
Attributions
Implicit Theories and Expectations
Food for Thought: Contours of a Happy Marriage
What Can Happy Couples Tell Us?
Humor and Compatibility
11
Close Relationships
and Well-Being
239
ISBN 1-256-51557-4
Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.
240 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being
consistently predict happiness across widely differing
cultures (Diener & Diener, 1995).
Relationships are responsible for our greatest
joys and our most painful sorrows. Our physical and
emotional well-being is enhanced as much by supporting
and caring connections with others as it is
jeopardized by social isolation and bad relationships.
For physical health and longevity, the magnitude
of these effects rival those of well-established
health risks such as smoking, obesity, diet, and lack
of exercise (see Chapter 3). The quality of our relationships
has equally powerful effects on mental
health and happiness. Healthy people have strong,
supportive connections to others and happy people
have rich social lives, satisfying friendships, and
happy marriages (see Chapters 3 and 5).
The importance of positive relationships is
widely recognized by psychologists and nonpsychologists
alike. People typically list close relationships
as one of their most important life goals
and a primary source of meaning in life (Emmons,
1999b). In one study, 73% of college students
said they would sacrifice another important life
goal (e.g., good education, career) before they
would give up a satisfying romantic relationship
(Hammersla & Frease-McMahan, 1990). In answer to
the “deathbed test” most people point to relationships
as a major factor that contributes to a satisfying
and meaningful life (Reis & Gable, 2003; Sears,
1977). A full appreciation of the value of close relationships
is one of life’s more important lessons,
often learned in the face of life-threatening events
(see Chapter 4 on Posttraumatic Growth).
We have also discussed the multiple ways that
relationships contribute to well-being. Relationships
provide an important coping resource through
social support, fulfill needs for intimacy and sharing
of life’s burdens through self-disclosure, and represent
an ongoing source of enjoyment and positive
emotions through interactions with others. Many
psychologists believe these positive effects are built
on a biological foundation reflecting our evolutionary
heritage. Humans are not particularly imposing
figures compared to the other animals they confronted
in pre-historic times, and human infants
remain relatively defenseless for many years.
Evolution may have selected for a geneticallyorganized
bonding process. Going it alone likely
meant the end of a person’s genetic lineage. In
short, humans probably would not have survived if
they did not have a built-in biological motive to
form cooperative bonds with others and nurturing
connections with their own offspring. As we noted
in Chapter 5, the evolutionary basis of human connections,
together with the extensive literature
showing the importance of human bonds, led
Baumeister and Leary (1995) to conclude that
belongingness is a fundamental human need which
they described as, “a pervasive drive to form and
maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive,
and significant interpersonal relationships”
(p. 497). Food and water are essential supplies for a
healthy life. Similarly, caring relationships with others
also appear to be essential to well-being.
Recent studies have begun to explore some of
the biological underpinnings of our need for
belonging. For example, oxytocin is a pituitary hormone
that has physiological effects that counter the
flight-or-fight stress response. That is, this hormone
reduces fearfulness and the physiological arousal
associated with stress by producing relaxation and
calmness (Carter, 1998; Taylor, Klein, Lewis, et al.,
2000; Uvnas-Moberg, 1998). Oxytocin is sometimes
referred to as the “cuddle hormone” because close
physical contacts such as touching, hugging, and
kissing stimulate its release (Hazan, Campa, & Gur-
Yaish, 2006). Oxytocin is responsible for the release
of milk in nursing mothers. The calm emotional
state and feelings of safety produced by the hormone
are thought to contribute to infant–maternal
bonds. For both men and women, oxytocin levels
are at their highest during sexual orgasm (Uvnas-
Moberg, 1997). These findings suggest that our
desire for intimate connections with others and the
comfort these connections provide are at least partially
mediated by biological responses. Obviously,
there’s more to a hug than just biology, but that hug
might not feel quite as good if it weren’t for biology.
The connection of satisfying relationships to
well-being is clear. What is not so clear is how people
develop and maintain good relationships. In this
chapter, we will explore what psychologists have
learned about close, intimate relationships that
addresses the following sorts of questions: What is
the difference between close relationships and more
casual acquaintances? How does an intimate connection
develop between two people? What does it
mean to be someone’s friend? To be in love? What
characterizes good and bad relationships? Given the
widely shared belief in the importance of close relationships,
why do half of all marriages end in
divorce? Why is it so difficult to sustain a satisfying
ISBN 1-256-51557-4
Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 241
long-term marriage? Can “happy” couples tell us
something about the ingredients of a successful
marriage?
