Abstract

          Sexual relationships may be viewed from a communal perspective which emphasizes caring and concern for a partner's sexual needs and preferences, or else from an exchange perspective which emphasizes a quid pro quo approach.  The purpose of the Chapter 5  was to construct and validate an objective self-report instrument measuring communal and exchange approaches to sexual relations, the Sexual Relationship Scale (SRS).  Reliability analyses indicated that the two SRS scales designed to measure communal and exchange approaches to sexual relations had reasonably strong internal consistency, and other analyses revealed that among females the two SRS subscales were essentially orthogonal to one another.  In addition, it was found that the Sexual Relationship Scale correlated in predictable ways with measures of relationship orientation.  Additional evidence indicated that men's and women's relationship satisfaction was influenced by their tendency to approach sexual relationships from either a communal or an exchange perspective. 

Chapter 5:
Communal and Exchange Approaches
to Sexual Relations

         Clark and Mills (1979) proposed a theory of relationship orientation based on the rules governing the giving and receiving of benefits.  An exchange relationship orientation was defined as one in which benefits are given on the assumption that a similar benefit would be reciprocated.  The recipient of a benefit in such a relationship presumably incurs a debt to make a suitable, comparable return.  By contrast, a communal relationship orientation was defined by Clark and Mills (1979) as one in which benefits are given on the assumption that they are in response to some need.  In communal relationships, concern for a partner's welfare mediates interpersonal giving rather than anticipation of a reciprocated benefit (Clark & Mills, 1979).

         People in an exchange relationship feel no special obligation or responsibility for the needs or welfare of the other person.  They provide benefits only in response to benefits received in the past or benefits expected in the future.  In comparison, those individuals who have established a communal relationship feel a sincere interest in and responsibility for the personal welfare of the other person.  They provide interpersonal benefits to the other person simply because that individual may need the benefit or simply because they wish to please the other person and/or to contribute to that person's personal welfare and happiness.  Thus, the norms that govern communal relationships involve the giving of interpersonal benefits based on another's welfare and needs, whereas the norms that apply to exchange relationships typically involve a quid pro quo exchange based on comparable tradeoffs (Mills & Clark, 1982; Clark, Ouellette, Powell, & Milberg, 1987).

         An important concept in Clark and Mill's approach to relationship orientation concerns the nature of the two relationship orientations.  An exchange relationship orientation is presumed to be associated with casual relationships (e.g., between acquaintances, business associates, and strangers).  Communal relationships, by contrast, presumably occur within those relationships which are usually referred to as close and intimate, such as family members, friends, and romantic partners (Clark, 1983a).  Murstein and Azar (1986) have, in fact, argued that an exchange orientation is unsuitable and inappropriate for intimate relationships.

         Considerable research has provided evidence for Clark and Mills' theoretical approach to relationships (Clark, 1981, 1984a; Clark & Mills, 1979; Mills & Clark, 1982, 1986).  A communal approach to relationships, for example, has been found to be positively related to helping behaviors (Clark et al., 1987), help-seeking (Clark, 1983a), and reactions to aid (Clark, 1983b).  Other findings indicate that the application of exchange principles to communal relationships engenders feelings of exploitation (Clark & Waddell, 1985; Mills & Clark, 1986), that people in exchange relationships keep records of their partner's relationship inputs while those in communal relationships monitor their partner's needs (Clark, 1984b; Clark, Mills, & Powell, 1986), and that interpersonal attraction is greatest when people's relationship orientation is consistent with their partner's exchange or communal approach to the relationship (Clark & Mills, 1979; Clark, 1986).

         The present study was based on the notion that the communal and exchange concepts may also apply to women's and men's sexual relations.  More specifically, it is argued that there are chronic dispositional differences in the type of orientation that people take toward their sexual relations.  Some take a communal approach to their sexual relations in which they feel responsible for and involved in their partner's sexual satisfaction and welfare.  They want to respond to their partner's sexual needs and desires.  In this sense they contribute to their partner's sexual satisfaction and welfare in order to please the partner and to demonstrate a desire to respond to that person's sexual welfare.  Moreover, people who take a communal approach to sexual relations also expect their partner to be responsive and sensitive to their own sexual welfare and needs.  By contrast, those who approach sexual relations from an exchange orientation do not feel any special responsibility for their partner's sexual satisfaction and welfare.  Nor do they feel any inherent need or desire to be attuned to or responsive to their partner's sexual pleasure.  Rather, they give sexual pleasure only in response to sexual benefits they have received in the past or have been promised in the future.  An exchange approach to sexual relations often involves sexual debts and obligations.  The individuals involved in this type of sexual relationship are usually concerned with how many sexual favors they have given and received, and the comparability of these sexual exchanges.

