ABSTRACT
Title of Document: DETERMINANTS OF COMMUNAL
STRENGTH: THE EFFECTS OF THE
OTHER?S LIKEABILITY AND OF
BENEFITING THE OTHER
Ryan Dean Curtis, M.A., 2006
Directed By: Professor Judson Mills,
Department of Psychology
This research investigated potential determinants of communal strength. Communal
strength refers to the degree of motivation to respond to a communal partner?s needs.
It was hypothesized that increased liking for the other and giving a benefit to the
other would each increase communal strength toward the other. Female participants
completed pretest and posttest measures of communal strength toward another female
student. Participants heard an audiotape that made the other sound likable or
unlikable and in need of advice or not in need of advice. The participants gave advice
to the other or observed someone else giving advice to the other. The results of an
analysis of covariance of the posttest measure of communal strength, controlling for
the pretest measure of communal strength, revealed support for both hypotheses.
Communal strength toward the other increased when the other was likable, and when
the person gave a benefit to the other.
DETERMINANTS OF COMMUNAL STRENGTH: THE EFFECTS
OF THE OTHER?S LIKEABILITY AND OF BENEFITING THE OTHER
By
Ryan Dean Curtis
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
2006
Advisory Committee:
Professor Judson Mills, Chair
Professor Harold Sigall
Professor Charles Stangor
? Copyright by
Ryan Dean Curtis
2006
ii
Dedication
To my Heavenly Father and my wife Katie with whom I hope to always have the
strongest of communal relationships.
iii
Table of Contents
Dedication..................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents......................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures............................................................................................................... v
Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................................1 
Chapter 2: Method ...................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 3: Results....................................................................................................... 21
Chapter 4: Discussion ................................................................................................. 28
Appendix..................................................................................................................... 31
References................................................................................................................... 32
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. The 10-Item Communal Strength Scale
Table 2. Means for Pretest Liking
Table 3. Means for Posttest Liking
Table 4. Means for Pretest Communal Strength
Table 5. Means for Posttest Communal Strength
Table 4. Adjusted Means for Posttest Liking
Table 5. Adjusted Means for Posttest Communal Strength
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. When a Communal Norm Applies
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
For most people, their most important relationships are their communal
relationships. Communal relationships are relationships in which benefits are given
in response to needs or to demonstrate a general concern for the other person (Clark
& Mills, 1979). Communal relationships can be contrasted with exchange
relationships in which a person gives a benefit in expectation of receiving a benefit of
equal value in return or as repayment for a previously received benefit. A benefit is
?something that one person chooses to give to another which is of use to the person
receiving it,? (Clark & Mills, 1993, p. 687). For example, the relationship an auto
mechanic has with a client is an exchange relationship. If the mechanic replaces a
client?s clutch, he will expect adequate payment from that client. However, the
mechanic may replace his daughter?s clutch and not expect payment for that service.
This is because the mechanic has a communal relationship with his daughter. The
benefit of the clutch replacement was given simply because the daughter had a need.
Although a specific benefit is not expected in return for a benefit given in a
communal relationship, this does not mean that communal relationships are not
rewarding. When discussing rewards in communal relationships, it is important to
distinguish rewards from benefits. As defined earlier, a benefit is something someone
chooses to give that will be of use to the other. The fulfillment felt by the mechanic
for changing his daughter?s clutch is not a benefit to him because it was not
intentionally given by the daughter. The replacement of the clutch by the mechanic,
however, was a benefit to the daughter and to the client, as was the money given by
2
the client to the mechanic. These are each benefits because each was intended to be
useful to the other in the relationship (Clark & Mills, 1993).
A communal relationship can vary quantitatively (Mills & Clark, 1982). Two
important ways that communal relationships vary quantitatively are in certainty and
communal strength. A person is generally much more certain of a communal
relationship with an old friend or a spouse than with a stranger or new friend. The
more certain a person is of the communal relationship, the less the person will be
concerned that giving benefits to the other will be construed as desiring an exchange
relationship as opposed to a communal relationship.
Communal relationships also vary in communal strength. Communal strength
refers to ?the degree of responsibility a person feels for a particular communal
partner?s welfare? (Mills, Clark, Ford & Johnson, 2004, p. 213). The stronger the
communal strength, the more responsibility felt for the other?s welfare. The stronger
the communal strength, the more cost a person will incur to provide for the needs of
the other. A person will feel more distress or guilt for not responding to the other?s
need when communal strength is stronger. Within the hierarchy of communal
relationships, communal strength will determine whose needs will or will not be met.
If a person has two communal partners with the same need at the same time and only
one partner?s need can be met by the person, then the communal partner towards
whom the person has greater communal strength will receive the benefit.
For an example of variation in communal strength, let us return to the example
of the auto mechanic. The mechanic may help a neighbor change his oil and not
expect specific compensation, but he would probably expect compensation to replace
3
his neighbor?s clutch. While the mechanic is willing to provide a costly benefit to
one communal partner, he may not be willing to provide the same benefit to another
communal partner with whom there is a weaker communal relationship. For the
mechanic, the cost of replacing a clutch is quite high compared to the cost of an oil
change. The mechanic?s communal strength toward his daughter is sufficient for him
to replace her clutch simply to provide for her need, not expecting remuneration.
However, the communal strength toward his neighbor is probably not sufficient to
provide the benefit of replacing the neighbor?s clutch without payment for the
service. It is, however, sufficient to help the neighbor change his oil without
expectation of repayment, whereas the mechanic?s communal strength toward a
stranger would probably not be sufficient to provide the benefit of helping with the oil
change without repayment.
Figure 1 shows how the communal norm will apply as a function of the
communal relationship strength and the cost of the benefit. Need for the benefit can
also affect when the benefit will be given without expectation of repayment. For
example, the mechanic may not help a stranger put a new tire on his car without
adequate payment, but he may help the stranger change a flat on the freeway for free.
The benefit of changing the tire is essentially identical in both cases, however the
need for the benefit is greater when it is a flat on the freeway.
4
Figure 1
When a Communal Norm Applies (from Clark & Mills, 1993)
Communal strength is not the same as communal orientation (Clark, Oulette,
Powell, & Milberg, 1987). Communal orientation refers to a person?s ?general
tendency to follow communal norms in relationships? (Mills, Clark, Ford & Johnson,
2004, p. 216). It also takes into account the person?s expectation that others will
follow a communal norm when interacting with the person. In contrast, communal
strength refers to a person?s motivation to provide for the needs of a specific other.
Mills, Clark, Ford, and Johnson (2004) created a measure of communal
strength which is presented in Table 1. Items for the measure were chosen by having
participants answer potential items regarding a best friend, acquaintance, immediate
family member, and distant relative.
Very 
High
Very Low
Low
Stranger Friend Best Friend Child
High
Communal 
Norm 
Applies
Cost of 
the 
Benefit
Communal Relationship Strength
5
Table 1
The 10-Item Communal Strength Scale (Mills, Clark, Ford, & Johnson, 2004)
How far would you be willing to go to visit ________?
How happy would you feel when doing something that helps _____?
How large a benefit would you be likely to give ________?
How large a cost would you incur to meet a need of ______?
How readily can you put the needs of ____ out of your mind?
How high a priority for you is meeting the needs of ______?
How reluctant would you be to sacrifice for ________?
How much would you be willing to give up to benefit _____?
How far would you go out of your way to do something for ____?
How easily could you accept not helping ________?
Note. Items 5, 7, and 10 are reverse scored. The instructions given are as follows:
Keeping in mind the specific person, answer the following questions. As you answer
each question, fill in the person?s initials in the blank. Circle one answer for each
question on the scale from 0=not at all to 10=extremely before going on to the next
question. Your answers will remain confidential.
Responses to these items were found to be significantly different for
immediate family members and distant relatives as well as for best friends and
acquaintances. The ten items with the highest item-total correlations were included in
the measure. Mills, et al. (2004) found that their communal strength measure had a
6
strong positive correlation with ratings of subjective closeness, as well as a strong
positive correlation with participants? reports of the others? responsiveness to their
needs.
In order to show that communal strength is not the same as liking, Mills et al.
(2004) had participants fill out the communal strength measure and a liking measure
for a new, same-sex friend and a same-sex relative, each of approximately the same
age as the participant. It was found that liking and communal strength correlated
highly with each other for the new friend and also for the relative. As expected,
communal strength was significantly higher for the relative than the new friend. Also
as expected, liking was higher for the new friend than for the relative. This shows
that, though correlated, liking and communal strength are distinct constructs.
