Measurement of communal strength

Communal strength refers to a person’s degree of motivation to respond to a communal partner’s needs. The development and testing of a questionnaire measure of communal strength is described. Study 1 involved item selection. Studies 2 and 3 found that the 10-item communal strength measure taps a construct distinct from behavioral interdependence as measured by the Relationship Closeness Inventory of Berscheid, Snyder, and Omoto (1989) and distinct from liking for the partner. As expected, the measure correlated highly with Rubin’s (1970) Love Scale. Studies 4 and 5 found the measure predicted allocation of benefits to peers and reports of giving help to, and receiving help from, friends. Study 6 found that, when answered in relation to the respondent’s spouse, the measure predicted the spouse’s marital satisfaction, after controlling for the respondent’s communal orientation and own marital satisfaction. This paper describes the development and testing of a measure of the strength of specific communal relationships. The construct of communal strength refers to the degree of responsibility a person feels for a particular communal partner’s welfare, and the measure was designed to tap that construct. As such, it is distinct from Clark, Ouellette, Powell, andMilberg’s (1987)measure of individual differences in communal orientation. This latter measure taps differences between people in their general tendency to follow communal rules in relationships with others. Communal relationships are relationships in which members feel a responsibility for meeting the needs of communal partners and in which benefits are given noncontingently in response to partners’ needs (Clark& Mills, 1979; Mills & Clark, 1982). Communal relationships can be contrasted with exchange relationships in which benefits are given in response to comparable benefits received in the past or expected in the future. They may also be contrasted with exploitative relationships in which the person is solely motivated to gain benefits for the self without any regard for the other’s interests. Past work on the communal/exchange distinction has focused on the qualitative difference between the two relationship types (Clark, 1981, 1984, 1986; Clark, Dubash, & Mills, 1998;Clark&Mills, 1979; Clark,Mills, & Corcoran, 1989; Clark, Mills, & Powell, 1986; Clark et al., 1987; Clark & Taraban, 1991; Clark & Waddell, 1985; Pataki, Shapiro, & Clark, 1994; Williamson & Clark, 1989, 1992). However, early on Mills and Clark (1982; see also Clark & Mills, 1993) noted that there are also quantitative aspects The authors acknowledge the assistance of Sonia Lisbeth Jarama in analyzing the data of Study 1, Rob Harris and Deborah Larimer in collecting the data of Study 2, Christian Winkler in analyzing the data of Studies 2 and 5, Paula Young in analyzing the data of Study 3, and Vicki Helgeson in arranging access to the participants of Study 5. Preparation of this paper was supported in part byNational Science Foundation grant 9983417. Any conclusions or opinions expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Correspondence should be addressed to JudsonMills, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742; e-mail: [email protected]. or to Margaret S. Clark, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; e-mail: [email protected]. Personal Relationships, 11 (2004), 213–230. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright # 2004 IARR. 1350-4126/02