DEFINING CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS
Characteristics
We encounter many people each day as we shop,
talk on the phone, keep appointments, visit, work,
go to school, go to church, and relax with family
members, friends, or spouses at the end of the
day. While all the relationships involved in these
encounters are potentially significant, researchers
have spent most of their time studying our closest
relationships—specifically friendship, romantic love,
and marriage. Our best friends, lovers, and spouses
are the most important people in our lives and have
the most impact on our overall well-being across the
life span.
Close relationships can be distinguished from
more casual acquaintances in a number of ways,
but the degree of intimacy seems most central to
the distinction. In everyday language, intimacy
often implies a sexual and romantic relationship.
We may be more likely to describe a good friend as
a best friend or a close friend, rather than an intimate
friend. However, relationship researchers use
the term “intimacy” to capture mutual understanding,
depth of connection, and degree of involvement,
whether or not the relationship is sexual. The
term “intimacy” can apply both to friends and to
lovers. It is in this sense that our closest relationships,
sexual or not, are the most intimate ones.
Although some researchers believe that close relationships
and intimate relationships are distinct and
independent types (see Berscheid & Reis, 1998), we
will use the term “intimate” to describe our closest
relationships.
Based on an extensive review of the literature,
Miller, Perlman, and Brehm (2007) suggest that both
lay-persons and psychologists seem to agree on six
core characteristics that set intimate relationships
apart from more casual relationships: knowledge,
trust, caring, interdependence, mutuality, and commitment
(see also Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Harvey &
Weber, 2002).
Brief descriptions of these six characteristics
are given in Table 11.1.
KNOWLEDGE Our closest friends and intimate partners
know more about us than anyone else. They
have extensive knowledge of our personal history,
deepest feelings, strengths, and faults. Intimate
knowledge in close relations develops through the
mutual self-disclosure of personal information and
feelings. Self-disclosure means revealing intimate
details of the self to others (Derlega, Metts,
Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). These details have to
do with our “true self” and the actual state of affairs
in our lives, which is likely different than the public
self presented to less intimate others in everyday
interactions. That is, we share things with intimate
others that we typically keep private when we are
in the company of strangers or casual acquaintances.
Sharing of personal information, in turn,
provides the basis for developing a deeper connection
than is typical in casual associations. To have
someone accept, like or love you, when they know
you as you know yourself, is powerful affirmation
of the essence and totality of self. This is one reason
why rejection by a good friend or romantic
partner may be so painful. The relatively complete
self-knowledge shared with another may make
rejection by that person feel profound. In contrast,
the rejection of someone who has minimal and partial
knowledge of us is likely to be less upsetting,
TABLE 11.1 Characteristics of intimate relationships
Knowledge—mutual understanding based on reciprocal self-disclosure.
Trust—assumption of no harm will be done by the other. Keeping confidences.
Caring—genuine concern for the other and ongoing monitoring and maintenance of relationship
Interdependence—intertwining of lives and mutual influence.
Mutuality—sense of “we-ness” and overlapping of lives.
Commitment—intention to stay in the relationship through its ups and downs.
ISBN 1-256-51557-4
Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.
242 Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being
because only the more superficial aspects of the
self are invested.
Research suggests that self-disclosure both signifies
and enhances mutual liking and affection. A
major review by Collins and Miller (1994) found
strong empirical support for three disclosure-liking
effects. (1) We disclose to people we like. (2) We
like people who disclose intimate self-information
more than those whose disclosures are less intimate.
(3) We like people to whom we have disclosed.
Research has also identified a strong tendency for
disclosure to beget disclosure, an effect called
disclosure reciprocity (Derlega et al., 1993; Miller,
1990; Reis & Shaver, 1988). People tend to both
reciprocate a disclosure and match its level of intimacy.
The process often begins with non-intimate
information and then moves on to more intimate
factual and emotional disclosures over time. If initial
conversations are rewarding, then over time both
the breadth (diversity of topics) and the depth (personal
significance and sensitivity) of topics that are
discussed increases (Altman & Taylor, 1973). This
movement of communication from small talk to the
exchange of more sensitive personal information is
considered central to the development of relationships.
Reciprocal self-disclosure captures the
process of how we get to know someone. The
knowledge that results from disclosure describes
what it means to know and be known by someone.
