Women's satisfaction in close relationships

Clinical Psychology Reviao, Vol. 8, pp. 477-498, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

WOMEN’S

1988 Copyright

SATISFACTION RELATIONSHIPS

0272-7358/88 $3.00 + .OO 0 1988 Pergamon Press plc

IN CLOSE

juciith Wore/l University

of Kentucky

ABSTRACT. A review of research on women? satisfaction in close relationships explores th paradox between the images of women in popular books that off er a d vice on relationship distress, and empirical evidence supporting women’s knowledge and expertise in the expressive/interpersonal domain. Images of women portrayed in the popular relationship literature can be characterized by three themes: (a) Ignorance (women don? know what they want); (b) Incompetence (women need to be taught how to relate in close encounters); and (c) Illusion (women and men are “intimate strangers” with distinct and polarized styles of relating). These three themes are reframed as testable hypotheses that are explored through reviews of relevant research literature on close relationships. The ignorance hypothesis is not supported, in that women haue been shown to articulate their relationship preferences in at least three areas: demonstrations of affection and caring clear communication, and equality in allocation of relationship resources. The hypothesis of incompetence is also rejected, in that women have been shown to display effective relationship skills in verbal and nonverbal communication, intimacy of self-disclosure, and social-support, all of which relate to relationship expertise and satisfaction. The intimate stranger hypothesis is explored through a sampling of relationship variables that have been shown to be irulependent of gender, including motives of intimacy and affilmtion, and personality traits related to sex roles and self-monitoring. Applications to psychotherapy with women are considered. It is concluded that attention to gender issues in therapy is essential if clinicians are to address the preferenceand power differentials that exist between women and men. The focus on gender polarities, however, must be balanced by consideration of interpersonal variables that may transcend the social stereotypes of women and men in close relationships.

We now have considerable evidence that satisfaction in our close and intimate relationships is highly correlated with psychological and physical well-being. So-

Portions of this article were presented as the Presidential address, Division 12, Section 4 (Clinical Psychology of Women), given at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, August, 1987. Requests for reprints should be sent to Judith Worell, University of Kentucky, 235 Dickey Hall, Lexington, KY 40506.

477

478

J

Wore11

cial support researchers are currently focusing on concepts have known for years-that the availability of individuals network

who can offer us tangible

assistance,

emotional

that psychotherapists in our interpersonal

support,

and companion-

ship is an essential ingredient for a satisfying life-style. In particular, interpersonal transactions that provide us with respect, caring, concern, empathy, love, intimacy, and personal affirmation can contribute in meaningful ways to our reported

happiness

and

sense

of well-being.

Supportive

relationships

can

influ-

ence our response to environmental stress, self-esteem, feelings of self-efficacy, resistance to loneliness and depression, symptoms of physical distress, and resilience in the face of serious illness and disability (Cohen & Syme, 1985; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Goodenow, 1985; Leavy, 1983; Reis, 1984; Sarason & Sarason, 1984; Sarason et al., 1987). In addition to specific indices of well-being, there is evidence that our overall satisfaction with life is highly correlated with subjective assessments of the state of our close relationships (Diener, 1984; Freedman, 1978). In one study, unhappy people mentioned love more than any other ingredient believed would make them happy (Freedman, 1978). to measure their close relationships, in every domain

as the one element that they Women, in particular, tend

well-being in life in terms of the strength and quality of their whether these be with kin, spouse, lover, or friends. Clinicians, of practice are aware that women presenting themselves for

psychotherapy, although issues of life transition,

offering symptoms of depression, predominate in their concern

eating disturbances, or for their close relation-

ships-either in terms of finding them, understanding them, untangling them, changing them, repairing them, or escaping them. Women’s hunger for personal intimacy, emotional support, and quality interaction has not escaped attention in the public domain. In the past few years, the popular media has flooded the market with advice manuals designed to guide us in the management of our close relationships. These books attempt to interpret the sources of our relationship distress and provide advice on how to improve our romantic encounters. As we become more savvy, we should become more satisfied. In examining a sample of popular books on intimate relationships, I was struck by a conspicuous paradox between the images of women in relationships portrayed by these books and our research knowledge about women’s styles of relating. The purpose of this article is to examine some of the salient images of women in close relationships that appear in a sample of popular paperbacks, and to consider these images within the framework of recent research. The review covers first, definitions of the two central concepts of Satisfaction, and Close Relationships. Second, three major images or themes of women in close relationships are outlined, that I have labeled (a) Ignorance; (b) Incompetence; and (c) Illusion. I reframe each of these images into testable hypotheses and examine their validity by means of relevant research on women’s close relationships. Implications for treating women and men in the context of relationship distress are drawn. In this review, I suggest that clinicians who recommend these manuals be aware of potentially destructive stereotypes and overgeneralizations. The consideration of gender as a variable in close relationship requires that we maintain a reasonable balance between a recognition of the qualities those that confirm our similarities.

that may differentiate

women

and men and

Satisfaction in Women’s Relationships

RELATIONSHIP The concept of relationship satisfaction happiness, success, quality, cohesion,

479

SATISFACTION

has been studied in depth in the context of or adjustment. In this discussion, relation-

ship satisfaction refers to cognitive and affective evaluations of specific attachments with respect to our expectations, preferences, and conceptions of our ideal relationships. Satisfaction has been studied mainly within marital dyads, usually comparing distressed and nondistressed couples. Although couple satisfaction is it is important to assess relationship variables of interest for certain purposes, separately in each member of the dyad if we are to come to a fuller understanding of women as individual participants in their close relationships. Researchers have only recently explored the variables that contribute to satisfaction

in intimate

tionships (Rubin, 1985); cohabiting Braiker, & Kelley, (Peplau, Cochran,

relationships other than marriage. Peplau, & Hill, 1981; Rusbult,

These include 1980; Sternberg

dating rela& Barnes,

relationships (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Cunningham, 1982; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1985; 1986); lesbian relationships Rook, & Padesky, 1978; Peplau, Padesky, & Hamilton, 1982);

mother-daughter relationships (Davidson & Cotter, 1982; Newsome, 1984); and the platonic relationships we call friendship (Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Winstead, 1984; Worell, Romano, faction in these varied

& Newsome, relationships

1984). There is reason to believe that satismay be mediated by different variables ac-

cording

of the dyad.

Some

to the

nature

of these

variables

include

ethnic

and

socioeconomic background, gender of partner, stage of the relationship, personality traits of each partner, degrees of intimacy, sexual involvement, and public commitment to long-term enactment of role behaviors implied by the marital contract. Additionally, the measurement of satisfaction ranges from one-item Likert-type ratings (How satisfied are you in this relationship?) to well-standardized scales, several of which are multifactored. Therefore, the evaluation of satisfaction may vary with the character of the relationship as well as the method of assessing

satisfaction. CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS

In an extensive

review

of recent

theory

and research,

Kelley

et al. (1983)

relationship as close to the degree that two persons’ behaviors or causally determined by the behavior of the other. Therefore, ty, and diversity of interactions are considered. In contrast,

defined

a

are interdependent, frequency, intensiother writers have

emphasized the quality of the dyadic interactions, including the degree of felt attachment, intimacy, trust, self-disclosure, and mutual support. The present discussion defines women’s close relationships as those that the individual

expects will provide

her with

respect,

intimacy,

caring,

concern,

sup-

port, and affection, and that she expects will have some endurance over time. This definition discriminates close friendships from casual ones, which do not contain expectations of dyadic intimacy (Perlman & Fehr, 1987; Reisman, 1981). It also differentiates close friendships from romantic attachments, which include the additional components of sexual passion, exclusiveness, and commitment (Sternberg, 1986). By defining a close relationship in terms of expectations of intimacy, it becomes clear that we may experience attachments and view a relationship as close without receiving the expected benefits of that relationship. The conceptual

480

J.

separation

of felt attachment

Wore11

and expectations

of intimacy

supports

suggestions

that in heterosexual dyads in particular, his relationship and her relationship be different kinds of experiences (Bernard, 1972; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982). IMAGES Why should clinicians intimate relationships?

