Sex Roles

, Volume 37, Issue 5–6, pp 361–379 | Cite as

The Balance of Power in Romantic Heterosexual Couples Over Time from “His” and “Her” Perspectives

  • Susan Sprecher
  • Diane Felmlee


In this investigation, the balance of power between men and women in romantic relationships was examined with a sample of 101 heterosexual couples, some of whom were surveyed up to jive times over a four-year period. A majority of the participants (who were primarily Caucasian and middle class) reported some imbalance in power in their relationship (53% of the men and 52% of the women on a global measure of power; 67% of the men and 65% of the women on a measure of decision making). The longitudinal data indicated that perceptions of power were quite stable over time. When power imbalances in relationships occurred, the male partner was more likely than the female to be seen as the power holder, although these differences were statistically significant only for men (full sample). In support of W. Waller's “principle of least interest” [(1937) The Family: A Dynamic Interpretation, New York: Gordon], being the less emotionally involved partner in the relationship was associated with greater power. We further found that men were more likely than women to perceive themselves as the less emotionally invested partner. Perceptions of power balance were generally unrelated to either relationship satisfaction or to the likelihood that the couple broke up over time. In one exception, men who perceived their relationship to be equal in power (but not decision making) reported the highest level of satisfaction. We conclude that the balance of power still often favors men in these romantic couples (especially in decision making), although couples do not always agree on their perceptions, with male partners tending to see more male dominance than females.


Decision Making Social Psychology Longitudinal Data Middle Class Full Sample 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blumberg, R. L., & Coleman, M. T. (1989). A theoretical look at the gender balance of power in the American couple. Journal of Family Issues, 10, 225–250.Google Scholar
  2. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
  3. Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1984). The balance of power in lesbian relationships. Sex Roles, 10, 587–599.Google Scholar
  4. Centers, R., Raven, B. H., & Rodrigues, A. (1971). Conjugal power structure: A reexamination. American Sociological Review, 36, 264–278.Google Scholar
  5. Corrales, C. G. (1975). Power and satisfaction in early marriage. In R. E. Cromwell & D. H. Olson (Eds.), Power in families. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Cromwell, R. E., & Olson, D. (Eds.). (1975). Power in families. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Felmlee, D. H. (1994). Who's on top? Power in romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 31, 275–295.Google Scholar
  8. Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Bassin, E. (1990). The dissolution of intimate relationships: A hazard model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 13–30.Google Scholar
  9. Filsinger, E. E., & Thoma, S. J. (1988). Behavioral antecedents of relationship stability and adjustment: A five-year longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 785–795.Google Scholar
  10. Foa, U., & Foa, E. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  11. Gillespie, D. L. (1971). Who has the power? The marital struggle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 445–458.Google Scholar
  12. Grauerholz, E. (1987). Balancing the power in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 563–570.Google Scholar
  13. Gray-Little, B., & Burks, N. (1983). Power and satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 513–538.Google Scholar
  14. Hendrick, S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98.Google Scholar
  15. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  16. McCormick, N. B., & Jesser, C. J. (1983). The courtship game: Power in the sexual encounter. In E. R. Allgerer & N. B. McCormick, Changing boundaries: Gender roles and sexual behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  17. Murstein, B. I., & Adler, E. R. (1995). Gender differences in power and self-disclosure in dating and married couples. Personal Relationships, 2, 199–209.Google Scholar
  18. Olson, D. H., & Cromwell, R. E. (1975). Methodological issues in family power. In R. E. Cromwell & D. H. Olson (Eds.), Power in families. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Peplau, L. A. (1979). Power in dating relationships. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  20. Peplau, L. A. (1984). Power in dating relationships. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  21. Peplau, L. A., & Campbell, S. M. (1989). Power in dating and marriage. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Ross, E. A. (1921). Principles of sociology. New York: Century.Google Scholar
  23. Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1969). Family sociology or wives' family sociology: A cross-cultural examination of decision-making. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 290–301.Google Scholar
  24. Scanzoni, J. (1965). A note on the sufficiency of wife responses in family research. Pacific Sociological Review, 8, 109–115.Google Scholar
  25. Sprecher, S. (1985). Sex differences in bases of power in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 12, 449–462.Google Scholar
  26. Waller W. (1937). The rating and dating complex. American Sociological Review, 2, 727–734.Google Scholar
  27. Waller, W. (1938). The family: A dynamic interpretation. New York: Gordon.Google Scholar
  28. Waller, W. W., & Hill, R. (1951). The family, a dynamic interpretation. New York: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wood, J. T., & Duck, S. (1995). Off the beaten track: New shores for relationship research. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Sprecher
    • 1
  • Diane Felmlee
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyIllinois State UniversityNormal
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of California-DavisDavis

Personalised recommendations