Mills et al. (2004) found that participants were more likely to give a benefit to
someone with whom they had a stronger communal relationship. Participants also
reported giving more help to, and receiving more help from, friends associated with a
stronger communal relationship. In a study of married couples, the communal
strength that the respondent indicated toward his or her spouse was strongly
correlated with the marital satisfaction reported by the spouse. The husband?s
communal strength toward his wife was significantly correlated with the marriage
satisfaction reported by the wife even when controlling for the husband?s own
communal orientation and marital satisfaction. Similarly, the wife?s communal
strength toward her husband was correlated with the marriage satisfaction reported by
the husband even when controlling for the wife?s own communal orientation and
marital satisfaction. Mills, et al.?s (2004) studies of the communal strength measure
7
dealt with communal strength toward a previously acquainted other. However, the
measure can also be used to measure the communal strength toward a new
acquaintance.
The purpose of the current study is to test some potential determinants of
communal strength. One of these is the likeability of the other. As has been shown
by Mills, et al. (2004), liking is correlated with communal strength. Generally,
people have stronger communal relationships with people they like more. This could
be because greater liking leads to an increase in the motivation to meet the other?s
needs (Mills, et al. 2004). It could also be because increased communal strength
leads to increased liking, or that liking and communal strength are both influenced by
a third, common causal variable.
In the present research, it was hypothesized that increased liking for the other
would increase communal strength toward the other. Greater liking should increase
communal strength because providing benefits to someone who is liked is rewarding.
The more liked the other is, the more positive affect will result from providing for
that person?s needs.
The idea that a person who benefits a liked other will experience positive
affect is not new. In one of the first social psychology textbooks, McDougall (1908)
stated, ?as Shand points out, when a man has acquired the sentiment of love for a
person or other object, he is apt to experience . . . joy when the object prospers.? (pg.
106). The more an individual likes another person, the more joy the individual should
feel when that person is benefited. If a person experiences positive affect when the
other is benefited, then that person should be more motivated to provide benefits to
8
the other. Since communal strength is the motivation to benefit the other when the
other has a need, an increase in liking for the other should result in an increase in
communal strength toward the other.
There are factors that could moderate the effects of liking on communal
strength. One of these is certainty about the relationship. People are generally very
certain about strong communal relationships. This is because the person can be sure
that giving benefits to the other is understood to be in fulfillment of a need (Mills &
Clark, 1982). If certainty of the communal relationship is high, then changes in liking
should have a limited effect on communal strength toward the other. For example,
the certainty of a communal relationship toward a cousin is generally quite high even
if the person is not well acquainted with the cousin. If the person happens to spend
more time with the cousin and liking for the cousin increases, communal strength still
may not increase much. This is because the certainty about the communal
relationship was high before the increase in liking. The certainty of the strength of a
communal relationship with a new acquaintance, however, is usually low. Changes
in liking should have more of an effect on communal strength in these relationships
because of low certainty about the relationship.
A second potential determinant of communal strength is the giving of a
benefit within a communal relationship. For the purposes of this study, a benefit is
defined as something that is perceived by the giver to be of use or value to the other
(Mills & Clark, 1982). Therefore, if what is given to the other is of no use to the
other, then it is not truly a benefit. If a person gives something to another, but thinks
9
the other does not have any use for what is given, then the person should not perceive
the action as giving a benefit.
It was hypothesized in this research that giving a benefit to the other would
increase the person?s communal strength toward the other. Giving a benefit to
another could increase communal strength toward the other in two general ways. One
is by affecting the person?s perception of the specific relationship. Another is by
affecting the person?s self perception. Just as certainty of the communal relationship
may moderate the effect of liking on communal strength, the effect of giving a benefit
may also be moderated by certainty.
Giving a benefit may change the person?s perception of the specific
relationship by changing the person?s expectation of being liked by the other. The
person may assume that the other will like the person more as a consequence of the
giving of the benefit. The perception of being liked by the other will increase the
person?s liking for the other (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). An increase in liking for the
other may increase communal strength for the other, as discussed previously.
Another way providing a benefit could affect the person?s perception of the
relationship is through a perceived increase in communal strength of the other toward
the person. The fact that the person gave the other a benefit in a communal
relationship may lead the person to assume that the communal strength of the other
toward the person will be greater. The perception of greater communal strength of
the other toward the person could increase the person?s communal strength toward the
other. Mills and Clark (2001) have suggested that it is a cultural norm for romantic
partners to be equal in communal strength. This norm should also apply to friends
10
and acquaintances such that an increase in the other?s communal strength toward the
person could result in an increase of the person?s communal strength toward the
other.
Giving a benefit may change the person?s perception of the relationship by
making salient that the person follows the communal norm in relation to the specific
other. Being aware that one follows the communal norm regarding the other could
increase the communal strength of the person toward the other.
The other general way that giving a benefit could affect communal strength is
through a change in the person?s self perception. When the person provides a benefit
to the other, the person?s perception of their own communal orientation may increase.