OF WOMEN

may

IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS

be concerned with the proliferation of pop manuals We know that the majority of consumers of these books

women, even those books presumably written for men (Farrell, women are now reading these prescriptive manuals, diagnosing and following some standard scripts for relationship success. professional community has been cooperating in this enterprise

on are

1986). Millions of their deficiencies, A portion of the by recommending

these books to their clients and providing workshops based on one of these catchy titles. A representative sample of books includes the following: Women who love too much (Norwood, 1985); S mart women, foolish choices (Cowan & Kinder, 1985); Men who hati women and th women who love them (Forward & Torres, 1986); Why men are the way they are (Farrell,

1986); S uccessful women, angry men (Campbell, 1986); Women men love, women men leave (Cowan & Kinder, 1987). The images of women across these how-to-do-it manuals are varied, but they carry a clear message: That women are responsible for the pain in their relationships as well as for the joy. The accompanying message is that women have only themselves to blame for their malaise. One author casts women in the mold of the love junkie who is addicted to men as well as to pain. If we are one of these women, we create the pain we endure in relationships and we interpret the extent of our love by the depth of our pain (Norwood, 1985). Another author turns us into paper doll cinderellas, helplessly waiting to be saved and cared for (Dowling, 1981). Yet another book points to our ambition and competence as a threat to men vultures, who mouth inti(Campbell, 1986). 0 r we are depicted as hypocritical macy and equality while shamelessly thus setting the stage for the dilemmas

seeking diamonds and economic security, in which we find ourselves (Farrell, 1987).

In each case, the author recognizes a valid relationship issue for women, and then places the blame on the woman for having allowed herself to become involved in this painful

situation.

ATTRIBUTIONS At the images women

OF IGNORANCE,

INCOMPETENCE,

AND

ILLUSION

I have abstracted three themes from these risk of overgeneralization, of women that perpetuate the attitude of blame. These themes portray in close relationships in terms of (a) ignorance, (b) incompetence, and (c)

illusion. In the remainder of this article, I will restate these themes in the form of questions or hypotheses that can be evaluated through an examination of the relevant research literature. We can then consider the validity of each theme and can explore its contributions to our understanding of both women and men in close relationships. Ignorance First, women are portrayed as ignorant in relationships, in not knowing what they want and what will make them happy. I will explore this hypothesis through an examination of the literature on relationship satisfaction. Can women articulate

Satisfaction in Women’s Relationships

481

their relationship needs ? What interpersonal variables contribute to women’s relationship satisfaction? Do women and men report different sources of relationship satisfaction? Incompetence

Second, it is suggested that women are incompetent in relationships, lacking the skills or “savvy” that would enable them to initiate and maintain a positive and satisfying liaison with an intimate other. The implication from these books is that women can be more successful in close relationships if they just learn how to select the “right” man and manage to deal with him effectively. The voluminous research literature on interpersonal skills will be selectively summarized to evaluate the hypothesis that women are deficient in interpersonal skills. Illusion

Third, these books reinforce women’s illusion with respect to heterosexual relationships by emphasizing the polarity between women and men, such that gender becomes the important marker of relationship style. The popular literature seduces women into believing that women and men are indeed “intimate strangers” (Rubin, 1983). The intimate stranger hypothesis, stemming from object relations theory, states that women and men have fundamentally different personality structures. As a function of early experiences, women and men develop very different ways of relating to others. Women enter relationships seeking attachment and intimate, emotional connection, while men avoid intimacy and engulfment by suppressing their feelings and taking refuge in psychological distancing (Chodorow, 1978; Fine, 1985; Rubin, 1983). The contrasting hypothesis, reflecting social psychological theory, proposes that gender is an artificial variable in personal relationships. Accordingly, socialization experiences, situational expectations, gender stereotypes, and male-female gender arrangements, may each contribute to the self-presentation strategies that determine the course of interpersonal interactions (Deaux, 1984; Deaux & Major, 1987; Morowski, 1987; Reis, Senchak, & Solomon, 1985). From this point of view, gender is a social variable and therefore primarily a construction in the eyes of the actor and of the beholder. Women and men behave differently primarily as they see and believe themselves to be different. The intimate stranger hypothesis will be examined by a consideration of relationship variables that may be independent of gender. Are there important needs, skills, and dispositions that appear to be distributed similarly between the two sexes? Is the illusion of a bipolar world of relationship attributes supported by the literature on specific relationships variables? INTEGRATION Finally, I will consider the implications of the research on women’s relationship satisfaction, skills, and dispositions for clinical understanding and practice. How useful, for example, is the conception of “his” and “her” relationship for application to personal or couples counseling? Should we ignore gender as a variable in close relationships and focus only on individual or relationship determinants of satisfaction or distress? It is the intention of this article to explore these questions

482

J

in the context popular

of the attributions

of women

in close relationship

proposed

by the

media.

HYPOTHESIS If the ignorance

1: IGNORANCE-EMPIRICAL hypothesis

women’s reports effects of gender, tionship tionship

wore11

APPROACHES

holds up, we should

of relationship so that women

expect

TO SATISFACTION

to find little consistency

satisfaction. Further, there should and men will be indistinguishable

in

be no stable in their rela-

values, their reports of satisfaction, and the variables that produce reladistress. Finally, there should be no differences in source of satisfaction in

women’s relationships ered here: Studies

with men or with other on marital satisfaction,

women. Two data bases are considand on satisfaction in same-sex

friendships. Marital

Satisfaction

Taking a look first at gender that reported sex differences ences appear in marital than are men (Campbell,

issues in relationship are generally small.

satisfaction Converse,

satisfaction, Nevertheless,

it should be noted when these differ-

studies, women are less likely to be satisfied & Rodgers, 1976; Komorovsky, 1967; Rhy-

ne, 1981), regardless of wife’s employment status (Locksley, 1980). Sources of women’s marital dissatisfaction relevant to the focus of this article include three major issues: Companionship and demonstrations of affection (Wills, Weiss, & Patterson, 1974), verbal and nonverbal communication patterns (Noller, 1987), and amount of perceived control or dominance by spouse (Hawkins, Weisberg, & Ray, 1980; Madden & Janoff-Bulman, 1981). That is, in many marital relationships, women indicate a preference for increased verbal and nonverbal demonstration of affection, more direct communication of personal content and feelings, and equality in decision-making and control of resources. Although affection and companionship rank high in relationship value for both women and men (Cochran & Peplau, likely to report receiving less of each

1985; Levinger, 1964), women are more commodity than they desire. In Noller’s

(1987) studies using videotapes of marital interaction, wives who were low in marital satisfaction had husbands with low rates of positive communications. These wives reported wanting more appreciation, affection, and attention than they received. In the sample studied by Wills, Weiss, and Patterson (1974), wives in distressed marriages desired more demonstrations of affectional behavior, while husbands wanted an increase in instrumental acts. In a comprehensive study on young married couples, Parelman (1983) reported that wives gave greater emphasis in the relationship to emotional involvement and self-disclosure than did the husbands. Women clearly attach importance to affection and communication and appear to rate their relationships lower in satisfaction when these ingredients are missing or inadequate. Increasing attention to the dimension of autonomy and control in relationships highlights a movement toward change in expectations. Although marital arrangements in which women are reported to be the “dominant” partner or superior in status variables are less likely to be evaluated as satisfying by both partners than are husband-“dominant” marriages (Gray-Little & Burks, 1983; Yogev, 1987), some recent research points to an increase in women’s desire for autonomy and

483

Satisfaction in Women’s Relationships

equality

in relationships.

