• DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53
• Corpus ID: 53320438

Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence.

@article{Rusbult1991AccommodationPI,
  title={Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence.},
  author={C. Rusbult and Julie Verette and Gregory A. Whitney and Linda F. Slovik and Isaac M. Lipkus},
  journal={Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
  year={1991},
  volume={60},
  pages={53-78}
}

• C. Rusbult, J. Verette, +2 authors I. Lipkus
• Published 1991
• Psychology
• Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

A theory of accommodation processes is advanced, and the results of 6 studies are reported. Accommodation refers to the willingness, when a partner has engaged in a potentially destructive act, to inhibit impulses to react destructively and instead react constructively. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that accommodation is lower under conditions of reduced social concern and lower interdependence. Studies 3,4, and 5 revealed that accommodation is associated with greater satis- faction, commitment, investment size, centrality of relationship, psychological femininity, and partner perspective taking and with poorer quality alternatives. Commitment plays a fairly strong role in mediating willingness to accommodate. Study 6 showed that couple functioning is asso- ciated with greater joint and mutual tendencies to inhibit destructive reactions. Study 6 also demon- strated that self-reports of accommodation are related to relevant behavioral measures. All partners in close relationships eventually behave badly. It is inevitable that in responding to the irritations and dissatisfac- tions of everyday life, one or the other partner eventually will engage in a potentially destructive act (e.g., being thoughtless, yelling at the partner, or not spending adequate time at home). How are people likely to react to such breaches of good behav- ior? Are they likely to exacerbate the problem by reacting de- structively in turn, or are they more likely to soothe ruffled feelings by reacting constructively? What makes them more willing to react constructively and inhibit destructive impulses? Do partners typically share equally in dealing with destructive content? Does feeling less involved than the partner lead to reduced willingness to react constructively? Our work ad- dresses such questions, and concerns a phenomenon that we term accommodation.' Accommodation refers to an individ- ual's willingness, when a partner has engaged in a potentially destructive behavior, to (a) inhibit tendencies to react destruc- tively in turn and (b) instead engage in constructive reactions. This article advances a general model of accommodation and presents preliminary empirical evidence regarding this phe- nomenon. We begin with a discussion of the response typology used in our model—the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect typol- ogy Then we explore the implications of conceptualizing ac- commodation using an interdependen ce analysis (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Finally, we advance several hypotheses regard- ing the causes and dynamics of accommodation and review the results of six studies that serve as preliminary empirical tests of our model. Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect Our theory of accommodation processes emerged from re- search on Rusbult's exit-voice-loyalty-neglect typology of re- sponses to dissatisfaction in close relationships (Rusbult, Zem- brodt, & Gunn, 1982). The typology is based on the writings of Hirschman (1970), who discussed three reactions to decline in formal organizations: (a) exit—actively destroying the relation- ship; (b) voice—actively and constructively attempting to im- prove conditions; and (c) loyalty—passively but optimistically waiting for conditions to improve. To assess the comprehen- siveness of this model, Rusbult and Zembrodt (1983) performed multidimensional scaling studies of couple responses to dissat- isfaction. They found that Hirschman's categories character- ized responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships, and they