         To examine these ideas, the Sexual Relationship Scale (SRS) was developed to measure exchange and communal approaches to sexually intimate relations.  The Sexual Relationship Scale was based on the Communal Orientation scale developed by Clark et al. (1987) and the Exchange Orientation scale developed by Clark, Taraban, Ho, and Wesner (1989), and was intended to represent an extension of their ideas.   Evidence for the factorial validity and reliability of the Sexual Relationship Scale was collected in the present investigation.  In addition, the validity of the SRS was evaluated by examining the relationship between the Sexual Relationship Scale and Clark's measures of communal and exchange orientations.  It was expected that a communal approach to sexual relations would be positively associated with a communal relationship orientation, and that a similar positive association would occur between an exchange approach to sex and an exchange relationship orientation.  This prediction seemed reasonable, based on the notion that people's approach to the sexual aspects of a relationship would be quite similar to their general approach to their relationships.  In addition, the validity of the Sexual Relationship Scale was examined by determining whether relationship satisfaction would be influenced by either a communal or an exchange approach to sexual relations.  It was anticipated that relationship satisfaction would be positively related to a communal sexual approach and negatively associated with an exchange sexual approach.  This prediction was based on the rationale that relationship satisfaction is an interpersonally based affect that stems from genuine concern and love between partners rather than simple exchange principles.

Method

Participants

         During the fall of 1988, participants (103 females, 55 males) enrolled in introductory psychology courses at a small Midwestern university were asked to participate in a research study on sexual relationships.  All agreed to participate and received extra credit that partially fulfilled their course requirements.

Procedure

         After arriving at the study site, the subjects were asked to complete a set of questionnaires, consisting of an informed consent sheet, the Communal and Exchange Orientation scales, the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988), and the Sexual Relationship Scale.  After responding to the items on the questionnaires, the subjects were completely debriefed regarding the purpose and nature of the study.

         Clark's Measures.  Clark and her colleagues have developed independent measures of communal and exchange approaches to others (Clark et al., 1987; Clark et al., 1989).  The instruments are uncontaminated by social desirability influences and have acceptable internal and test-retest reliability.  In the present investigation, higher scores indicated a stronger communal and exchange approach to others, respectively.

         Relationship Satisfaction.  Hendrick (1988) developed the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) to measure relationship satisfaction.  The RAS consists of 7 items (e.g., In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship; How good is your relationship compared to most), scored on a 5-point Likert scale.  In Hendrick's (1988) scale development project, all of the RAS items loaded on a single factor solution (principle-components factor analysis).  The instrument correlated with several intimate aspects of relationships (e.g., love, commitment), predicted whether couples would separate, and had a reliability of .86.  In this study higher scores corresponded to greater relationship satisfaction.

         Construction of the Sexual Relationship Scales.  A set of twenty-four statements was created for the Sexual Relationship Scale (see Appendix A).  The format and wording of the items were based on the instruments developed by Clark et al. (1987) and Clark et al. (1989).  The items designed to measure a communal approach to sexual relations were concerned with relating sexually to another person based on mutual caring and concern for the other's sexual satisfaction and based on a concern for that person's sexual needs and desires.  An exchange approach to sexual relations was defined as one that involves a quid pro quo approach to sex, where sexual partners keep "tabs" on the sexual activities and favors they do for their partner, expecting to be repaid in an exchange fashion at some time in the future of the relationship.  Subjects were asked to respond to the items by indicating how much each statement described them, using a five-point Likert scale.  Responses were then scored:  (0) not at all characteristic of me; (1) slightly characteristics of me; (2) somewhat characteristic of me; (3) moderately characteristic of me; and (4) very characteristic of me.

Results

Factor Analysis Results

         To determine whether the statements on the SRS would form two groups (i.e., two separate clusters of communal and exchange items), the items were submitted to a principal components factor analysis with oblique rotation (several items were first reversed coded).  Oblique (i.e., correlated) rotation was used since all of the SRS items dealt with people's approach to their sexual relations.  Since several items were unrelated to the initial factor solutions, they were deleted and the same factor analysis procedure was re-conducted.  Two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted.  The pattern matrix loadings for the female subjects are presented in Table 1 (the results for the males were less clear, given the small sample size).  An inspection of this table shows clear support for the expected two factor structure, with conceptually similar items loading together.  Factor I consisted of sexual communion items (eigenvalue = 4.81, percent of variance = 20.1%), and Factor II contained sexual exchange items (eigenvalue = 2.98, percent of variance = 12.4%).  Based on these results, subscale scores were obtained by summing the scores of the individual items assigned to each subscale.  Correlations between the two resulting subscales are reported below.

