How Sacrifice Impacts the Giver and the Recipient: Insights From Approach‐Avoidance Motivational Theory

Abstract

This study investigated how sacrificing for approach versus avoidance goals shapes the giver's and the recipient's emotions and relationship quality. A sample of 80 dating couples participated in a three-part study in which they discussed sacrifice in the laboratory (Part 1), reported on their daily sacrifices for 14 days (Part 2), and completed a follow-up survey 3 months later (Part 3). When partners discussed a sacrifice they had made for approach goals, they experienced greater relationship quality, whereas when they discussed a sacrifice they had made for avoidance goals, they experienced poorer relationship quality. These effects were replicated with outside observer reports. On days when partners sacrificed for approach goals, both partners experienced increased relationship quality, but on days when people sacrificed for avoidance goals, the giver experienced decreased relationship quality. These effects were mediated by positive and negative emotions, respectively. Approach sacrifice goals predicted increases in relationship quality and avoidance sacrifice goals predicted decreases in relationship quality, as reported by both partners 3 months later. Sacrifice per se does not help or harm relationships, but the goals that people pursue when they give up their own interests can critically shape the quality of intimate bonds.

Sacrifice in close relationships: Motives, emotions, and relationship outcomes

“…Several studies have shown that people experience positive intrapersonal (i.e., higher positive affect) and interpersonal (i.e., higher relationship satisfaction) outcomes when they sacrifice for approach motives, that is, when they focus on obtaining some anticipated reward. In contrast, people experience negative intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes when they sacrifice for avoidance motives, that is, when they focus on negative outcomes that they want to avoid (Impett et al, ; Impett, Gere, Kogan, Gordon, & Keltner, ). These effects are largely accounted by differences in authenticity that people experience when they sacrifice for approach versus avoidance goals (Impett, Javam, Le, Asyabi‐Eshghi, & Kogan, ).…”

“…The motives that people pursue when making a sacrifice also impact the partner who receives (or perceives their partner make) the sacrifice. When people perceive that their partner make a sacrifice for approach motives, they experience personal and relationship benefits, whereas when people perceive that their partner sacrifice for avoidance motives, they experience poorer personal well‐being and relationship quality (Impett et al, , ).…”

Inequity of sacrifice and marital satisfaction in Chinese young couples

“…Secondly, some related theories were applied to the study of sacrifice to explain the paradox. For example, ‘approach‐avoidance theory’ was used to define sacrifice motivation, and consistent results showed that approach‐motivated sacrifices related to higher relationship satisfaction, whereas avoidance‐motivated sacrifice led to a decrease in relationship stability (Impett et al ., ; Impett, Gere, Kogan, Gordon and Keltner, ; Impett et al ., ; Impett, Javam, Le, Asyabi‐Eshghi and Kogan, ). Moreover, some personal factors were given more attention in order to explore the mechanism of sacrifice, such as attachment style and self‐control (Findley, Carvallo and Bartak, ; Impett and Gordon, ; Mattingly and Clark, ; Righetti, Finkenauer and Finkel, ; Ruppel and Curran, ).…”

Avoidance orientation and the escalation of negative communication in intimate relationships.

“…Furthermore, research has mainly focused on examining cognitive and affective aspects related to relationship satisfaction (e.g., information processing, memory, experience of positive affect), and even though relationship research has demonstrated the importance of observational data (Gottman, 1994), to date only few studies on goal orientation in couples have included observational data (Impett, Gere, Kogan, Gordon, & Keltner, 2013;Impett et al, 2010). In most…”