As discussed previously, communal orientation is a person?s general tendency to
follow the communal norm. When the person provides a benefit to another in a
communal relationship, the person?s general tendency to follow the communal norm
may become more salient. This increase in communal orientation could increase
communal strength toward the specific other, and it could also increase communal
strength toward someone who did not receive the benefit.
The present research investigated communal strength toward another person
with whom the participant was not previously acquainted. Participants filled out a pre
and posttest communal strength measure regarding another student. Likeability for
the other was manipulated by having the participant hear the other answer questions
in a manner designed to make the other appear likable or unlikable. In some
conditions, the participant gave advice to the other and in other conditions the
participant did not give advice, but heard someone else give advice to the other.
11
Sometimes the other indicated a need for advice and sometimes not. It was
hypothesized that communal strength would be greater toward the likeable other. It
was also hypothesized that communal strength toward the other would be greater
when the participant gave advice and the other needed advice.
12
Chapter 2: Method
Overview
Female participants were assigned to either an advisor or observer condition.
In the advisor condition, the participant listened to an audiotape of another female
student (the advisee), which made the advisee appear likable or unlikable and in need
of advice or not. The participant then recorded (scripted) advice to the advisee. In
the observer condition, the participant heard the same audiotape by the advisee and
listened to an audiotape of another participant giving the advice to the advisee. In
both the advisor and observer conditions, the participant completed a communal
strength measure and a liking measure regarding the advisee both before hearing the
advisee?s tape and after giving (or hearing) advice to the advisee.
Participants
The participants were 80 female introductory psychology students at the
University of Maryland who received extra credit for their participation. Each
participant was randomly assigned to one of eight conditions in the 2
(likable/unlikable) x 2 (advisor/observer) x 2 (high need/low need) between-subjects
design.
Procedure
Participants signed up for an experiment entitled ?Communication Among
Strangers.? Upon arrival at the lab, the participant was greeted by the experimenter
and led into a lab room where she was seated at a table on which there was a tape
recorder, a digital camera, and a tape player. After filling out a consent form, the
13
experimenter explained that the purpose of the study was to see if the communication
media makes a difference when strangers talk about personal information, and that
the current experiment would be studying communication via audiotape.
Advisor Condition
Participants in the advisor condition were told that there were two participant
conditions in the experiment, advisee and advisor. The advisee talks about a topic
that is personally relevant to her and the advisor gives advice about that topic. The
participant was told that she had been assigned to the advisor condition and that
another student who had previously been assigned to the advisee condition was asked
to talk about choosing a major. The participant was informed that she would hear an
audiotape of the advisee talking about choosing a major and then be recorded giving
advice to the advisee. The advisee would hear the tape of the advice at a future time
and give her reactions. The participant would be asked to predict how the advisee
will react when she hears the advice.
The participant was then told that she would see a photograph of the advisee
to make sure that the advisee was a stranger to her. She was shown a photograph on
the digital camera?s display of a 24 year old, female, Caucasian student. None of the
participants indicated that they knew that person.
The participant was then told that it was important for the experimenter to
control for first impressions. To do this, the participant would fill out a questionnaire
about the advisee. The participant was then given the ?First Impressions?
questionnaire which consisted of 13 questions. The first ten questions on this
questionnaire were the communal strength measure (see Table 1). The final three
14
items were the same liking measure used by Mills, et al. (2004). The liking measure
used the same response format as the communal strength measure. The questions in
the liking measure were: ?How much do you personally like ________??, ?How
annoying do you find ________??, and ?How positive is your general evaluation of
________??
Each one of the questions on the questionnaire had a blank for the advisee?s
initials previously filled in by the experimenter with the initials CS. The participant
was told to answer the questions about the advisee whose initials, CS, had been
previously filled in by the experimenter.
When the participant finished with the questionnaire, the experimenter told
her that some people find this questionnaire a little difficult to fill out at first, so the
questionnaire would be given to her again to fill out later, and the two administrations
would then be combined to get a more reliable measure.
Before hearing the advisee?s tape, the participant was told that, to get the
advisee used to talking about personal information on an audiotape, the first thing she
would hear was the advisee responding to a questionnaire. The experimenter then
handed the participant a blank questionnaire (see the Appendix). The questionnaire
included nine statements to be responded to with one of 7 answers ranging from
?Agree Strongly,? to ?Disagree Strongly.? The participant was told that the
questionnaire was only for her reference and that she did not need to fill out anything
on this questionnaire. She was then told that, when the advisee finished responding to
the questionnaire, she would immediately begin talking in her own words about
choosing a major. The participant then listened, on headphones, to one of four
15
audiotapes, all recorded by the same person. Each tape represented one of the four
conditions: Likable/High Need, Likable/Low Need, Unlikable/High Need, and
Unlikable/Low Need.