Reliability Analyses

         The internal consistency of the two SRS subscales was determined by computing Cronbach alpha coefficients for each gender and for the combined group of subjects.  For the sexual communion subscale, the coefficients were .77 for males, .79 for females, and .78 for both together.  The coefficients for the sexual exchange subscale were .59 for males, .67 for females, and .67 for both.  These findings indicate that the two subscales had sufficient internal consistency to justify their use in further analyses.

Subscale Correlations

         Correlation were also computed between the SRS  subscales.  These correlations were conducted for each gender separately and for the combined group.  Among females, the correlation was .02, ns.  (for males and females combined, r = .08, ns.).  The only statistically significant correlation was a weak positive correlation between the sexual communion and the sexual exchange subscales among males (r = .28, p < .05).

Gender Differences

         In order to explore possible gender differences on the SRS subscales, a two group (males and females) MANOVA was conducted on the two SRS subscales.  Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for males and females.  The multivariate main effect for gender was statistically significant, F(2, 155) = 7.11, p < .001.  The univariate results showed that males reported significantly higher scores than females on the sexual exchange subscale, F(1, 156) = 12.22, p < .001.  No significant difference was found between the two genders on the sexual communion subscale.

Validity of the SRS

         Clark's scales.  The validity of the SRS was evaluated by correlating the sexual communion and sexual exchange subscales with Clark's Communal and Exchange Orientation scales.  Table 3 shows the results of these comparisons.  The sexual communion subscale was positively correlated with the Communal Orientation scale for females and for the subjects as a whole (r = .49 and .38, respectively, ps < .001).  Statistically significant positive correlations were also found between scores on the sexual exchange orientation subscale and scores on the Exchange Orientation scale for males, females, and both together (r = .60, .34, and .46, respectively, ps < .001).

         Hendrick's RAS.  In order to test the hypothesis that those individuals having an an exchange approach to a sexual relationship would be less satisfied with that relationship and that those with a communal approach to sex would be more satisfied, the SRS were correlated with the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988), a measure of relationship satisfaction.  Table 3 presents the resulting correlations for males and females separately and in combination.  Among males a negative relationship was found between an exchange approach to sexual relations and their relationship satisfaction (r = -.28, p < .05).  A similar result was also found for the subjects as a whole (r = -.23, p < .05).  The analysis for the females, by contrast, revealed a statistically significant positive correlation between relationship satisfaction and a communal approach to sexual relations (r = .17, p < .05).  All other correlations were non-significant.

Discussion

         The goals of the present investigation were to construct and validate an objective self-report measure of exchange and communal approaches to sexual relations.  In order to accomplish this task, the Sexual Relationship Scale was developed and administered to males and females, along with Hendrick's measure of relationship satisfaction and Clark's measures of communal and exchange approaches to relationships.  Reliability analyses indicated reasonably strong internal consistencies for the two SRS scales.  In addition, the results indicated that the SRS correlated in predictable ways with a measure of relationship orientation (Clark et al., 1989; Clark et al., 1987).  Also, gender was found to be related to sexual approaches in the present investigation, with males reporting higher scores than females on the sexual exchange subscale.  This finding is consistent with the gender stereotype that males approach sexual relations in a more non-intimate, business-like performance fashion than do females (Zilbergeld, 1978).  Gender also mediated the relationship between the two SRS subscales in the present investigation.  Although the communal and exchange subscales were unrelated to one another among females, among males the two SRS subscales were positively associated.  One possible explanation of this finding could be that it is a statistical artifact of the small sample size for males.  Alternatively, it could be that in contemporary times males are actually approaching their sexual relations from a dual communal-exchange orientation.  Perhaps the current generation of males is in transition from an exclusively exchange approach to sexual relations to a communal approach.  While this idea seems intriguing, clearly future research is needed to further examine these ideas.