In

a study

using

both

interviews

and

audiotapes

of

marital interaction, Hawkins, Weisberg, and Ray (1980) found that wives wanted less controlling behaviors from their spouses and perceived their husbands to be more controlling than the men believed themselves to be. In a similar vein, perceived lack of control in the resolution of marital conflict was associated with increased dissatisfaction for wives in an interview study by Madden and JanoffBulman (1981). Rachlin and Hansen (1985) reported that in a sample of dualcareer couples, perceived equity in the relationship was positively correlated with wives’, but not husbands’ marital satisfaction and personal well-being. Finally, Schaefer and Burnett (1987) recently showed that low levels of perceived marital relatedness and high levels of spousal control and detachment were associated with increasing “demoralization” over a period of three years in a sample of lowincome women with young children. Thus, as women remain in relationships that fail to provide satisfying levels of communication, affection, and autonomy, personal well-being suffers. It is not difficult to conclude from the data reported to be aware of what relationship factors are important

above that women appear to their satisfaction and

well-being in marital arrangements. High priority across studies is reported for relationships that provide affection and emotional support, self-disclosure or open communication, and equality and autonomy between partners. The hypothesis that women are “ignorant” about their relationship needs and values in marriage is clearly not supported. Since most of the evidence on these variables was obtained from studies same-sex friendships that contribute

on distressed marital relationships, I now turn to studies on among women for additional consideration of the variables

to relationship

satisfaction.

Friendship Satisfaction In contrast to the marital literature, research on women’s same-sex friendships suggest that women are more satisfied in their close friendships than are men, Women tend to feel closer to their female friends, and report these friendships to be more intimate, self-disclosing, and emotionally Schill, 1984; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Davidson 1984; Aries & Johnson, 1983; Weiss & Lowenthal,

supportive

(Burda,

Vaux,

&

& Duberman, 1982; Hays, 1975; Worell, Romano, & Newsome, 1984). Interestingly, many men also tend to prefer women as friends (Bell, 1981) and report feeling less lonely when they can spend quality time with a woman friend (Wheeler, Reis, & Nezlak, 1983). In exploring the characterisitics of women’s friendships that contribute to rela-

tionship satisfaction, two factors are prominent. First, there is a relatedness or communal factor, and second, an autonomy or equality factor. Research on women’s same-sex friendships suggest that they can be described as both communal and relatively equal. The concept of communal relationships is an extension of It describes an interpersonal Bakan’s (1966) dichotomy of basic human motives. style that is oriented toward connection with others by means of self-expression and self-disclosure, as well as by focus and concern for others rather than self. The communal approach encourages the surrender of unilateral control over others in interpersonal exchanges, since communal values motivate the individual toward cooperation and egalitarian exchange in relationships (McAdams, Healy, & Krause, 1984).

Focusing first on the communal level, researchers report that women friends prefer to spend their time in face-to-face talking, particularly about personal issues, family, and their other close relationships (Booth & Hess, 1974; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Wh ee 1er & Nezlack, 1977; Wright, 1982). Women, more than men, tend to describe their close friendships in terms of sharing, self-disclosure, intimacy, and expression of personal feeling (Winstead, 1984). Second, women tend to describe their close friendships with other women as relatively equal in terms of power, decisions, and distribution of resources (Goodenow, 1985). In laboratory studies on reward allocation, which assess patterns of dividing finite resources, women are more likely than men to share according to principles of equality rather than of equity (Kahn & Gaeddert, 1985). That is, each partner receives an equal share of whatever relationship resources are available, regardless of individual abilities or relative contributions. In contrast, equity distributions tend to capitalize on individual differences by distributing resources according to skill and relative input. Relationships based on equity considerations emphasize hierarchy or status between the partners, thus increasing psychological distance. Each of these two provisions of a close friendship, port and equality/autonomy in interaction, appear women’s relationships with other women. Integrating

communal/emotional supto be important factors in these qualities of same-sex

friendship with the components of women’s satisfaction in marriage, it appears that women’s relationship satisfaction increases as they (a) give and receive communal support and nurturance, (b) experience intimacy, and (c) perceive the relationship to be relatively equal and reciprocal. THEORETICAL How

do these

formulations

APPROACHES of women’s

TO SATISFACTION

satisfaction

in

marital

and

same-sex

friendships coincide with more formal theories of relationship satisfaction? Social exchange theory is concerned with the manner in which people attempt to maximize their outcomes in interpersonal transactions and the nature of resources that people exchange with one another (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Social exchange theories, in general, propose that satisfaction in relationships is a function of three variables: rewards provided by the relationship; costs of maintaining the relationship; and generalized expectations or comparison level with other past or similar relationships (Rusbult, 1980). Although social exchange theories were not formulated around concepts of gender, there is substantial research to suggest that gender is a factor in the exchange of resources. That is, gender issues may influence

the perception

of rewards,

costs,

and level of comparison.

Reward Variables The

evaluation

of rewards

gained

in the relationship

may be different

for females

and males, such that intimacy and love may not have the same connotations for women and women and men. Caldwell and Peplau (1982) f ound that college-age men stated an equal desire for intimate friendships, but men’s description of what they did with an intimate friend differed considerably from women’s reports of friendship activities. In talking to their intimate friends, men were more likely to focus on activities, while women were more likely to focus on sharing personal information. As a result of discrepant standards for comparison of intimacy in

Satisfaction in Women’s Relationships

friendship, be

men may be satisfied

dissatisfied

unless

they

485

with lower levels of intimacy,

interpret

the

intimacy

level

while women

to be

relatively

may high

(Caldwell & Peplau, 1982). Other examples of differences in interpretation of rewards in close relationships may be found in some of the recent work on the concept of love. Using a six-style model of love developed by Lee (1973) several studies have found that women differed from men on at least three of these styles, being more pragmatic, euphoric, and companionate (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Hendrick, Hendrick, Foote, & Slapion-Foote, 1984). Th us, although women and men may both report similar degrees of love in a relationship, they may be referring to different experiences and they may be rewarded by relationship variables that are differentially weighted by gender considerations. It is possible, then, that we might have “his love” and “her love” (Dion & Dion, 1985). Similar discrepancies in the interpretation of close relationships have been reported by Sternberg and his colleagues, examining the components of love (Sternberg, 1986; Sternberg & Barnes, 1985; Sternberg & Grajek, 1984). These researchers found that women report loving equally their female best friend and their male lover, but liking their best friend better than their male lover! In contrast, college men reported loving and liking their female lover better than their best male friend. Perhaps some of these contrasts in loving and liking are related to differing standards for cognitive judgments about what constitutes love, friendship, and intimacy. In evaluating their relationship satisfaction, women also placed greater emphasis on feelings of love, both their own and their perception of their partner’s feelings of love. Women’s but not men’s relationship satisfaction was highly correlated (r= .64) with their love score on the Rubin love scale, their perception of their partner’s degree of love, and their liking of their partner. These compelling data suggest that women’s valuing or conceptualization of relationship love as a rewarding resource may well differ from that of her male counterpart. Studies conducted at the University of Kentucky on close friendships and romantic attachments, found that women’s satisfaction was highly correlated with a rewarding relationship characterized by both receipt of communal support as well

as with

the

amount

of communal

support

she

provided

her

partner

(Worell, Romano, & Newsome, 1984; Lange & Worell, 1988). Women and men tended to define emotional support or nurturance differently, with women emphasizing the more egalitarian, feeling, and giving components, and men focussing on dominant and problem-solving components of support (Moeschl, 1985). These separate groups of studies imply how rewarding their relationships subtle

gender-correlated

attributes

that simply asking groups of women and men have been may fail to tap some of the more of relationship

reward.

