Chapter 6:
INTERDEPENDENCY
Interdependency refers to our reliance on others, and
they on us, for valuable interpersonal rewards.
SOCIAL EXCHANGE
•
The mutual exchange of
desirable rewards between people is known as social exchange (Blau, 1964;
Homans, 1961).
•
Interdependency theories
suggest that people seek relationships that provide the maximum reward at
minimum cost (Kelly & Thibaut, 1978).
REWARDS AND COSTS
•
Rewards of social
interactions are anything that is desirable and brings fulfillment to a
recipient and can range from impersonal benefits to personal intimacies.
•
Costs are undesirable,
punishing outcomes or experiences.
•
The net profit or loss
from an interaction is called an outcome.
What Do We Expect From Our Relationships?
•
Everyone has a
comparison level (CL) or the value of the outcomes one expects from their
social interactions, according to interdependency theory.
•
Comparison levels are
based on people’s past experiences.
•
We use our comparison
levels as a way to measure our satisfaction within a relationship.
How Well Could We Do
Elsewhere?
People
use a comparison level alternative to determine if they could do better
elsewhere.
Deciding whether to stay or leave a
relationship depend on whether those
involved think they can do better elsewhere or whether they are better off in
their present relationship.
• Caryl
Rusbult has shown that people’s investments in their present relationship also
influence their decision to stay or leave.
How Well Could We Do
Elsewhere?
•
Factors such as
self-esteem and access to information
affect people’s thoughts and perceptions and can thus influence their comparison
level alternative (Kiesler & Baral, 1970; Rusbult & Martz, 1995).
•
The degree to which
people attend to their alternatives also influences their comparison level
alternative (Miller, 1997).
A Social Exchange Model of Relationship
Development
•
Social exchange theory
is based on an economic model of human behavior.
•
Social exchange theory
assumes that people are motivated by the desire to maximize profits and
minimize losses in social interactions.
•
The various components
of Social Exchange Theory are:
–
Rewards - Costs =
Outcome.
–
Outcome - Comparison
Level (CL) = Satisfaction Level
–
Outcomes – CLalt =
Dependence/Independence
–
Satisfaction -
Alternatives + Investments = Commitment.
A Social Exchange Model of Relationship
Development:
Rewards and Costs:
•
In the terms of social
exchange, the outcome of a relationship is determined by rewards minus costs.
•
It is generally true
that happy couples behave in more rewarding ways toward each other than do
unhappy couples.
•
Rewards also contribute
to the endurance of a relationship.
•
Costs may be less
important in the early days of a relationship than after it has been
established.
A Social Exchange Model of Relationship
Development:
Rewards and Costs (continued):
•
Both rewards and costs
are based on subjective assessments of reality.
•
These assessments are
subject to bias and distortion,
and partners may disagree about their assessments of the behaviors in their
relationship.
•
An individual who
displays an egocentric bias overestimates his or her own contribution to a
particular outcome,
relative to the perceived contribution made by the partner.
•
Relationship partners
may also disagree about how much an item or activity is worth, making it more
difficult to provide effective rewards to each other.
A Social Exchange Model of Relationship
Development:
Expectations:
• The
comparison level (CL) refers to the average, overall outcome an
individual expects in an intimate relationship.
• From
a social exchange perspective, satisfaction is determined by both a person's
initial CL and the outcome of the relationship.
• The
lower the CL (i.e., the lower a person's expectations), the less
rewarding the relationship needs to be to produce satisfaction.
A Social Exchange Model of Relationship
Development:
Alternatives:
• The
comparison level for alternatives [CLalt] refers to the average, overall
outcome an individual expects from an alternative relationship or
lifestyle.
• "CLalt"
affects commitment to the relationship.
• The
higher the "CLalt," the less commitment there should be to the
existing relationship.
Four Types of Relationships
• Interdependency
theory suggests that four types of relationships arise, depending on the quality
level of people’s comparison levels, comparison level alternatives and
outcomes.
• These
types are: happy, stable relationships; unhappy, stable relationships; happy
unstable relationships; and unhappy, unstable relationships.
