The Desire for Power and Romantic Commitment in LGBTQ Relationships

The term power refers to the ability of an individual to influence other people or control resources (e.g., Cheng et al., 2013; Simpson et al., 2015; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Considerable research has examined issues surrounding power in heterosexual relationships (see Agnew & Harman, 2019, for a review), and some studies have begun to consider the implications that the desire for power may have for the functioning of these relationships (e.g., Traeder & Zeigler-Hill, 2020). In contrast, the role that power may play in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) romantic relationships has received little empirical attention. Our goal for the present study was to consider whether the extent to which an individual who is involved in an LGBTQ relationship desires additional power in that relationship was associated with their commitment as well as the possibility that this association would be mediated by perceptions of the relationship (i.e., relationship satisfaction, investment, and quality of alternatives) or moderated by perceptions of power.

Power exists within romantic relationships as a dynamic process between partners (e.g., Simpson et al., 2015). That is, power within a romantic relationship is specific to that particular context and may have little connection to the power that an individual wields in other domains. For example, a janitor who spends their days feeling somewhat powerless at work may exert a tremendous amount of power in their interactions with their romantic partner when they return home each evening. Issues surrounding power have been shown to permeate nearly every aspect of romantic relationships and play fundamental roles in the dynamics surrounding these relationships (e.g., Agnew & Harman, 2019). The ability of individuals who are involved in romantic relationships to accomplish many of their goals will almost inevitably depend to some degree on the cooperation of their romantic partners because their lives are often so profoundly entwined (Overall et al., 2016). Power has important implications in romantic relationships because it is often expressed through domination of the decision-making process (Cromwell & Olson, 1975; Minieri et al., 2014), which may involve a range of issues, including financial decisions (e.g., Vogler, 1998), the division of labor within the household (e.g., Wong, 2012), and sexual behavior (e.g., Menger et al., 2015; Pulerwitz et al., 2000). In addition, power has implications for other aspects of romantic relationships, including the likelihood of intimate partner violence (e.g., Choi & Ting, 2008; Overall et al., 2016), communication patterns between partners (e.g., Dunbar & Bernhold, 2019; Solomon & Roloff, 2019), the frequency and intensity of romantic conflict (e.g., Overall et al., 2011), and the likelihood of infidelity (e.g., Berman & Frazier, 2005).

Gender is entwined with the power dynamics of heterosexual romantic relationships (Felmlee, 1994; Gray-Little & Burks, 1983; Sprecher & Felmlee, 1997). Heterosexual individuals from Western cultures often report having a clear preference for a relatively equal balance of power in their relationships (e.g., Sprecher & Felmlee, 1997), and there has been consistent support for the various benefits that are associated with involvement in power-balanced relationships including greater intimacy and stability (e.g., Centers et al., 1971; Falbo & Peplau, 1980; Galliher et al., 1999; Peplau & Campbell, 1989; cf. Gray-Little, 1982). Despite these expressed preferences for the equitable sharing of power in heterosexual romantic relationships, women still tend to have less power in these relationships than men (Felmlee, 1994; Gray-Little & Burks, 1983; Sprecher & Felmlee, 1997). One explanation for this pattern is that prescriptive gender roles may create power imbalances that favor men in heterosexual relationships (e.g., Anderson & Umberson, 2001; Eagly et al., 2000; Rudman & Kilianski, 2000). These power imbalances may be exacerbated by socioeconomic conditions (e.g., income disparities between men and women) that increase the likelihood that women may be at least somewhat dependent upon their male partners for financial security (e.g., Barnett, 2000; Rusbult & Martz, 1995).

People in relationships with unequal distributions of power may want additional power if they think their partner has more power. Being at a power disadvantage is often undesirable because it reduces the likelihood that individuals will be able to behave in accordance with their own preferences (Galinsky et al., 2003; Keltner et al., 2003). Therefore, it is not surprising that people who think they have relatively little power tend to report less favorable views of these relationships (Caldwell & Peplau, 1984) and are more likely than other individuals to experience a range of adverse outcomes that include mental health issues (Filson et al., 2010) and intimate partner violence (Bentley et al., 2007).

Issues surrounding power are strongly associated with how people view their relationships (see Simpson et al., 2019, for a review). For example, individuals who are dissatisfied with their level of power in a relationship tend to have negative views of that relationship (e.g., Traeder & Zeigler-Hill, 2020). A prominent approach for conceptualizing romantic relationship functioning is the Investment Model (Rusbult, 1980, 1983). The basic idea at the core of the Investment Model is that individuals will be more committed to their current romantic relationships (i.e., feelings of psychological attachment to a relationship as well as the intention to continue in the relationship; Rusbult et al., 2006) if they consider the relationship to be satisfying, believe they have a substantial investment in the relationship, and perceive a lack of desirable alternative romantic partners (see Rusbult et al., 1998, for an extended discussion). There has been considerable empirical support for the Investment Model in diverse couples over the decades (e.g., married couples, dating couples; see Le & Agnew, 2003, for a review).