Cost Variables Women and men may also interpret the costs of relationships differently. For example, in some studies on reward allocation, women not only share the available resources more equally than do men, but they tend to over-benefit their partner at the expense of their own outcomes. This over-benefit effect occurs even when performance levels are similar (Major, 1987). Major attributes women’s willingness to accept unequal outcomes to their lower sense of personal entitle-

ment and deservingness. Believing that one satisfied with less in interpersonal transactions.

deserves

In attempting to understand the equity phenomenon, sizes that a woman’s willingness to accept higher costs

less,

one

accepts

Major further in relationships

and

is

hypothemay be

explained by belief in a just world, or by her efforts to maintain a sense of control over her environment. That is, when individuals are treated unfairly but believe they have no control over their outcomes, they convince themselves that they are entitled to less and that they thus deserve the subordinate share. In this way, women maintain cognitions that deny their subordinate position. The phenomenon of entitlement may underlie women’s greater willingness to surrender dyadic control in close relationships with males than with their female friends or lovers. That is, as a group, women seek reciprocal relationships with their female friends and romantic report higher (Gray-Little

partners. In marital relationships, satisfaction in husband-dominant & Burks,

Social Comparison

however, many women than in wife-dominant

tend to dyads

1983).

Variables

Major (1987) further proposes that women’s willingness to settle for less may be accounted for by social comparison effects. Applied to social exchange theory, this hypothesis implies that women develop expectations for outcomes based on what they observe in the relationships of their referent group of other women. This social comparison analysis seems appropriate to explain marital arrangments in which women assume the larger share of home and child-care tasks but continue to evaluate the relationship as equitable and satisfying (Steil, 1983). Women may thus be satisfied with less reward and higher costs in male-female relationships by observing the outcomes of other women’s close relationships and by computing their expected

outcomes

accordingly.

CONCLUSION about what What can we conclude about hypothesis 1, that women are ignorant and same-sex they want in close relationships. ? It seems clear that the marital friendship data coincide in selecting similar dimensions of relatedness and equality. It also seems clear that on both dimensions, women may have more difficulty in meeting their needs for these relationship qualities within a heterosexual relationship. Social exchange theory suggests that the dynamics of relationship vectors may induce women to deny or submerge their relationship needs in heterosexual dyads, leading to feelings of dissatisfaction and demoralization in the relationship. It is certainly not clear that women are unaware of what they want in heterosexual relationships, as compared to same-sex friendships, but they may often be willing to settle for less than they would prefer. Women’s experiences in close heterosexual relationships may resemble one of two scenarios: satisfaction with what the relationship has to offer because she really expects no more from her partner than she receives, or disillusionment and frustration with the relationcloseness, and cooperative interaction ship because she expects more connection, than she experiences.

487

Satisfaction in Women’s Relationships

HYPOTHESIS The that

second women

hypothesis drawn need to develop

2: INCOMPETENCE

from the popular or increase their

facilitate more satisfying relationships. search literature is whether women,

The question in comparison

competence in responding to others. The considerable literature on this topic considered to be essential to social communication skills, self-disclosure,

relationship interpersonal

covers

manuals proposes skills in order to

to be examined in the reto men, lack interpersonal

a range

of interpersonal

skills

intimacy, including verbal and nonverbal and social-emotional support behaviors.

The range of interpersonal competence can be further broadened by considering skills important for resolving relationship distress, including problem-solving, assertiveness, and conflict resolution skills. For the purposes of this discussion, I will limit the consideration of Hypothesis 2 to communication skills, self-disclosure, and social support, since these represent a set of competencies that underlie most interpersonal transactions. COMMUNICATION

SKILLS

Verbal Transactions Most

of the studies

experimental

on verbal

communication

dyads or groups.

These

results

have observed may well differ

women

and men

from verbal

in

commu-

nication between intimates. Several reviews of the research on communication styles in same-sex and cross-sex interactions point out that women’s interactional behavior may vary with the size and sex-composition of the group (Aries, 1987; dyads or groups, women are Henley, Hamilton, & Thorne, 1985). I n mixed-sex less likely than men to dominate the discussion, to interrupt others, to initiate interaction, or to talk disproportionately. In all female groups, women tend to interact more in dyads, to give supportive statements, and to avoid dominant communications. the other person,

In heterosexual initiate more

dyads, women ask more questions to draw out interaction, and use more filler statements and

“backchanneling” (urn-hm) to keep the conversation going. Aries (1987) concludes that in their communication styles, women, more than men, tend to be “socio-emotional, expressive, supportive, facilitative, cooperative, personal, and egalitarian” (p. 170). She points out, however, that these gender differences disappear

may be moderated or be reversed under

Nonverbal

Communication

Based

on comprehensive

by personal and some conditions.

reviews

of gender

situational

differences

contexts,

in nonverbal

and

may

behavior

(Aries, 1987; Hall, 1984, 1987; Hall & Halberstadt, 1986; Henley, 1977; Henley, Hamilton, & Thorne, 1985), some broad conclusions can be drawn. In comparison to men, women tend to be higher in both encoding skills (sending clear messages) and decoding skills (interpreting the message and intention of the other). Women are more likely to judge accurately the meaning of nonverbal interpersonal cues, to recognize familiar faces, to coordinate or be congruent in their verbal and nonverbal messages, to smile at others, to hold eye contact (gaze), to expose emotion in facial expressions, to face others when interacting, and to use

488

J. wore11

more proximal behaviors (closeness and touch). All these behaviors, although not entirely influenced by gender, clearly support the competence and skilled performance

of women

in interpersonal

encounters.

Integration In an attempt

to integrate

the receptive

and expressive

aspects

of social

skills into

a single metric, Riggio (1986) recently developed the Social Skills Inventory. This multifactor assessment was designed to represent three variables: expressivity (encoding), sensitivity (decoding), and control (self-presentation and social manipulation) in both emotional and social contexts. In coordination with the results reported above, Riggio found that on his 105-item scale, women scored significantly higher on four of the six factors of emotional and social expressivity and sensitivity. Men, in comparison, scored higher on control and social manipulation skills. SELF-DISCLOSURE In contrast