Types of Relationships
•
Happy, Stable
Relationship
•
Outcome
•
CLAlt
•
CL
•
Happy, Stable
Relationship
•
Outcome
•
CL
•
CLAlt
•
Unhappy, but stable
relationship
•
CL
•
Outcome
•
CLAlt
•
Happy, but unstable
relationship
•
ClAlt
•
Outcome
•
CL
Unhappy, unstable Relationship
•
CLAlt
•
CL
•
Outcome
Unhappy, unstable Relationship
•
CL
•
CLAlt
•
Outcome
Power and Independence
(Box 6.1)
• The
difference between two romantic partners dependence dictates who has more
power.
• This
often happens when both partners receive more outcomes than they expect (CL)
and more than they think they will get elsewhere (CLalt).
• The
principle of lesser interest proposes that the partner who is less dependent on
a relationship has more power in that relationship (Waller & Hill, 1951).
Power and (In)Dependence
• Betty’s
alternatives are better than Barney’s so she has more power in the
relationship.
• Betty
and Barney’s Outcomes
•
Betty’s CLAlt
•
Barney’s CLAlt
CL and CLalt as Time Goes
By
• People’s
comparison levels fluctuate along with the outcomes they receive.
• If
someone’s comparison level rises but the outcomes remain the same, the person
will not be satisfied.
• Some
believe that our society’s higher CLs are partly to blame for less marital
happiness compared with married couples 30 years ago (Glenn, 1996).
CL and CLalt as Time Goes
By
•
Cultural changes such as
more men being available, more financial freedom for women and less barriers
against divorce have also influenced increases in our CLs and CLalts leading to
unhappy, unstable relationships (White & Booth, 1991).
A Social Exchange Model of Relationship
Development:
Alternatives (continued):
• Some
overall levels of "CLalt" are set by broad societal trends,
such as sex ratios.
• Sex
ratios indicate the overall availability of potential other-sex partners
within a given population.
• When
there are more men than women,
sex ratios are high;
• When
there are fewer men than women,
sex ratios are low.
A Social Exchange Model of Relationship
Development:
Alternatives (continued):
• Baby
boomers (those born between 1945 and 1957) experience low sex ratios, due to
the yearly increase in births and the tendency of women to marry slightly older
men.
• Whites
born in the 1970s will experience high sex ratios.
• However,
White women over 40 and Black women of all ages will still tend to
face a scarcity of available male partners.
A Social Exchange Model of Relationship
Development:
Investments:
•
An investment is
something an individual puts into a relationship that can not be recovered
should that relationship end.
•
In general, investments
strengthen commitment.
•
When investments in a
relationship produce rewards from that relationship, commitment is accompanied
by increased satisfaction with the relationship.
•
But when heavy
investments produce little satisfaction, individuals may become entrapped in
the relationship.
–
In entrapment,
commitment to a failing course of action is increased by an effort to
psychologically justify the investments that have been already made.
A Social Exchange Model of Relationship
Development:
Investments (continued):
•
Dissonance theory
provides a broad theoretical framework that can account for entrapment effects.
•
Dissonance is an
uncomfortable state that arises from inconsistencies among thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors.
•
Voluntary actions (but
not involuntary actions) that are inconsistent with thoughts and feelings
create dissonance.
•
It is dissonant to
voluntarily agree to engage in difficult and effortful intimate behavior that
produces unsatisfying relationship consequences.
A Social Exchange Model of Relationship
Development:
Investments
(continued):
•
But, people can reduce
dissonance by changing their attitude toward such consequences.
•
Thus, subjects who
engaged in effortful activities to become part of a boring group made more
positive evaluations of the group than subjects who had expended little or no
effort to join the group.
•
It is also dissonant to
know about problems in an intimate relationship, but go ahead and make a
commitment to that relationship anyway.
•
To reduce dissonance,
people in these relationships can increase their positive attitude toward the
partner.
A Social Exchange Model of Relationship
Development:
Investments (continued):
•
Thus, newly engaged
students who were aware of more problems before they became engaged
reported a more fulfilling relationship after the engagement, relative to
students who were aware of fewer problems.
•
From the perspective of
dissonance theory, we come to love that for which we have suffered in the
past and that from which we suspect we will suffer in the future.
Commitment to A Relationship:
• Commitment
refers to the strength of one's intentions to continue the relationship.
• In
general, the more freely, frequently, and publicly we act, the more we become
committed to the action and to the attitudes it implies.