The first part of the tape consisted of the advisee?s responses to the statements
on the questionnaire designed to make her seem likable or unlikable. In the Likeable
Condition, the advisee responded as follows.
?Hi, my initials are C. S.
Item 1. I like to make new friends. Agree strongly.
Item 2. I lose my temper easily. Disagree strongly.
Item 3. I don?t like to criticize people. Agree strongly.
Item 4. I always let people know when they annoy me. Disagree strongly.
Item 5. I don?t mind apologizing when I have offended someone. Agree strongly.
Item 6. I try to go out of my way to cheer up someone who is feeling depressed.
Agree strongly.
Item 7. I don?t mind taking the blame for something done by a friend. Agree
strongly.
Item 8. I don?t like people who disagree with me. Disagree moderately.
Item 9. When people criticize me, I try to put them on the defensive, by pointing
out their faults. Disagree moderately.?
In the Unlikable Condition, the advisee responded as follows.
?Hi, my initials are C. S.
Item 1. I like to make new friends. Disagree moderately.
Item 2. I lose my temper easily. Agree moderately.
16
Item 3. I don?t like to criticize people. Disagree moderately.
Item 4. I always let people know when they annoy me. Agree strongly.
Item 5. I don?t mind apologizing when I have offended someone. Disagree
moderately.
Item 6. I try to go out of my way to cheer up someone who is feeling depressed.
Disagree slightly.
Item 7. I don?t mind taking the blame for something done by a friend. Disagree
slightly.
Item 8. I don?t like people who disagree with me. Agree moderately.
Item 9. When people criticize me, I try to put them on the defensive, by pointing
out their faults. Agree moderately.?
On the second part of the tape, the advisee talked about choosing a major. The
advisee?s need for help was manipulated by altering four sentences in the script. The
following is what the advisee said in the High Need Condition.
?Um, I guess I?m supposed to talk a little bit about choosing a major. This is
actually something that I?ve been thinking a lot about lately. I really need a
lot of help choosing a major. I don?t know what to do at all and I?m really
worried about it. I have to decide soon, though ?cuz my parents keep asking
me about it. Right now, I?m trying to decide between a couple of majors. I
really like both of them and I need to choose between the two. I?ve taken
classes in both subjects and I?ve noticed that there are some things that I really
love and there are some things that I really don?t like about both of them. It?s
been good taking the different classes ?cuz I?ve seen what the major would
17
really be like, but there are pros and cons for each of them. I?m really worried
about actually declaring a major. I feel like I don?t know a lot of people who
can help me decide.?
In the Low Need Condition, the participant heard the following.
?Um, I guess I?m supposed to talk a little bit about choosing a major. This is
actually something that I?ve been thinking a lot about lately. I don?t think I
need a lot of help necessarily. I think I know what to do, it?s just a matter of
making a decision. I have to decide soon, though ?cuz my parents keep asking
me about it. Right now, I?m trying to decide between a couple of majors. I
really like both of them and I need to choose between the two. I?ve taken
classes in both subjects and I?ve noticed that there are some things that I really
love and there are some things that I really don?t like about both of them. It?s
been good taking the different classes ?cuz I?ve seen what the major would
really be like, but there are pros and cons for each of them. I?m not really
worried about actually declaring a major. I feel like I know a lot of people
who can help me decide.?
After the participant heard the audiotape, the experimenter told her to remove the
headphones and collected the questionnaire from her. The participant was then told
that she was now ready to give her advice to the advisee. She was told that, since this
was a study of the communication media, it was important to control for the content
of her advice to the advisee. This meant that, even though the advisee spoke in her
own words, she would be given a script to use. She was told that this was so all of the
advisees receive the same advice and thus their reactions could be compared equally.
18
The experimenter then gave the participant a copy of the advisor?s script which is as
follows.
?I am going to give you some advice about choosing a major. Choosing a
major is an important decision.
There are a few places where you can go to get specific advice. One is the
career counseling center. There, you can talk to someone who can give you
advice about choosing a major. They can also help you choose your major
depending on what you want to do for your future career. They have a variety
of tests that you can take that will help clarify what your interests are. You
may find something that you would be good at that you never thought of
before.
An important thing to remember is that you can always change your mind.