to the

research

on communication,

which

examines

structure

and

style, studies on self-disclosure tend to focus on content and meaning. Derlega (1984) defined self-disclosure as “the process by which one person lets herself or himself be known by another person” (p. 2). Altman and Taylor’s (1983) social penetration theory suggests that self-disclosure deepens and becomes more intimate as relationships develop. Indeed, the literature on intimacy focuses on the use of self-disclosure as a precursor to the development of close relationships (Clark & Reis, 1988). Overall findings on degree and depth of self-disclosure suggest that women in close relationships disclose more on topics of intimate and personal concerns, while men tend to disclose on more distal topics such as sports, business, and 1983; Derlega, Durham, Gockel, & Sholls, group activities (Aries & Johnson, 1981; Hendrick, 1981; McCarthy, 1986). 0 n a self-report questionnaire, Aries higher frequencies of and Johnson (1983) f ound that women friends reported doubts and fears, family problems, religion, and discussing personal issues, shared activities. Men talked more about sports. Wheeler, Reis, and Nezlak (1983) used a daily interaction record to have college students report on social contacts over a two-week period, and to rate these contacts on intimacy, selfdisclosure, pleasantness, and satisfaction. Ratings of interaction quality among male same-sex interactions was significantly lower on all four measures than for females’ ratings, and this difference remained even when only best friends’ interactions were considered. Similar results were reported in a followup study by Reis, Senchak, and Solomon (1985). For both women and men, marital satisfaction is influenced by self-disclosure, but more for disclosure of feelings than of facts (Fitzpatrick, 1987; Hendrick, 1981). Although these findings are moderated by variables such as sex of partner, depth of relationship, and individual traits (see next section), they do support women’s general ability to reveal personal concerns as a path toward increasing and maintaining interpersonal intimacy. SOCIAL Women support.

SUPPORT

have been found to be both the major providers and consumers of social Broadly conceived, social support refers to the provision of resources that

Satisfaction in Wommk Relationshi@

489

are intended to enhance the well-being of the recipient (Shumaker & Brownell, 1984). Measures of social support have included such factors as emotional support, tangible assistance, information, and directive guidance (Stokes & Wilson, 1984). In a series of studies comparing interrelationships among social support measures, Sarason et al. (1987) concluded that the common factor in social support is “the extent to which an individual is accepted, loved, and involved in relationships in which communication is open” (p. 813). Women tend to seek social support more frequently than do men, and use more sources, such as children, friends, family, spouse, or professionals. Men, in contrast: tend to rely heavily on one major source of support, their wives (Belle, 1987). As providers, women are sought out disproportionately by others. In comparison to men, they are named as confidant or close intimate more frequently by children, spouse, friends, and kin. In a sample of college men, loneliness was reduced by spending more “meaningful)) time with a female friend (Wheeler, Reis, & Nezlak, 1983). In dyadic interactions with a close friend, women were more likely than men to communicate affirmation, enthusiasm, empathy, and to provide supportive statements (Caldwell & Peplau, 1982). Husbands report receiving support and understanding more than do wives (Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976). The accumulated evidence, then, suggests that women as a group have multiple skills and resources in the provision of social support to others. The negative side of providing extensive social support, however, is the stress that it engenders in the provider. Belle (1987) suggests that women’s role in the provision of social support may result in a “support gap” in heterosexual relationships. Women who perceive that they give to a man more than they receive from him may experience personal “demoralization and depression,” and less relationship satisfaction (Worell, Romano, & Newsome, 1984). Women’s greater utilization of professional counseling may reflect both the outcomes of an overload in taking care of others, as well as women’s belief that when relationships undergo conflict or change, it is their responsibility to resolve the difficulties. Popular relationship manuals that focus on women’s incompetence in resolving interpersonal conflict may further the accumulated stress and may add to women’s belief that they are to blame for their difficulties. CONCLUSIONS The explanations for gender differences in social and emotional competencies that appear consistently across a range of studies remain inconclusive. Gender-status theory proposes that women, being the subordinate group, use compliant and accommodating behavior to appease the powerful and dominant other (Henley, 1977). Hall (1987) points out that women are more affiliative, and may develop behaviors that attract others to them for mutual attention and warmth. Aries (1987) suggests that differences in male and female subcultures during the developmental years promote different rules for communication and self-presentation, such that women and men may indeed speak a different language. Reis, Senchak, and Solomon (1985) support this last view, adding that men’s approach to selfdisclose and intimacy may be more complex than women’s, leading to more individual variations in choice and interpretation. Regardless of the theoretical underpinnings, the accumulated research is clear in supporting the competent interpersonal behavior of women in close relation-

490

ships.

J

It is therefore

relationship skills.

distress

possible because

to reject they

lack

HYPOTHESIS The third hypothesis

capitalizes

wore11

Hypothesis sufficient

2,

that

women

or appropriate

experience interpersonal

3: ILLUSION

on the intimate

relationships, and reinforces women’s beliefs responsible for their relationship distress. The emphasis on polarities in female-male

stranger that

approach

gender

to heterosexual

differences

relationships

will be

alone

are

examined

through a consideration of relationship variables that may be independent of gender. Individual differences in relationship styles in two major areas are considgender-related group ered: needs or motives and personality traits. Although differences are commonly that situational, sex-role, individual

found in both areas, and social desirability

many studies have demonstrated variables are robust predictors of

responses. RELATIONSHIP

MOTIVATION

The role of two motivational concepts, intimacy motive have been studied in the context of close relationships.

and

McAdams

as “a recurrent

and his associates

define

intimacy

motivation

affiliation

motive,

prefer-

ence or readiness for experiences of close, warm, and communicative interaction with others” (McAdams, Healy, & Krause, 1984, p. 45). In a series of studies in which intimacy motivation was assessed by TAT stories scored for communal themes, strong support was obtained for the relationship of intimacy motivation to indices of communal social behavior. Across both women and men, individuals who scored high on intimacy and loving and less dominant

motivation were rated by their peers as more warm and self-centered (McAdams, 1980). These individ-

uals also demonstrated less distancing and more egalitarian behavior in a role play situation (McAdams & Powers, 1981), expressed more positive affect in interper1983) scored higher on Rubins’ Love sonal settings (McAdams & Constantian, more personal self-disclosure as well as Scale (McAdams, 1980), and reported taking the role of the listener in friendship interactions (McAdams, Healy, & Krause, 1984). Furthermore, males who scored high on intimacy motivation were more dyadic in their friendship interactions and reported higher marital satisfaction at midlife than those who scored low in intimacy motivation (McAdams & Vallient, 1982). McAdams (1984) emphasizes that individuals who are high in intimacy motivation are more likely to seek egalitarian relationships because they are oriented toward relinquishing personal control in their close interactions.

Affiliation Similar findings were recently reported by Hill (1987). On his multifactor measure of need for affiliation, which assesses the incentive value of relationships, the need for emotional support and interpersonal stimulation was positively related in

Satisfaction in Women’s Relationships

both women and men to the amount sets of studies support the importance gender

in explaining

relationship

491

of self-disclosure and empathy. Both of these of examining relationship factors other than

satisfaction.