The power of self-disclosure to produce feelings
of closeness is dramatically shown by a study
that manipulated the intimacy of two conversation
partners (Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, & Bator,
1997). Participants began their exchange as complete
strangers. They were first instructed to talk for
15 minutes about personal topics that were relatively
low in intimacy such as, “When did you last
sing to yourself?” During the second 15-minute interval,
topic intimacy increased to include things like,
“What is your most treasured memory?” During the
final 15 minutes, conversation partners were
instructed to talk about very personal topics invoked
by questions such as, “When did you last cry in front
of another person? By yourself?” “Complete this sentence:
‘I wish I had someone with whom I could
share . . .’ ” Compared to a group of non-disclosing
participants who engaged in 45 minutes of small
talk (e.g., “What’s is your favorite holiday?”), participants
in the disclosure condition reported feeling
very close to their conversational partners by the
conclusion of the experience. The researchers
compared closeness ratings for the group that
engaged in self-disclosure and the group that made
small-talk. Surprisingly, the experimental subjects
reported feeling closer to their experimental partners,
than one-third of the small-talk subjects
reported feeling to the person with whom they
shared the closest real-life relationship! This is
strong evidence for the importance of self-disclosure
to the development of intimacy.
Reciprocal disclosure is most evident at the
beginning of relationships and less so once relationships
are well established (Altman, 1973; Derlega,
Wilson, & Chaikin, 1976). In a new friendship, we
are likely to feel an obligation to reciprocate when a
person opens up to us with personal information. In
a budding romance, the disclosure may be quite
rapid and emotionally arousing, which may add to
the passion we feel. Telling a romantic partner your
deepest secrets and your innermost feelings is exciting,
especially when it is reciprocated. One of the
ironies of romance is that the better we know our
partners, the less we may experience the excitement
of disclosure. Baumeister and Bratslavsky (1999)
argue that passion and deepening intimacy are
strongly linked. They believe one reason passion
fades in long-term marriages is that spouses already
know most everything about each other.
In well-established relationships, intimacy is
sustained more by responsiveness than by reciprocity
(Reis & Patrick, 1996). That is, in our interactions
with best friends, family members, and marital partners,
it is less important to reciprocate and more
important to respond in a supporting, caring, and
affectionate manner (Laurenceau, Barrett, &
Pietromonaco, 1998). If you tell your spouse all your
angry feelings about your boss after a bad day at
work, you aren’t looking for reciprocation. You
don’t really want to hear about her or his bad day at
that moment. What you want is a sounding board, a
sympathetic ear, and expressions of care and empathy
for your feelings.
TRUST Mutual trust is another vital ingredient of
intimate and close relationships. To trust someone
means that you expect they will do you no harm.
Chief among the harms we are concerned about is
the breaking of confidences. When we open up to
other people we make ourselves vulnerable. It is a
bit like taking your clothes off and feeling selfconscious
about the less than perfect shape of
your body. In a network of friends or co-workers,
ISBN 1-256-51557-4
Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 11 • Close Relationships and Well-Being 243
sensitive information can have damaging consequences
if someone tells others how you “really”
feel about someone—your boss, for example.
Violation of trust is damaging to relationships and
will likely lead the betrayed person to be less
open and more guarded in revealing personally
sensitive information in the future (Jones, Crouch,
& Scott, 1997). Trust is an essential ingredient in
close relationships, partly because it is a necessary
precondition for self-disclosure. We don’t disclose
to people we don’t trust.
CARING Caring means concern for and attention
to the feelings of others. We feel more affection
and appreciation for our close partners than for
most people. When we ask a casual acquaintance,
“how are you doing?” we most often expect and
receive an obligatory and cliché response: “Fine,”
“Hanging in there,” “Not bad,” and so forth.
Neither person expects a deep revelation about
personal feelings. At one level, in those passing
greetings, we aren’t actually asking for information
about how the person is really doing. We’re just
following polite social rules for greeting and
acknowledging people as we encounter them. In
our intimate relationships, the same question carries
different expectations. We expect and want a
more detailed and genuine response, especially if
things are not going well. And the other person is
expected to be more honest in describing how
they really feel, and not to pass off the question
with a stock answer used in low-intimacy
exchanges. Caring also involves all the little things
we do to express our appreciation and valuing of
a relationship: providing support in times of need;
recognizing special occasions like birthdays, holidays,
and anniversaries; inviting people for dinner
and other shared activities; and keeping in touch
with a phone call or an invitation to get together
over coffee or lunch. All these things reflect the
simple fact that more intimate relationships take
high priority in our lives. We have more invested,
so we take care to maintain the quality of our
close relationships.