Commitment to A Relationship (continued):
• Among
college students engaged in dating relationships, commitment was the best
single predictor of the endurance of their relationship across a two-month
period.
• Commitment
to a relationship increases the endurance of that relationship because we (1)
cut off outside options, (2) resist efforts by outsiders to make us change our
position, and (3) become more susceptible to influence from the partner.
When Commitment Fails
•
But commitment is no
guarantee that a relationship will last a lifetime.
•
Indeed, commitment
can have some negative effects.
•
In a committed
relationship, total expected rewards are higher, but so are total expected
costs--as both rewards and costs are anticipated to continue in the future.
•
And, it may be more
difficult to make compromises and accommodations in a committed relationship,
because of fears that giving in now may imply the need to give in later as
well.
THE ECONOMIES OF RELATIONSHIPS
•
Rewards and costs are
important factors that contribute to relationship satisfaction and stability.
The Economies of
Relationships
• Research
has shown that unpleasantness is often part of many relationships.
– For example,
44% of people are likely to be annoyed by a friend or lover, on any given
day(Averill, 1982).
– And most
young adults state that their lovers were too critical, stubborn, selfish and
unreliable at least once within the last week (Perlman, 1989).
– In addition,
spouses tend to disagree more openly, interrupt each other more and show more
signs of frustration then they do when arguing with someone else (Vincent,
Weiss & Birchler, 1975).
Rewards and Costs as Time
Goes By
• At
the beginning of relationships, those that will succeed are just as rewarding
as those that will end quickly.
• Rewards
increase over time as do the costs in a relationship.
• In
unsuccessful relationships, costs rise but rewards drop, decreasing
satisfaction (Eidelson, 1980).
Rewards and Costs as Time Goes By
•
Researchers have
demonstrated that relationship satisfaction declines in the first few years
after marriage (Karney & Bradburry, 1997; Kurdek, 1998; Leonard &
Roberts, 1997).
•
Through lack of effort,
access to weaponry, unwelcome surprises, unrealistic expectations, and because
interdependency is a magnifying glass, people often fail to maintain the
outcomes that lead them to marry (Miller, 1997).
– Interdependency magnifies conflict and friction. And
frequent interaction can aggravate annoyances.
Are We Really This Greedy?
•
While research supports
interdependency theory fairly well, the overall picture of relationships is not
complete.
•
There are good reasons
why people will want their partners to do well and maintain a happy, stable
relationship.
The Nature of Interdependency
•
Interdependent partners
have a stake in keeping each other happy.
•
Some actions that might
be costly between strangers can be rewarding in a close relationship, since
they give pleasure to one’s partner and increase the likelihood of receiving
valuable rewards in return, (Kelly, 1979).
Exchange Versus Communal Relationships
• People
seem to realize that rewarding interdependency is more likely to develop when
they are not being greedy by simply pursuing profits.
• Clark
and Mills (1979, 1993) propose that exchange relationships involve the desire
for and expectation of immediate return for benefits given. And communal
relationships involve the desire for and expectation of mutual responsiveness
to each other’s needs.
Differences Between Exchange and Communal Relationships
• EXCHANGE
•
We do a Favor
–
prefer pay back immediately
•
Others do us a
favor
–
Prefer being asked for
immediate repayment
•
Working with
others on joint task
–
Ensure our contributions
are distinguished from others
• COMMUNAL
•
Don’t prefer those
who repay immediately
•
Prefer those who do not
seek immediate repayment
•
Don’t make clear
distinctions between other’s work and ours
• EXCHANGE
•
When others need
help
–
Track others needs only
when they can return favors
•
When we help
others
–
Our moods and
self-evaluations change slightly
•
When we don’t help
others
–
Our moods do not change
• COMMUNAL
•
Keep track of others
needs even when they are unable to return favors
•
Our moods brighten and
our self-evaluations improve
•
Our moods get worse
•
Communal relationships
typically characterize meaningful romantic relationships, while both communal
and exchange relationships are involved in friendships (Clark & Mills,
1993).
Equitable Relationships
•
While being nice is
important in a relationship, it is also important to be fair.
•
Equity occurs when both
partners gain benefits that are proportional to their contributions (Hatfield,
1983; Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994).
•
A relationship is fair
when a partner who is contributing more is also receiving more, according to
equity theory.