PERSONALITY

TRAITS

Secondly, a number of studies have examined personality correlates of interpersonal relating and partner satisfaction in close relationships. Sex-role typology, self-monitoring, and a variety of miscellaneous correlate with relationship orientation.

characteristics

have been

shown to

Sex Roles Moderately personality

robust findings have been found for the contributions of sex-role traits of femininity, masculinity, and androgyny to both interaction Regarding the femininity score as a rough relationship satisfaction.

skills and measure of interpersonal correlations of femininity (Bern,

Martyna,

DeFrank, Helmreich, with

self-reported

positive setting

& Watson,

Spiegel, 1978).

munal support with satisfaction

warmth and nurturance, researchers report scores with nurturant behavior in a laboratory

1976), transmission of nonverbal cues (Zuckerman, 1982) and interpersonal empathy (Spence & & Larrance, Both the femininity and androgyny measures also correlate

emotional

intimacy

(Williams,

1985)

in close friendships (Worell, Romano, in marital and partner relationships

with

provision

& Newsome, (Antill, 1983;

Aiken, 1984; Bradbury & Fincham, 1988; Coleman & Ganong, Chassin, & Zeiss, 1985). In many of these studies, gender takes personality traits and their associated interpersonal skills. Sex-role considerations may also contribute women and men in self-disclosure. Lombard0

of com-

1984), and Baucom &

1985; Cooper, a back seat to

to the differences found between and Levine (1981) reported that

androgyny, as measured by the Bern Sex-Role Inventory, was a better predictor than gender of intimate self-disclosure to both peer and parent. Where sex difference in self-disclosure is found, it may reflect preference rather than ability. Derlega and his associates (1981, 1984, 1985) h ave proposed that individuals may choose to reveal parts of themselves that are consistent with gender stereotypes, desire to control the relationship, self-presentation strategies, and the understanding that self-disclosure may lead to increased risk and exposure to hurt. Derlega (1984) makes the point that self-disclosure, by its nature, increases personal vulnerability, and that this state of emotional being is inconsistent with the male stereotyped social role. Self-disclosure strategies that threaten to expose personal vulnerability may be less preferred by the partner who wishes to maintain power and control over the relationship. Reis, Senchak, and Solomon (1985) tested five hypotheses regarding the origins of sex differences in self-disclosure, and concluded that self-presentation, observed differences.

rather

than

ability

deficits

in males,

may

account

for

Self-Monitoring Snyder and his associates (1986, 1987) h ave proposed that are predictive of individual behavior in close relationships.

self-monitoring styles They maintain that

high

to close

and low self-monitors

adopt

two distinct

orientations

relationships.

J. Word

High

self-monitors

attempt

to adapt

differentially

to each

situation,

avoid

close

and committed relationships, prefer to change dating partners frequently, and develop intimacy slowly, if at all. In contrast, low self-monitors prefer to develop and maintain close and committed relationships, experience greater affective attachment, and are more likely to develop intimacy within a stable relationship. These

authors

report

a series of studies

with respect to relationship romantic partners. Snyder

that support

the self-monitoring

construct

preference and behaviors with both close friends and and Simpson (1987) also propose that low self-moni-

tors may remain longer in committed relationships and will be more distressed when the relationship is dissolved. Self-monitoring as a personality style suggests another dimension in which women and men may be more alike than different in their

relationship

Miscellaneous In addition

behaviors.

Traits to sex roles and self-monitoring,

a variety

of other

personality

traits

have been correlated with experiences and behavior in close relationships. Dion and Dion (1985) investigated such variables as locus of control, self-esteem, defensiveness, and self-actualization. Each of these trait characteristics was predictive of particular

skills and preferences

in close attachments,

negating

the primacy

of

gender as an organizing factor. The more involved and intensely attached person was likely to be external in locus of control, low in self-esteem, low in defensiveness, and low in self-actualization. These are some of the characteristics that might describe the person who “loves too much,” and who would experience relationship

distress

following

loss. SUMMARY

In summarizing this review of the affective and expressive variables that contribthere is little support for the simple ute to women’s relationship satisfaction, images of women that are portrayed in popular manuals. Women appear to be well aware that the dimensions of communal support, effective communication, and equality/autonomy contribute in important ways to their relationship satisfaction. Women have been both verbal and nonverbal

found to demonstrate multiple interpersonal domains that theoretically should contribute

skills in to their

ability to initiate and maintain satisfying partner relationships. Women and men are also similar on many relationship characteristics that deny their separate domains as relating partners and provide some disconhrming evidence for the intimate stranger hypothesis. Although there is considerable support in the literature for expectations of intimacy and personal sharing in close relationships that are correlated with gender, the research reviewed here also suggests that gender dichotomies may be less useful in understanding intimate interactions than are the specific needs, motives, intentions, and skills that each partner brings to the dyad. It is certainly imperative that we continue to explore how women and men contribute to their values, and strategies that influclose relationship with particular expectations, ence their perceptions

of satisfaction.

Satisfmtion in Women’s Relationships

IMPLICATIONS From

a feminist

perspective,

493

FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY

it should

be recognized

that gender

be erased easily from the psychology of interpersonal folly to ignore the issues of power and control that

concerns

cannot

relationships. It would be threaten to intrude on all

interpersonal relationships, and on male-female interactions in particular (Henbelieve that gender-based roles and ley, 1977; Unger, 1979). Many f eminists behaviors serve to maintain a social order based on power and control of resources. By ignoring gender issues in relationships, the therapist may function to support power differentials that impede women’s achievement of relationship satwomen’s greater attention to isfaction (Hare-Mustin, 1986). F rom this viewpoint, relationship issues represents a survival strategy in the face of relative powerlessness in relationships with men. Hare-Mustin (1986), writing in the context of family therapy, emphasizes that because of the power differential implicit in malefemale transactions, we cannot proceed on a “genderless” therapy. What Each

are the implications

of the themes

of these

discussed

above

findings

contains

for psychotherapy a kernel

of important

with

women?

content

that

can be brought to bear in the therapeutic setting. First, women may enter therapy presenting themselves as confused, uncertain, and “going crazy.” Some evidence from the psychological literature suggests that women may be more self-critical 1983) and may tend to resolve interpersonal than men (Carver & Canellen, conflict through and men would

self-blame (Frank, McLaughlin, benefit from an understanding

& Crusco, 1984). Both women of how sex-role socialization and

expectations may be influencing their current behavior. Rather than focus on the deficits and dysfunction emphasized by the pop relationships manuals, therapists might reinforce women’s help-seeking behavior and reframe it by pointing out their positive contributions to the provision and utilization of social support, thereby transforming weakness into strength. Second, women who seek counseling are frequently high in anxiety and depression and low in self-esteem

and self-efficacy.

focusing on their potential relationship taker of the relationship, and a search

Therapists

strengths-their for interpersonal

possess. These interventions tend to reframe tualizations, and help transform self-blame unassertive or nondirect manner in problem

can assist these women

by

traditional role as careskills that the client does

deficit messages into positive concepinto self-awareness. Behaving in an situations may be the expression of a

communal approach to a relationship. A woman’s efforts to reach consensus may be seen as a communal strategy rather than a self-defeating dysfunction. Her tendency to use “manipulation” can be viewed as lack of dyadic power rather than a personality disorder. Her efforts to keep the relationship going can be considered in the light of women’s social role expectations rather than a reflection of her essential

masochism.

CONCLUSlONS In returning to the questions asked at the start of this discussion, there are no clear answers if we seek either to emphasize or to erase gender considerations in close relationships. The gender dichotomy is carried to its extreme by some popular advice givers, who seem to place the burden on women for maintaining and mending their personal relationships. I would close my comments with a plea

J. Wore11

494

that as researchers and therapists we continue to monitor our own belief systems about gender differences in interpersonal behaviors, and the extension of these beliefs into our professional activities. As researchers, we should be aware that the field of personal relationships is a relatively new one and that gender issues, as they interact with relationship concerns, have been minimally explored. There is a wide open arena for the exploration of women’s experiences of intimacy, nurturante,

and

emotional

support,

as well as women’s

use

of influence

and

power

tactics in close dyadic relationships. As clinicians, we need to bring women as well as men into contact with their mutual needs for both interpersonal influence and intimacy. I suspect that we see many women and men clients with deficits in both areas. If clinicians do not participate

directly

in the process

by which

feels equally supported and equally behavioral and expressive skills that

each

partner

in a close

relationship

heard, we may well miss the nuances of contribute to each partner’s sense of well-

being. The politics of gender suggest, however, that stereotyped expectations for ourselves and our clients need to be addressed in all our therapy. Otherwise, we will ignore the subtle and pervasive messages with which we all develop and function in American society. In the process of considering the role of gender in women’s close relationships, I hope we can take ourselves and our clients beyond the men who love too little and the women who love too much.

