RESEARCH PAPER
Sacrifices of women and men in close relationships: the types and structure of sacrifices. The approach and avoidance motives for making sacrifices
1
Institute of Psychology University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
Submission date: 2020-05-12
Final revision date: 2020-11-06
Acceptance date: 2020-11-09
Online publication date: 2020-12-29
Publication date: 2020-12-18
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2020;8(4):317-328
KEYWORDS
relational sacrifacesthe sacrifice of womenthe sacrifice of menapproach-avoidance sacriface motivationrelational sacrificesapproach-avoidance sacrifice motivation
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The aim of the study was to examine what is perceived as sacrifice in close relationships by women and by men. The goal was to find out what the structure of the sacrifices is, and whether they are related to each other. The motives of sacrifice were also examined in approach-avoidance motivation theory.
Participants and procedure:
The study encompassed 144 participants (93 females aged between 20 and 50) who were asked to provide casual written accounts on what constitutes sacrifice in close heterosexual relationships and the reasons why partners in those relationships would be willing to make sacrifices. The expert judge assessment method, frequency and factor analyses were used.
Results:
The sacrifices that were most frequently reported were those linked to an individual’s professional career, sacrifices made for family reasons and giving up one’s everyday pleasures. Females more frequently make sacrifices linked to their roles within the family, while males are likely to sacrifice in changes of their lifestyle. The most common motive for sacrifice is the love motive and the least common is pressure from the outside. Women named the motive of love more frequently, while men tended to point to the willingness to improve on the quality of the relationship, their personal benefits and sense of obligation.
Conclusions:
Men and women are willing to sacrifice in close relationships by trying to alter their lifestyle from that of a single person to one that prioritizes their significant others.
The aim of the study was to examine what is perceived as sacrifice in close relationships by women and by men. The goal was to find out what the structure of the sacrifices is, and whether they are related to each other. The motives of sacrifice were also examined in approach-avoidance motivation theory.
Participants and procedure:
The study encompassed 144 participants (93 females aged between 20 and 50) who were asked to provide casual written accounts on what constitutes sacrifice in close heterosexual relationships and the reasons why partners in those relationships would be willing to make sacrifices. The expert judge assessment method, frequency and factor analyses were used.
Results:
The sacrifices that were most frequently reported were those linked to an individual’s professional career, sacrifices made for family reasons and giving up one’s everyday pleasures. Females more frequently make sacrifices linked to their roles within the family, while males are likely to sacrifice in changes of their lifestyle. The most common motive for sacrifice is the love motive and the least common is pressure from the outside. Women named the motive of love more frequently, while men tended to point to the willingness to improve on the quality of the relationship, their personal benefits and sense of obligation.
Conclusions:
Men and women are willing to sacrifice in close relationships by trying to alter their lifestyle from that of a single person to one that prioritizes their significant others.
REFERENCES (34)
1.
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self-versus others. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
2.
Berg, J. H., Piner, K. E., & Frank, S. M. (1993). Resource theory and close relationships. In U. G. Foa, J. Con-verse, Jr, K. Y. Tornblom, & E. B. Foa (Eds.), Resource theory: Explorations and applications (pp. 169–195). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
3.
Boski, P. (2009). Kulturowe ramy zachowań społecznych. Podręcznik psychologii międzykulturowej [Cultural frames of social behavior. A handbook of cross-cultural psychology]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
4.
Boski, P., Chojnowska, M., & Koziej, J. (2007). Kultura i tożsamość rodzaju: Porównania polsko-włoskie i polsko-niemieckie [Culture and gender identity: Polish-Italian and Polish-German comparisons]. Studia Psychologiczne, 45, 5–20.
5.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
6.
Day, L. C., & Impett, E. A. (2018). Giving when it costs: How interdependent self-construal shapes willingness to sacrifice and satisfaction with sacrifice in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-tionships, 35, 722–742. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265....
7.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Autonomy and need satisfaction in close relationships: Relationships moti-vation theory. In N. Weinstein (Ed.), Human motivation and interpersonal relationships (pp. 53–73). Dor-drecht: Springer.
8.
Eagly, A. H. (1997). Sex differences in social behavior: Comparing social role theory and evolutionary psy-chology. American Psychologist, 52, 1380–1383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-0....
9.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
10.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 77–94). New York: Plenum Press.
11.
Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251....
12.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1135–1149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
13.
Gable, S. L., & Reis, H. T. (2001). Appetitive and aversive social interaction. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.). Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 169–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates Publishers.
14.
Impett, E. A., Gable, S. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and benefits of daily sacri-fice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
15.
Impett, E. A., Javam, L., Le, B., Asyadi-Esghi, B., & Kogan, A. (2013). The joys of genuine giving: Approach and avoidance sacrifice motivation and authenticity. Personal Relationships, 20, 740–754. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fpere....
16.
Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., English, T., John, O., Oveis, C., Gordon, A. M., & Keltner, D. (2012). Suppression sours sacrifice emotional and relational costs of suppressing emotions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146....
17.
Impett, E. A., Le, B. M., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2014). When you think your partner is holding back: The costs of perceived partner suppression during relationship sacrifice. Social Psychological and Person-ality Science, 5, 542–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/194855....
18.
Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
19.
Mattingly, B. A., & Clark, E. M. (2012). Weakening relationships we try to preserve: Motivated sacrifice, at-tachment, and relationship quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559....
20.
Noller, P. (1996). What is this thing called love? Defining the love that supports marriage and family. Personal Relationships, 3, 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475....
21.
Powell, C., & Van Vugt, M. (2003). Genuine giving or selfish sacrifice? The role of commitment and cost level upon willingness to sacrifice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1....
22.
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). Couples’ reasons for cohabitation: Associations with individual well-being and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 233–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251....
23.
Ruppel, E. K., & Curran, M. A. (2012). Relational sacrifices in romantic relationships: Satisfaction and the moderating role of attachment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 508–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540....
24.
Sedikides, C., Oliver, M. B., & Cambel, K. W. (1994). Perceived benefits and costs of romantic relationships for women and men: Implications for exchange theory. Personal Relationships, 1, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475....
25.
Sprecher, S. (2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: Associations with satisfaction, commit-ment, and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741....
26.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1976). A macro- and micro-examination of family power and love: an exchange model. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 355–362. https://doi.org/10.2307/350394.
27.
Sprecher, S. (1985). Sex differences in bases of power in dating. Sex Roles, 12, 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0028....
28.
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Scott, S. B., Kelmer, G., Markman, H. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2017). Asymmetrically committed relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 1241–1259. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265....
29.
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Scott, S. B., Kelmer, G., Markman, H. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2019). Unequally into “US”. Characteristics of individuals in asymmetrically committed relationships. Family Processes, 58, 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.1....
30.
Totenhagen, C. J., Curran, M. A., Serido, J., & Butler, E. A. (2013). Good days, bad days: Do sacrifices improve relationship quality? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540....
31.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Agnew, C. R., Harinck, F., & Steemers, G. E. M. (1997a). From game theory to real life: How social value orientation affects willingness to sacrifice in ongoing close relationships. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 73, 1330–1344. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
32.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997b). Willing-ness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373–1395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
33.
Whitton, S. W., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2007). If I help my partner, will it hurt me? Perceptions of sacrifice in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 64–92. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2....
34.
Zoppolat, G., Visserman, M. L., & Righetti, F. (2020). A nice surprise: Sacrifice expectations and partner appre-ciation in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37, 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540....
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
| eISSN: | 2353-561X |
| ISSN: | 2353-4192 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