•
People are
“overbenefited” if they receive more than they deserve and they are
“underbenefited” if they receive less than they deserve.
•
Your outcomes =
Your partners outcomes
Your contributions Your partners contributions
Partner
X Partner Y Partner X Partner Y
•
80/50 =
80/50 (d) 80/50 >
60/50
•
20/100 =
20/100 (e) 80/50 <
80/30
•
50/25 =
100/50
The Distress of Inequity
• Equity
theory assumes that people will want fair relationships and will be distressed
if the relationship they are in is not fair, especially if they are
“underbenefiting.”
• The
theory predicts that people who are “overbenefiting” will be less happy than
those in equitable relationships and those who are “underbenefiting” will be
least happy of all (Hatfield, 1983).
Ways to Restore Equity
• Restore
actual equity by changing one’s outcomes or making changes in contributions can
sometimes restore equity.
• People
may also change their perceptions of the relationship to convince themselves
that it is equitable even when it is not.
• Sometimes
none of these efforts restore equity leading people to have affairs or end the
relationship (Prins, Buunk, & VanYperen, 1993).
How Much is Enough?
• Research
has shown that both the global quality of outcomes people receive in a
relationship and underbenefiting are important factors that predict how
satisfactory and enduring a relationship will be (Feeny, Peterson, &
Noller, 1994; Sprecher, 1999).
• Outcome
levels seem to be more important than inequity.
– For example,
if one’s outcomes are poor, it will not matter how fair they are and if one’s
outcomes are great, inequity will not matter much.
So…
•
Is simple greed a a good
description of people’s behavior in relationships?
•
Relationship science
gives a qualified yes as an answer.
People are happiest when their rewards are high and costs (and
expectations) are low. But we have a
stake in satisfying our partners too, because we depend on them for the rewards
we seek in intimate relationships. Perhaps encouraged by selfish motives, we
protect the well- being of our partners and rarely exploit them if we want the
relationships to continue, and we can behave thoughtfully, generously, and
lovingly even if there are greedy and self-serving motives involved too.
The Nature of Commitment
Happy dependence on an intimate partner leads to commitment, the
intention to continue in a relationship.
The investment
model links commitment to all the elements of social exchange associated with
people’s comparison levels and comparison level alternatives (Rusbult et al.,
1994; Rusbult, Wieselquist, Foster, & Witchler, 1999).
The Nature of Commitment
• The
investment model suggests that satisfaction increases commitment, however, high
quality alternatives decrease
commitment.
– People who
have appealing alternatives luring then away from their current partners are
less likely to stay in that relationship.
Still, people do not always pursue
alternatives if the costs of leaving their present relationships are too high.
• Satisfaction,
the quality of alternatives, and the size of one’s investments each tell us
something useful about the level of a person’s commitment.
• The
investment model is good at predicting
how long relationships will
last, faithfulness, and even if battered wives will leave their husbands.
The Nature of Commitment
•
Other theorists argue
against commitment being a unitary concept,
(only one type of commitment) an assumption made by the investment model.
•
Michael Johnson (1999)
proposes three types of commitment:
–
Personal
commitment—people wanting to stay
in a relationship because they are attracted to their partners and the
relationship is satisfying.
–
Straint commitment—people feeling they have to continue in the
relationship because the costs would be too high if they left.
–
Moral commitment—people feeling they ought to stay in the relationship
because they do not want to break promises or vows.
Research
• Research
shows that the three types feel different to people.
– Ex. In
long-distance romantic relationships moral commitment is better at predicting
the survival of the relationship during the separation than personal
commitment.
The Consequences of Commitment
• When
people are committed to a relationship they tend to display a long-term
orientation and tend to view themselves and their partners as a whole or single
entity (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1997).
• Commitment
leads people to protect and maintain the relationship, even when it is costly.
The Consequences of
Commitment
•
Committed people engage
in cognitive and behavioral strategies that preserve and enhance the
relationship.
–
Accommodative
behavior – restraint from
provocation, tolerance, lack of retaliation.
Not motivated by weakness, but an effort to protect the relationship
from harm.
–
Willingness to
sacrifice – putting self-interest
aside for the good of the relationship i.e., do things wouldn’t do if alone and
not dothings would do if alone.
–
Perceived
superiority – people often think
they enjoy more rewards and suffer fewer costs than other people in
relationships.