a step

REFERENCES Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). S o&l penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Antill, J. K. (1983). Sex role complementarity vs. similarity in married couples. Journal of Personality and So&l Psychology, 45, 145-155. Argyle, M., & Furnham, A. (1983). S ources of satisfaction and conflict in long-term relationships. Jownal of Marrbge and the Family, 45, 48 l-493. Aries, E. (1987). Gender and communication. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender. Review ofpersonality and social psychology, 7. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Aries, E. J., & Johnson, F. L. (1983). Close friendships in adulthood: Conversational content between same-sex friends. Sex Roles, 9, 1183-1196. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality ofhuman existence. Chicago: Rand McNally. Baucom, D. H., & Aiken, P. A. (1984). Sex role identity, marital satisfaction, and response to behavioral marital therapy. Journal Consultingand Clinical Psycholou, 52, 438-444. Bern, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C, (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 34, 1016-1023. Bell, R. R. (1981). Worlds offriendship. Beverly Hills: Sage. Belle, D. (1987). Gender differences in the social moderators of stress. In R. C. Barnett, L. Biener, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress. New York: The Free Press. Bernard, J. (1972). Thefuture of marriage. New York: Bantam Books. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). A merican couples: Money, work and sex. New York: William Morrow. Booth, A., & Hess, E. (1974). Cross-sex friendships. Journal of Marriap-e and the Family, 36, 38-47. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1988). Individual difference variables in close relationships: A contextual model of marriage as an integrative framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 721-731. But-da, P. C., Jr., Vaux, A., 6t Schill, T. (1984). S ocial support resources: Variation across sex and sex role. Peuonality and So&l Psychology Bulletin, 10, 119-126. Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). S ex differences in same sex friendship. Sex Roles, 8, 721732. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. I. (1976). The quality ofamerlcan life. New York: Sage. Campbell, B. M. (1986). Successful women, angry men. New York: Random House.

of

Satisfaction in Womenk Relationships

495

Carver, C. S., & Ganellen, R. J. (1983). Depression and components of self-punitiveness: High standards, self-criticism, and over-generalization. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 92, 330-337. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology ofgender.Berkeley: University of California Press. Clark, M. S., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. In M. R. Rosenweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review ofPsycholou, 39, Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc. Cochran, S. D., & Peplau, L. A. (1985). Value orientations in heterosexual relationships. Psycholou of Women @arter(y, 9, 477-488. Cohen, S., & Syme, S. L. (1985). S octal support and health. New York: Academic Press. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357. Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. H. (1985). L ove and sex-role stereotypes: Do macho men and feminine women make better lovers. Journal ofPersonality and So&l Psychology, 49, 170-l 76. Cooper, K., Chassin, L., & Zeiss, A. (1985). The relation of sex-role self concept and sex-role attitudes to marital satisfaction and persona1 adjustment of dual worker couples with preschool children. Sex Roles, 12, 227-241. Cowan, C., & Kinder, M. (1985). S mart women, foolish choices: Finding the right men and aooiding the wrong ones. Clarkson Potter. Cowan, C., & Kinder, M. (1987). Womenmen love, women men leave. NY Summit Books. Cunningham, J. D., Braiker, H., & Kelly, H. H. (1982). Marital status and sex differences in problems reported by married and cohabiting couples. Psychology qf Women Qurterb, 6, 415-427. Davidson, L. R., & Duberman, L. (1982). Friendship, communication and interpersonal patterns in same-sex dyads. Sex Roles, 8, 809-822. Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1982). Adjustment to aging and relationships with offspring. Psychological Reports, 30, 730-738. Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade’s research on gender. American Psychologist, 39, 105-l 16. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369-389. Derlega, V. J. (1984). Self-disclosure and intimate relationships. In V. J. Derlega (Ed.), Communication, intimacy, and close relationships. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Derlega, V. J., Durham, B., Gockel, B., & Shells, D. (1981). S ex differences in self disclosure: Effects of topic content, friendship, and partner’s sex. Sex Roles, 7, 433-447. Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., Wong, P. T. P., & Hynter, S. (1985). Gender effects in an initial encounter: A case where men exceed women in disclosure. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 2, 25-44. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575. Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1985). Personality, gender, and the phenomenology of romantic love. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Se% situation, and social behavior. Review of Personality and Social Psychology Series. New York: Sage. Dowling, C. (1981). The cinderella complex: Women’s hiddenfear ofindependence. NY Random House. Farrell, W. (1986). Why men are the way thy are. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fine, M. (1985). Reflections on a feminist psychology of women. Psych.olo~ of Wonen Quarterb, 9, 167-183. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1987). Marriage and verbal intimacy. In V. J. Derlega &J. Berg (Eds.), Self disclosure: Theory, research and therapy. New York: Plenum. Forward, S., & Torres, J. (1986). M en who hate women and the women who love them. New York: Bantam Books. symptom distress, and Frank, S. J., McGlaughlin, A. M., & Crusco, A. (1984). S ex-role attributes, defensive style among college men and women. Journal ofPersonali& and Social Psychology, 46, 182192. Freedman, J. (1978). Happy people: What happ iness is, who has it, and why. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Goodenow, C. (1985). Women’sfriendships and their assoctation with psychologicaLwell-being. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA, August. Gray-Little, B., & Burks, N. (1983). Power and satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique. Psycological Bulletin, 93, 5 13-538. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressiue style. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

496

J.