LGBTQ romantic relationships have begun to receive greater empirical attention during recent years (e.g., Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). For example, recent studies have focused on issues such as the factors surrounding relationship satisfaction in LGBTQ relationships (e.g., Lampis et al., 2021; Sommantico et al., 2019, 2020, 2021). Despite stereotypes that often portray LGBTQ relationships as being less stable or less satisfying than heterosexual relationships, research often reveals considerable similarities between LGBTQ relationships and heterosexual relationships (e.g., Balsam et al., 2008; Duffy & Rusbult, 1986; Kurdek, 1998, 2004). In addition, basic support for the Investment Model has been found in LGBTQ relationships such that relationship satisfaction, investment, and quality of alternative partners predict romantic commitment in a similar fashion to heterosexual relationships (e.g., Barrantes et al., 2017; Greene & Britton, 2015). However, it should be noted that the Investment Model is often somewhat weaker in predicting the stability of LGBTQ relationships compared to heterosexual relationships. This may be due to factors such as the additional stressors experienced by individuals who are involved in LGBTQ relationships (e.g., Barrantes et al., 2017; Beals et al., 2002; Duffy & Rusbult, 1986; Greene & Britton, 2015).

Although LGBTQ relationships have been receiving more empirical attention during recent years, the role that power plays in these relationships has received only limited attention (e.g., Kubicek et al., 2015). LGBTQ relationships are especially interesting with regard to power because decisions are often less reliant on biological sex or gender roles compared with heterosexual couples (Falbo & Peplau, 1980; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007; Pollitt et al., 2018). Individuals involved in LGBTQ relationships often report a strong preference for equal power in their relationships, even though many of these couples fail to achieve this balance (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). For example, partners who earn less money or have less prestigious jobs often hold less power in LGBTQ relationships (e.g., Hall et al., 2017; Pollitt et al., 2018). Despite power discrepancies being at least somewhat common between LGBTQ partners, those relationships characterized by relatively equal levels of power are often more satisfying and stable than relationships with an uneven balance of power (see Peplau & Spalding, 2000, for a review).

The goal of the present study was to consider the role that power plays in LGBTQ romantic relationships. This research was intended to replicate and extend recent studies that have examined similar issues in heterosexual relationships (Traeder & Zeigler-Hill, 2020). That is, we were interested in examining whether the pattern of results reported by Traeder and Zeigler-Hill (2020) for heterosexual individuals would emerge for individuals involved in LGBTQ romantic relationships. This is important because relatively little research has considered the role that power dynamics play in LGBTQ relationships. As a result, the present study closely follows the aims, hypotheses, methodology, and measures employed by Traeder and Zeigler-Hill (2020), but focuses on individuals who are involved in LGTQ romantic relationships. Similar to the results reported by Traeder and Zeigler-Hill (2020), we anticipated that people who wanted more power in their relationship would be less committed to continuing that relationship (Hypothesis 1). In addition, we believed that wanting more power would be indirectly associated with romantic commitment through perceptions of the relationship (e.g., relationship satisfaction; Hypothesis 2). Finally, we thought that perceptions of power may moderate the association that the desire for additional power had with commitment (Hypothesis 3).

Method

Results

Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. There was no correlation between the desire for power and perceived power. However, the desire for power had large negative correlations with relationship satisfaction and romantic commitment as well as a small negative correlation with investment, whereas it had a medium positive correlation with the quality of alternatives. Perceived power had a small positive correlation with relationship satisfaction, but it was not correlated with investment, the quality of alternatives, or romantic commitment.

Discussion

The present research considered the connection between the desire for power and romantic commitment in LGBTQ romantic relationships. We found support for Hypothesis 1 such that there was a negative zero-order correlation between the desire for power and romantic commitment that was large in magnitude. That is, individuals who wanted more power in their relationships tended to be less committed than other individuals. This pattern was similar to the results for individuals involved in heterosexual relationships that were reported by Traeder and Zeigler-Hill (2020).

We also found support for Hypothesis 2 such that the desire for power was found to be negatively associated with romantic commitment through relationship satisfaction, investment, and quality of alternatives. These results are similar to those found for heterosexual individuals (Traeder & Zeigler-Hill, 2020). However, investment was a weaker mediator than either relationship satisfaction or quality of alternatives. This pattern suggests that the link between the desire for power and romantic commitment in LGBTQ relationships may be primarily due to those who want more power feeling dissatisfied with their relationships or finding other potential partners to be desirable rather than minimizing their investment in the current relationship.