After you?ve really thought about the different majors you?re interested in,
and you?re leaning towards one, go ahead and declare it to be your major.
Don?t completely get rid of your other interests, though. Keep taking classes
in other things that you are interested in. Tell yourself that every semester, or
every year, you are going to look at where you are in your major, and your
other interests, and decide if you really want to stay with it. You will soon
find out where you fit and don?t fit, and you can always keep your other
interests as a minor. Above all, don?t worry about it too much. Just keep
working at it and you will find something that?s right for you.?
The participant was instructed to read through the script on her own for a few
minutes. When she had done this, she was asked to read the script aloud once for
19
practice. She was told that the advice would only be recorded once, therefore it was
important for her to make her reading sound as natural as possible. The experimenter
then turned on the tape recorder, stated the participant?s number, and told the
participant to begin. The participant then read the scripted advice to the advisee.
When she was finished, the experimenter pressed stop on the recorder and collected
the script.
The participant was then reminded that she would be given the first
impressions questionnaire again and that it was to be filled out about the advisee. She
then filled out the ?first impressions? questionnaire consisting of the communal
strength and liking measures.
After the questionnaire was completed, the experimenter checked the
participant for suspicion by telling her that there was more to the study than she was
initially told. She was asked if she had an idea as to what that might be. Eleven
students were not included as participants in the study because they suspected that the
advisee was scripted. No participant suspected the true hypothesis of the study.
The experimenter explained why all of the information about the experiment
may not be given to a participant at the beginning of a study. The participant was told
that the experimenter was attempting to create a situation where he could get at the
spontaneous and natural reactions of the participant. She was then told the true
purpose of the experiment and asked not to divulge it. After any questions were
thoroughly answered, the participant was excused.
20
Observer Condition
The procedure for the observer condition was identical to the procedure in the
advisor condition except that, in the observer condition, the participant was told that
there are three participant conditions; an advisee, an advisor, and an observer. She
was told that she has been assigned to the observer condition, while other students
had previously been assigned to the advisee and advisor conditions. The advisee and
advisor roles were explained as in the advisor condition. The participant was told
that, as the observer, she would listen to the advisee?s tape and the advisor?s advice
and predict how the advisee will react when she hears the advice.
The participant then saw the photograph of the advisee and filled out the
communal strength and liking measures exactly as in the advisor condition. The
participant also heard the advisee?s tape exactly as in the advisor condition.
After hearing the advisee?s tape, the participant was told that she would hear
the tape of the advisor giving advice to the advisee. She was told that the advisor
used a script in order to control for the content of the advice given to the advisee.
The participant was then given the script and listened to the most recently recorded
tape of a participant in the advisor condition reading the advice. The participant then
filled out the communal strength and liking measures again, as in the advisor
condition. The participant was then checked for suspicion and debriefed as in the
advisor condition.
21
Chapter 3: Results
Scores for the two administrations of the liking measure were calculated
separately for each participant by averaging the responses to the three items after Item
2 was reverse scored. Means for the pretest and posttest measure of liking are
presented in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.
Table 2
Means for Pretest Liking
Participant?s Role
Other?s
Need
Other?s
Likeability Advisor Observer
High High 6.20 6.43
High Low 6.03 5.83
Low High 6.17 6.63
Low Low 6.30 5.70
Both High 6.18 6.53
Both Low 6.17 5.77
High Both 6.12 6.13
Low Both 6.23 6.17
Both Both 6.18 6.15
Note. n=10 in each of the eight conditions
22
Table 3
Means for Posttest Liking
Participant?s Role
Other?s
Need
Other?s
Likeability Advisor Observer
High High 7.03 7.13
High Low 4.20 3.93
Low High 6.40 6.27
Low Low 4.13 3.13
Both High 6.72 6.70
Both Low 4.17 3.53
High Both 5.62 5.53
Low Both 5.27 4.70
Both Both 5.44 5.12
Note. n=10 in each of the eight conditions
Cronbach?s Alpha was .32 for the pretest and .89 for the posttest. Scores for the
pretest and posttest were positively correlated (r = .31, p < .01).
23
The two administrations of the communal strength measure were scored for
each participant by averaging the responses to each of the ten items after Items 5, 7,
and 10 were reverse scored. Means for the pretest and posttest measure of communal
strength are presented in Tables 4 and 5 respectively.