Wore11

Hall, J. A. (1987). On explaining gender differences. In P. Shaver bt C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender. Review ofpersonality and social psychology, 7, Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt (1986). S mi I’m g and gazing. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Lynn (Eds.), 7’he psycholoQ ofgender: Advances through mtmanalysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hare-Mustin, R. (1986). The problem of gender in family therapy theory. Family Process, 26, 1533. Hawkins, J. L., Weisberg, C., 8r Ray, D. W. (1980). Sp ouse differences in communication style: Preference, perception, behavior, Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 42, 585-593. Hays, R. B. (1984). The development and maintenance of friendship. Journal Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 75-98. Hendrick, S. S. (1981). Self-disclosure and marital satisfaction, Journal OfPersonality andSocial Psychology, 40,1130-1159. Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholou, 50, 392-402. Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S., Foote, F. H., & Slapion-Foote, M. J. (1986). Do men and women love differently? Journal Socialand Personal Relationships, 1, 177-195. Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Henley, N., Hamilton, M., & Thorne, B. (1985). Manspeak and womanspeak: Sex differences and sexism in communication, verbal and nonverbal. In A. G. Sargent (Ed.), Beyond Sex Roles. New York: West Publishing Company. Hill, C. A. (1987). Affiliation motivation: People who need people but in different ways. Journal oj Personality and So&d Psychology, 52, 1008-1018. Kahn, A. S., & Gaeddert, W. P. (1985). F rom theories of equity to theories ofjustice: The liberating consequences of studying women. In V. E. O’Leary, R. K. Unger, & B. S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, Gendel; and So&l Psychology. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum. Kelley, H. H., Bercheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J, H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintack, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman. Komorofsky, M. (1967). Blue-collar marrkzge. New York: Vintage Books. Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J, P. (1985). Interaction of sex-role self-concept with relationship quality and relationship beliefs in married, heterosexual cohabiting, gay, and lesbian couples. Journal of Personality and So&l Psychology, 51, 365-370. Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1986). Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual, married, heterosexual cohabiting, gay and lesbian relationships. Journal OfPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 71 l-720. Lange, S., & Worell, J, (1988). Women’ssatisfaction in same and cross-gender romantic relationships. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kentucky. Leavy, R. L. (1983). Social support and psychological disorder: A review. Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 3-21. Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors ofloue: An exploration ofthe ways ojlouiq. Don Mills, Ontario: New Press. Levinger, G. (1964). Task and social behavior in marriage. Sociom@, 27, 433-448. Locksley, A. (1980). On the effects of wives’ employment on marital adjustment and companionship. Journal ojMarr+e and the Family, 42, 337-346. Lombardo, J. P., & Lavine, L. 0. (1981). S ex-role stereotyping and patterns of self-disclosure. Sex Roles, 7, 403-412. Madden, M. E., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1981). Blame, control, and marital satisfaction: Wives’ attributions for conflict in marriage. Journal ojMar&ge and the Family, 43, 663-674. Major, B. (1987). Gender, justice, and the psychology of entitlement. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.) Sex andgender. Review of Personality and Social Psychology Research: 7. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McAdams, D. P. (1980). A thematic coding system for the intimacy motive. Joumal Research in Personality, 14, 413-432. McAdams, D. P. (1984). Human motives and personal relationships. In V. J. Derlega (Ed.), Communication, intimy, and close relationships. New York: Academic Press. McAdams, D. P., & Constantian, C. A. (1983). Intimacy and affiliation motives in daily living. An experience sampling analysis. Journal of Personality andSocial Psycholo~, 45, 851-861. McAdams, D. P., Healy, S., & Krause, S. (1984). S ocial motives and patterns of friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 828-838. McAdams, D. P., & Powers, J. (1981). Themes of intimacy in behavior and thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 573-587.

of

of

of

Satisfaction in Women? Relationships

497

McAdams, D. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1982). Intimacy motivation and psychosocial adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal ofPersonalip Assessment, 46, 586-593. Friendship behaviors and perceptions McCarthy, B. (1986). Dyads, cliques, and conspiracies: within long-established social groups. In R. Gilmour, & S. Duck (Eds.), The Emerging Field of Personal Relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. doctoral Moeschl, M. (1985). The effects ofgende r and sex-role on prototypes of nurturance. Unpublished dissertation, University of Kentucky. Morowski, J, G. (1987). The troubled quest for masculinity, femininity, and androgyny. In P. Shaver and C. Hendricks, Sex and gender: Review ofpersonalityand soctil psychology, 7, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Newsome, T. (1984). The relationshipbetween life satisfactionand the quality ofelderlyfemales’closest relationship with peers and daughters.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky. Noller, P. (1987). Nonverbal communication in marriage. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Norwood, R. (1985). Women who love too much. New York: Simon & Schuster. Parelman, A. (1983). Emotional intimacy in marriage. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Peplau, L. A., Cochran, S., Rook, K., & Padesky, C. (1978). Loving women: Attachment and autonomy in lesbian relationships. Journal ofSocial Issues, 3, 7-27. Peplau, L. A., Padesky, C., & Hamilton, M. (1982). Satisfaction in lesbian relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 8, 23-35. Perlman, D., & Fehr, B. (1987). The development of intimate relationships. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration. New York: Academic Press. Rachlin, V. C., & Hansen, J. C. (1985). The impact of equity or egalitarianism on dual career couples. Family Therapy, 12, 151-164. Reis, H. T. (1984). Social interaction and well-being. In S. Duck, & R. Gilmore (Eds.), Repairing personal relationships..5. New York: Academic Press. Reis, H. T., Senchak, M., & Solomon, B. (1985). S ex differences in the intimacy of social interaction: Further examination of potential explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psycfwlogy, 48, 1204-1217. Reisman, J. M. (1981). Adult Friendships. In S. Duck, & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal Relationships, 2. London: Academic Press. Rhyne, D. (1981). Bases of marital satisfaction among men and women. Journal OfMarriage and the Family, 43, 941-955. Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and So&l Psychology, 51,

649-660. Rubin, L. B. (1983). Intimate strangers: Men and women together. New York: Harper & Row. Rubin, Z., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1981). L oving and leaving: Sex differences in romantic attachments. Sex Roles, 7, 821-835. Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Satisfaction and commitment in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186. Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1984). S o&l support: Theory, research, and applications. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague: Holland. Sarason, B. R., Shearin, E. N., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1987). Inter-relationship of social support measures: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 52, 813-832. Schaefer, E. S., & Burnett, C. K. (1987). Stability and predictability of quality of women’s marital relationships and demoralization. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 53, 1129-l 136. Shumaker, S. A., & Brownell, A. (1984). T oward a theory of social support: Closing conceptual gaps. Journal ofSocial Issues, 40, 1 l-36. Snyder, M., & Simpson, J. A. (1987). Orientations toward romantic relationships. In D. Perman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Snyder, M., & Smith, D. (1986). Personality and friendship: The friendship worlds of self-monitoring. In V. Derlega & B. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and so&l interaction. New York: SpringerVerlag. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity a&femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents.Austin: University of Texas Press.

498

J

wore11

Steil, J. M. (1983). Marriage: An unequal partnership. In B. Wolman & G. Stricker (Eds.), Handbook ofFamily and Marital Therapy. New York: Plenum. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135. Sternberg, R. J., & Barnes, M. L. (1985). Real and ideal others in romantic relationships: Is four a crowd? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1586- 1608. Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). Th e nature of love. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 49, 312329. Stokes, J, P., & Wilson, J, D. (1984). Th e inventory of socially supportive behaviors: Dimensionality, prediction, and gender differences. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 981-990. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The so&l psychology ofgroups. New York: Wiley. Unger, R. (1979). Female and male: Psychological perspectiues. New York: Harper & Row. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Bersheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. New York: Allyn & Bacon. Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Weiss, L., & Lowenthal, M. F. (1975). Life course perspectives on friendship. In M. F. Lowenthal, M. Urnhur, D. Chiriboga (Eds.), Four Stages OfLife. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wheeler, L., & Nezlak, J. C. (1977). S ex differences in social participation. Journal ofPersonality and So&d Psychology, 35, 742-754. Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Nezlak, J. (1983). Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 943-953. Williams, D. G. (1985). Gender, masculinity-femininity, and emotional intimacy in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 12, 587-600. Wills, T. A., Weiss, R. L., & Patterson, G. R. (1974). A behavioral analysis of the determinants of marital satisfaction. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 802-811, Winstead, B. (1984). Sex differences in same-sex friendships. In V. J. Derlega, & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and so&l interaction. New York: Springer-Verlag. Worell, J., Romano, P., & Newsome, T. (1984). Patterns ofnurturance in same and cross-genderfriendships. Paper presented to the first Nag’s Head Conference on sex and gender, Nag’s Head, NC. Wright, P. H. (1982). Men’s friendships, women’s friendships, and the alleged inferiority of the latter. Sex Roles, 8, l-20. Yogev, S. (1987). Marital satisfaction and sex-role perception among dual-earner couples. Journal of So&l and Personal Relationships, 4, 35-45. Zuckerman, M., DeFrank, R. S., Spiegel, N. H., & Larrance, D. T. (1982). Masculinity-femininity decoding of nonverbal cues. Journal OfPersonalip and Social Psychology, 42, 548-556.