         Some interesting gender findings associated with relationship satisfaction also emerged in this study.  It was expected that those individuals having an exchange approach to sexual relationships would be less satisfied with their relationship, while those with a communal approach to sex would be more satisfied.  As anticipated, a negative relationship was found between the sexual exchange subscale and relationship satisfaction for males.  Males who approach sex in terms of an exchange orientation were less satisfied with their relationships.  However, the predicted positive relationship between a communal approach to sex and relationship satisfaction among males was not found.  By contrast, a positive association was found among females between their relationship satisfaction and a communal approach to sex.  However, the predicted negative relationship between relationship satisfaction and an exchange approach to sexual relationships was not obtained for women.  One might speculate that these findings represent the results of a socialization process which emphasizes the development of business-like principles in males and interpersonal values in females.  When these approaches are later applied to their sexual relationships, however, the exchange approach by males probably triggers considerable dissatisfaction, whereas women's communal approach to sexual relations probably fosters greater closeness and sharing, leading in turn to greater relationship satisfaction.  Future research is needed, however, to more directly examine these speculations.

         Given the findings reported in the present investigation, the Sexual Relationship Scale would seem to be a useful instrument to employ in future research designed to examine men's and women's sexually intimate relationships.  A possible line of future research might include questions dealing with the stability of the SRS scores throughout the human lifespan.  Do individuals maintain the same communal or exchange approach to a sexually intimate relationship, or is there some variation from early in life to later in life?  It might be, for example, that as most people age they become more likely to view sex as an avenue for the expression of interpersonal caring and affection.  An examination of the relationship between personality and exchange-versus-communal approaches to sexual relationships might also constitute another interesting line of inquiry (cf., Ickes & Barnes, 1976, 1977; Snyder, 1974, 1979; Snyder, Berscheid, & Glick, 1985; Snyder, Gangestad, & Simpson, 1983; Swap & Rubin, 1983).  Some personality tendencies such as high self-monitoring might be associated with an exchange approach to sex, while others might be more strongly related to a communal approach to sexual relationships (e.g., Swap & Rubin, 1983).

         Another direction for future research with the SRS could involve attempts at improving the instrument itself.  The current version of the SRS contains two subscales which could be lengthened by the addition of new items.  Such a project involving the revision of the SRS would also benefit from the study of a larger sample of males and females.  In this way it would be possible to more directly examine whether the meaning of the SRS items is the same for males and females.  While it would be possible to improve the psychometric properties of the SRS, the current version of the instrument would still seem to be a potentially valuable tool to use in research designed to increase our understanding of sexual relations.  The present investigation represents an initial attempt to provide greater understanding of men's and women's sexual relations through the development and validation of the Sexual Relationship Scale, an objective self-report measure of men's and women's communal and exchange approaches to sexual relations.

References

Clark, M. S.  (1981).  Noncomparability of benefits given and received:  A cue to the existence of friendship.  Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 375-381.

Clark, M. S.  (1983a).  Some implications of close social bonds for help-seeking.  In B. M. DePaulo, A. Nadler, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), New directions in helping, vol. 2:  Help seeking.  New York:  Academic Press.

Clark, M. S.  (1983b).  Reactions to aid in communal and exchange relationships.  In B. M. DePaulo, A. Nadler, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), New directions in helping, vol. 2:  Recipient reactions to aid.  New York:  Academic Press.

Clark, M. S.  (1984a).  A distinction between two types of relationships and its implications for development.  In J. C. Masters & K. Yarkin-Levin (Eds.), Boundary areas in social and developmental psychology.  New York:  Academic Press.

Clark, M.S. (1984b).  Record keeping in two types of relationships.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 549-557.

Clark, M.S. (1986).  Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulations  of desire for communal and exchange relationships.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 414-425.

Clark, M.S., & Mills, J. (1979).  Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12-24.

Clark, M.S., Mills, J., & Powell, M. (1986).  Keeping track of needs in exchange and communal relationships.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 333-338.

Clark, M.S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M.C., & Milberg, S.  (1987).  Recipient's mood, relationship type, and helping.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94-103.

Clark, M. S., Taraban, C., Ho, J., & Wesner, K.  (1989).  A measure of exchange orientation.  Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University.

Clark, M. S., & Waddell, B.  (1985).  Perceptions of exploitation in communal and exchange relationships.  Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 403-418.

Hendrick, S. S.  (1988).  A generic measure of relationship satisfaction.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98.

Ickes, W., & Barnes, R. D.  (1976).  Boys and girls together--and alienated:  On enacting stereotyped sex roles in mixed-sex dyads.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 69-683.

Ickes, W., & Barnes, R. D.  (1977).  The role of sex and self-monitoring in unstructured dyadic interactions.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 315-330.

Mills, J., & Clark, M. S.  (1982).  Exchange and communal relationships.  In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology.  Beverly Hills:  Sage.