Table 4
Means for Pretest Communal Strength
Participant?s Role
Other?s
Need
Other?s
Likeability Advisor Observer
High High 4.68 4.00
High Low 4.41 4.40
Low High 5.07 4.75
Low Low 4.33 3.68
Both High 4.88 4.38
Both Low 4.37 4.04
High Both 4.55 4.20
Low Both 4.70 4.22
Both Both 4.62 4.21
Note. n=10 in each of the eight conditions
24
Table 5
Means for Posttest Communal Strength
Participant?s Role
Other?s
Need
Other?s
Likeability Advisor Observer
High High 6.00 4.50
High Low 4.22 2.85
Low High 5.23 5.17
Low Low 3.28 2.29
Both High 5.62 4.84
Both Low 3.75 2.57
High Both 5.11 3.68
Low Both 4.25 3.73
Both Both 4.68 3.70
Note. n=10 in each of the eight conditions
Cronbach?s Alpha was .85 for the pretest and .91 for the posttest. Scores for the
pretest and posttest were positively correlated (r = .63, p < .01).
The pretest measure of liking and the pretest measure of communal strength
were positively correlated (r = .43, p < .01). The posttest measure of liking and the
posttest measure of communal strength were highly positively correlated (r = .74, p <
25
.01). These results replicate the findings of Mills, et al. (2004) that liking and
communal strength are significantly correlated.
In order to check on the manipulation of likeability, a 2 (likable/unlikable) x 2
(advisor/observer) x 2 (high need/low need) analysis of covariance was calculated on
the posttest liking measure, with the pretest measure of liking as a covariate. The
adjusted means for all eight conditions are presented in Table 6.
Table 6
Adjusted Means for Posttest Liking
Participant?s Role
Other?s
Need
Other?s
Likeability Advisor Observer
High High 7.02 7.03
High Low 4.25 4.07
Low High 6.40 6.08
Low Low 4.08 3.32
Both High 6.71 6.55
Both Low 4.17 3.69
High Both 5.64 5.55
Low Both 5.24 4.70
Both Both 5.44 5.12
Note. n=10 in each of the eight conditions
26
The main effect for likeability was the only statistically significant effect, F(1,79) =
40.88, p < .01, MSE = 3.71. The posttest adjusted mean of liking was 6.63 in the
likable condition and 3.93 in the unlikable condition. These results indicate that the
manipulation of likeability was successful.
In order to test the hypotheses, a 2 (likable/unlikable) x 2 (advisor/observer) x
2 (high need/low need) analysis of covariance was conducted on the posttest
communal strength measure, with the pretest measure of communal strength as a
covariate. The main effect of likeability was significant, F,(1,79) = 49.24, p < .01,
MSE = 1.24. The adjusted posttest communal strength mean was higher in the
likable condition (5.08) than in the unlikable condition (3.31).
The analysis of covariance also revealed a significant main effect for
advisor/observer, F(1,79) = 7.40, p < .01. This main effect was qualified by a
significant interaction between advisor/observer and need, F(1,79) = 4.12, p < .05.
There were no other significant results.
The adjusted means for all eight conditions are presented in Table 7. The
adjusted posttest for communal strength of 5.02 for the advisor/high need condition
was significantly higher than the adjusted posttest for communal strength of 4.05 for
the advisor/low need condition, (t = 2.04, p < .01). The adjusted posttest mean for the
advisor/high need condition was also significantly higher than the adjusted posttest of
3.83 for the observer/high need condition, (t = 2.51, p < .01).
27
Table 7
Adjusted Means for Posttest Communal Strength
Participant?s Role
Other?s
Need
Other?s
Likeability Advisor Observer
High High 5.81 4.80
High Low 4.22 2.86
Low High 4.76 4.93
Low Low 3.34 2.81
Both High 5.29 4.86
Both Low 3.78 2.84
High Both 5.02 3.83
Low Both 4.05 3.87
Both Both 4.54 3.85
Note. n=10 in each of the eight conditions
There was no significant difference between the adjusted posttest for the advisor/low
need and the observer/low need conditions, (t = .38). There was also no significant
difference between the adjusted posttest for the observer/high need and the
observer/low need conditions, (t = .10).
28
Chapter 4: Discussion
The results support both of the hypotheses concerning determinants of
communal strength. The hypothesis that increased liking for the other increases
communal strength was supported by the significant main effect of likeability on the
posttest measure of communal strength. Adjusted posttest communal strength was
higher for the likable other than the unlikable other. Communal strength was greater
for the likable other in the advisor condition and also in observer condition. It was
also greater for the likable other in the high need condition as well as in the low need
condition. Increased liking for the other increased communal strength toward the
other regardless of whether or not a benefit was given by the person and regardless of
the other?s need.