We did not find support for Hypothesis 3 which involved perceived power moderating the indirect association that the desire for power had with romantic commitment. However, perceived power did moderate the direct association between the desire for power and romantic commitment. More specifically, wanting more power was negatively associated with commitment for individuals with high levels of perceived power, but not for those with low levels of perceived power. This pattern revealed that people with high levels of perceived power who had little desire for additional power tended to be the most committed to their relationships, whereas those people who had high levels of power but still found themselves wanting additional power reported the least commitment. In contrast, people who considered themselves to have relatively little power in their relationships reported moderate levels of commitment regardless of whether they wanted additional power. This pattern suggests that wanting additional power may be especially important for understanding how committed LGBTQ individuals are to their relationships when they believe themselves to already hold a lot of power within the relationship.

These results build on what is known about the role that issues surrounding power play in LGBTQ relationships. More specifically, the desire for power emerged as an important factor for understanding the extent to which LGBTQ individuals are committed to their romantic relationships. These results were similar in many ways to those observed for individuals involved in heterosexual relationships (Traeder & Zeigler-Hill, 2020). The similar associations between the desire for power and romantic commitment for individuals involved in either LGBTQ or heterosexual relationships suggest that frustration with the balance of power in a relationship may be detrimental for romantic commitment in a wide variety of romantic contexts. These results continue to build on those of previous studies showing considerable similarities between LGBTQ relationships and heterosexual relationships (e.g., Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007).

The desire for power may have implications for LGBTQ romantic relationships beyond its association with romantic commitment. For example, individuals in heterosexual relationships who are dissatisfied with their levels of power are more likely than others to engage in psychological and physical abuse (e.g., Rogers et al., 2005). Future research needs to consider whether similar patterns emerge in LGBTQ relationships. This is an important issue because intimate partner violence in LGBTQ relationships has additional complexities beyond what is often found in heterosexual relationships. For example, the experience of intimate partner violence is sometimes discounted in LGBTQ relationships since these situations may not involve violence between a man and a woman (Brown, 2008). Gaining a better understanding of the way that power functions in LGBTQ relationships may allow these individuals to be more proactive in their efforts to build more satisfying and stable relationships while reducing the likelihood of negative experiences such as intimate partner violence (see Greene & Britton, 2015, for an extended discussion).

The present results may also have clinical implications for those involved in LGBTQ relationships. Issues surrounding the struggle for power are believed to play important roles in many of the conflicts experienced by romantic couples (e.g., Greenberg & Goldman, 2008; Overall et al., 2016). For example, a disagreement between romantic partners concerning a particular financial decision may actually reflect underlying issues pertaining to the power dynamics within the relationship. It is possible that these issues may sometimes be even more difficult to navigate for individuals who are involved in LGBTQ relationships because they are less likely to use biological sex or gender roles to resolve conflicts regarding the distribution of power (Falbo & Peplau, 1980; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007; Pollitt et al., 2018). It would be beneficial for future research to examine whether helping LGBTQ couples develop strategies for navigating power-related conflicts would promote positive relationship outcomes (e.g., greater commitment).

This study had various limitations. The first limitation is that we only collected self-report data which may have allowed socially desirable response tendencies to influence our results. For example, some individuals may have avoided acknowledging their desire for power or providing honest evaluations of their current relationships. Some people may not have had a great deal of insight into their desire for power or romantic commitment. Therefore, future research should include approaches that go beyond reliance on self-reports. One possibility would be to utilize strategies such as dyadic reports in which both members of the romantic relationship report on their own experiences (e.g., their desire for power) and their perceptions of the partner's experience (e.g., their perception of the partner's desire for power).

The second limitation is that we relied on cross-sectional data, which precludes us from establishing a particular causal sequence between our variables. For example, a lack of romantic commitment may actually lead people to want more power in their relationship (e.g., those who are not committed may recognize that they have an advantage over their partner and seek to exploit the situation by seizing additional power). Future research should use experimental designs that attempt to manipulate the desire for power or longitudinal designs in which the desire for power and romantic commitment are repeatedly assessed in order to track their associations over a prolonged period of time in order to better understand the potential causal links between wanting more power in a relationship and being commited to that relationship.

The third limitation is that we relied on a convenience sample of participants who were willing to participate in this research in exchange for a small amount of financial compensation. Our use of convenience sampling is an important issue because the present results may not generalize to the broader LGBTQ population. Future research should attempt to replicate these results using other strategies for recruiting participants beyond reliance on convenience sampling. One possibility would be to engage in community-based participatory research which attempts to establish partnerships between researchers and various stakeholders (e.g., community members, organizational representatives) because this may encourage participation from a more diverse and representative sample of participants who are engaged in LGBTQ romantic relationships. The fourth limitation is that the final sample consisted of only 113 individuals. Future studies concerning the role of power in LGBTQ romantic relationships would benefit from utilizing larger samples that included an even more demographically diverse group of individuals (e.g., age, racial/ethnic background, relationship length). The fifth limitation is that we were unable to verify whether our participants were actually currently engaged in an LGBTQ relationship. As a consequence, there is a possibility that some of the participants may have been dishonest in order to gain access to the small amount of financial compensation that was offered for their participation (e.g., a heterosexual individual may have claimed to be involved in an LGBTQ relationship so they could be paid for participating in the study).