Mills, J., & Clark, M. S.  (1986).  Communications that should lead to perceived exploitation in communal and exchange relationships.  Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 225-234.

Murstein, B. I., & Azar, J. A. (1986).  The relationship of exchange orientation to friendship intensity, roommate compatibility, anxiety and friendship.  Small Group Behavior, 17, 3-17.

Snyder, M.  (1974).  Self-monitoring of expressive behavior.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.

Snyder, M.  (1979).  Self-monitoring processes.  In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12).  New York:  Academic Press.

Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., & Glick, P.  (1985).  Focusing on the exterior and the interior:  Two investigations of the initiation of personal relationships.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1427-1439.

Snyder, M., Gangestad, S., & Simpson, J. A.  (1983).  Choosing friends as activity partners:  The role of self-monitoring.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1061-1072.

Swap, W. C., & Rubin, J. Z.  (1983).  Measurement of interpersonal orientation.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 208-219.

Zilbergeld, B.  (1978).  Male sexuality.  New York:  Bantam Books, Inc.

Appendix A

Survey

INSTRUCTIONS:  Listed below are several statements that concern the topic of sexual relationships.  Please read each of the following statements carefully and decide to what extent it is characteristic of you.  Some of the items refer to a specific relationship.  Whenever possible, answer the questions with your current partner in mind.  If you are not currently dating anyone, answer the questions with your most recent partner in mind.  If you have never had a relationship, answer in terms of what you think your responses would most likely be.  Then, for each statement fill in the response on the answer sheet that indicates how much it applies to you by using the following scale:

***************************************************************************

                        A = Not at all characteristic of me.
                        B = Slightly characteristic of me.
                        C = Somewhat characteristic of me.
                        D = Moderately characteristic of me.
                        E = Very characteristic of me.

***************************************************************************

NOTE:     Remember to respond to all items, even if you are not completely sure.
               Your answers will be kept in the strictest confidence.
               Also, please be honest in responding to these statements.

***********************************************************************************************

1.   It would bother me if my sexual partner neglected my needs.
2.   When I make love with someone I generally expect something in return.
3.   If I were to make love with a sexual partner,  I'd take that person's needs & feelings into account.
4.   If a sexual partner were to do something sensual for me,  I'd try to do the same for him/her.
5.   I'm not especially sensitive to the feelings of a sexual partner.
6.   I don't think people should feel obligated to repay an intimate partner for sexual favors.  (R)
7.   I don't consider myself to be a particularly helpful sexual partner.
8.   I wouldn't feel all that exploited if an intimate partner failed to repay me for a sexual favor.  (R)
9.   I believe sexual lovers should go out of their way to be sexually responsive to their partner.
10. I wouldn't bother to keep track of the times a sexual  partner asked for a sensual pleasure.  (R)
11. I wouldn't especially enjoy helping a partner achieve their own sexual satisfaction.
12. When a person receives sexual pleasures from another, s/he ought to repay that person right away.
13. I expect a sexual partner to be responsive to my sexual needs and feelings.
14. It's best to make sure things are always kept "even" between two people in a sexual relationship.
15. I would be willing to go out of my way to satisfy my sexual partner.
16. I would do a special sexual favor for an intimate partner, only if that person did some special sexual favor for me.
17. I don't think it's wise to get involved taking care of a partner's sexual needs.
18.  If my sexual partner performed a sexual request for me,      I wouldn't feel that I'd have to repay him/her later on.(R)
19. I'm not the sort of person who would help a partner with a sexual problem.
20. If my sexual partner wanted something special from me, s/he would have to do something sexual for me.
21. If I were feeling sexually needy, I'd ask my sexual partner for help.
22. If my sexual partner became emotionally upset, I would try to avoid him/her.
23. People should keep their sexual problems to themselves.
24. If a sexual partner were to ignore my sexual needs, I'd feel hurt.

  Scoring Instructions

        The Sexual Relationship Scale (SRS) consists of two subscales, each containing eight (8) separate items.  The labels and items for these two subscales are listed below:

      A.   The Exchange Approach to Sexual Relations
      (items 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18)

      B.   The Communal Approach to Sexual Relations
      (items 1, 3, 4, 9, 13, 15, 21, and 24)

Coding Instructions for SRS Items

      The SRS items are coded so that A=0, B=1, C=2, D=3, and E=4.  Then, any item designated by (R) is reversed coded so that 0=4, 1=3, 2=2, 3=1, and 4=0.  Finally the 8 items on each subscale are summed so that higher scores indicate a stronger communal and exchange approach, respectively, to sexual relations.