The hypothesis that increased liking would increase communal strength was
based on the idea that providing benefits within communal relationships is rewarding.
The person should expect to experience more positive affect from benefiting the other
the more the other is liked. Communal strength should increase because the more
rewarding it is to give benefits to the other, the greater should be the motivation to
provide benefits to the other.
The hypothesis that giving a benefit to the other would increase communal
strength was supported by the significant interaction between advisor/observer and
need. Participants who gave advice to the other who needed the advice had
significantly higher adjusted posttest communal strength toward the other than did
those who gave advice to the other who did not need the advice, as well as those who
did not give advice to the other. Adjusted posttest communal strength was not
29
significantly different for participants who gave advice to the other who did not need
the advice and participants who did not give advice to the other.
That the advisee would be perceived by the advisor as receiving a benefit
when need was high but not when need was low is based on the definition of a
benefit. As discussed previously, a benefit is defined as something that will be of use
to the other. It was assumed that participants who advised another student who did
not need advice would not see the giving of advice as a benefit because the other had
little or no use for what was given. Of course, in the observer condition the
participant did not give a benefit because nothing was given.
As mentioned in the introduction, giving a benefit could affect communal
strength in several ways. One of these is through an effect on liking. Giving a
benefit could lead the person to assume that the other likes the person more which
could increase liking for the other and thus communal strength. However, the results
for the liking measure indicate that giving a benefit did not increase communal
strength by affecting liking. For the liking measure, there was no significant main
effect of advisor/observer or interaction of advisor/observer with need. The evidence
from the liking measure indicates that giving a benefit to the other did not increase
liking for the other.
Another way the person?s perception of the relationship could be affected by
giving a benefit is that the person could assume that the other?s communal strength
toward the person has increased, which could lead to an increase in communal
strength of the person toward the other. Yet another way is that giving a benefit to
the other could make the giving of benefits within the specific relationship more
30
salient. The present study does not provide evidence which could support or refute
these possibilities.
Giving a benefit could affect communal strength by changing the person?s self
perception. Giving a benefit could make the person?s general tendency to follow a
communal norm more salient, which could increase the person?s communal
orientation. An increase in communal orientation could increase communal strength
toward the other who was benefited and also could increase communal strength
toward others who the person did not benefit. The results of this study also do not
provide evidence that could support or refute this possibility.
Understanding the determinants of communal strength is important because
communal strength can have a significant impact on people?s relationships. Mills, et
al. (2004) have shown that communal strength predicted allocation of benefits to
others. It also predicted giving help to others and receiving help from others.
Communal strength even predicted the marital satisfaction of a person?s spouse
beyond the person?s own communal orientation and marital satisfaction. The present
research advances the understanding of communal strength by providing evidence
that the likeability of the other and the giving of a benefit to the other are both
determinants of communal strength.
31
Appendix
Your Initials _________
Please answer each of the following questions about yourself as honestly as possible. Answer each
question with one of the following answers: Strongly agree, Moderately agree, Slightly agree, Neither
agree nor disagree, Slightly disagree, Moderately disagree, Strongly disagree
Item 1. I like to make new friends.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Slightly
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Item 2. I loose my temper easily.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Slightly
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Item 3. I don?t like to criticize people.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Slightly
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Item 4. I always let people know when they annoy me.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Slightly
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Item 5. I don?t mind apologizing when I have offended someone.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Slightly
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Item 6. I try to go out of my way to cheer up someone who is feeling depressed.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Slightly
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Item 7. I don?t mind taking the blame for something done by a friend.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Slightly
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Item 8. I don?t like people who disagree with me.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Slightly
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Item 9. When people criticize me, I try to put them on the defensive, by pointing out their faults.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Slightly
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
32
References
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In: D.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social
Psychology. (4
th
ed.). (Vol. 2, pp. 193-281). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal Attraction in exchange and communal
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1). 12-24.
Clark, M S. & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange
relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin. 19(6) 684-691.
Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M., & Milberg, S. (1987). Relationship type,
recipient mood, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
53, 94-103.
McDougall, W. (1960). An Introduction to Social Psychology. London: Methuen.
(Original work published 1908).
Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. In L.
Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, (Vol. 3, pp. 121-
144). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (2001). Viewing close romantic relationships as communal
relationships: Implications for maintenance and enhancement. In J. Harvey &
A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close Romantic Relationships: Maintenance and
Enhancement, (pp. 13-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mills, J., Clark, M. S., Ford, T. E., & Johnson, M. (2004). Measurement of
communal strength. Personal Relationships. 11, 213-230.