Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communal Responsiveness in Relationships with Female versus Male Family Members

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two studies of college students in the US utilized a new methodological approach in which participants arranged their multiple family members (i.e. parents, siblings, aunts, and uncles) within a series of relationship network grids. These grids measured participants’ own feelings of communal responsiveness toward and perceived feelings of communal responsiveness from each family member relative to one another. The results of Study 1 (N = 86) and Study 2 (N = 111) supported the hypotheses that (1) people perceive more responsiveness from female family members than from male family members and (2) people feel more responsive toward female than toward male family members. Study 2 provided evidence that these associations were mediated by felt and perceived intimacy, dependence, and obligation, but not liking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, B. (1968). Kinship in an Urban Setting. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Belle, D. (1987). Gender differences in the social moderators of stress. In R. C. Barnett, L. Biener, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.) Gender and stress (pp. 257–277). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkman, L. F., & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: A nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology, 109, 186–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boneva, B., Kraut, R., & Frohlich, D. (2001). Using e-mail for personal relationships: The difference gender makes. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 530–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, E. M. (1965). Parent care as a normative family stress. Gerontologist, 25, 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budaev, S. (1999). Sex differences in the Big Five personality factors: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 801–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cancian, F. M. (1987). Love in America: Gender and Self-Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, H., & Glick, P. C. (1976). Marriage and divorce: A social and economic study (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. S., & Finkel, E. J. (2004). Does expressing emotion promote well-being? It depends on relationship context. In L. Tiedens, & C. W. Leach (Eds.) The social life of emotions (pp. 105–128). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. S., & Monin, J. K. (2006). Giving and receiving communal responsiveness as love. In R. J. Sternberg, & K. Weis (Eds.) The new psychology of love (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa Jr., P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trauther (Eds.) The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 268–285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fruzzetti, A. E., & Jacobson, N. S. (1990). Toward a behavioral conceptualization of adult intimacy: Implications for marital therapy. In E. A. Blechman (Ed.) Emotions and the family: For better or worse (pp. 117–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gove, W. R. (1973). Sex, marital status, and mortality. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 45–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgeson, V. S., Shaver, P., & Dyer, M. (1987). Prototypes of intimacy and distance in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 195–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, D. P., & Eggebeen, D. J. (1995). Sources of emergency help and routine assistance in old age. Social Forces, 73, 917–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift. New York: Avon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, J. S., Robbins, C., & Metzner, H. L. (1982). The association of social relationships and activities with mortality: Prospective evidence from the Tecumseh community health study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 116, 123–140.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, N. S., & Margolin, G. (1979). Marital therapy: Strategies based on social learning and behavior exchange principles. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. L. (1983). Dyadic family relations and social support. The Gerontologist, 23, 377–382.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, R. C., & McRae, J. A. (1980). The effect of wives’ employment on the mental health of married men and women. American Sociological Review, 47, 217–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., & Wingard, D. L. (1989). The effect of occupational, marital and parental roles on mortality: The Alameda County study. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 607–612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, N. F., & McLanahan, S. S. (1993). Gender, family structure and social support among parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 481–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, S. A., & Berscheid, E. (1997). The language of love: The difference a preposition makes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 121–144). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J., Clark, M. S., Ford, T. E., & Johnson, M. (2004). Measurement of communal strength. Personal Relationships, 11, 213–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S., Holmes, J., & Collins, N. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nathanson, C. (1980). Social roles and health status among women: The significance of employment. Social Science and Medicine, 14, 463–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nydegger, C. N. (1983). Family ties of the aged in the cross-cultural perspective. The Gerontologist, 23, 26–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveri, M., & Reiss, D. (1987). Social networks of family members: Distinctive roles of mothers and fathers. Sex Roles, 17, 719–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S., & de Vries, B. (1993). Patterns of friendship for women and men in same and cross- sex relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 617–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006). Available online at http://www.dictionary.com.

  • Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of closeness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek, & A. Aron (Eds.) Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In E. T. Higgins, & A. Kruglanski (Eds.) Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 523–563). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1998). Intimacy as interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.) Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., Senchak, M., & Solomon, B. (1985). Sex differences in intimacy of social interaction: Further examination of potential explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1204–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494–509.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, C. A., & Daly, M. (1996). On the importance of kin relations to Canadian women and men. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 289–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. M., & Cottrell, C. B. (1975). The American Kin Universe: A Genealogical Study. Department of Anthropology.

  • Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624–635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, C. H. (1992). Ties that bind: Three studies of obligation in adult relationships with family. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 525–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, C. H., Wemmerus, M., Ward, V. A., Ward, M., Gaines, M. E., Freeberg, A. L., et al. (1998). “Because they're my parents”: An intergenerational study of felt obligation and parental caregiving. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 611–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroebe, M. S., & Stroebe, W. (1983). Who suffers more? Sex differences in health risks of the widowed. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 279–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 845–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troll, L. E. (1987). Gender differences in cross-generation networks. Sex Roles, 17, 751–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbrugge, L. M. (1976). Females and illness: Recent trends in sex differences in the United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 17, 387–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, B. (1992). Which kinds of ties and networks give what kinds of social support? Advances in Group Processes, 9, 207–235.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by a National Science Foundation Grant for which the second author serves as the principal investigator (BNS 9983417). The opinions expressed and conclusions drawn in the manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the National Science Foundation. We thank Ruth Virginia Fraser, Patricia Jennings, and Sherri Pataki who assisted in the collection of data from the sample of married couples and Brooke Feeney for her helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Joan K. Monin

  2. Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Margaret S. Clark & Edward P. Lemay

Authors
  1. Joan K. Monin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margaret S. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward P. Lemay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan K. Monin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Monin, J.K., Clark, M.S. & Lemay, E.P. Communal Responsiveness in Relationships with Female versus Male Family Members. Sex Roles 59, 176–188 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9420-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9420-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation