THEORIES OF INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS – PART II Each of the 5 perspectives draws our attention to different aspects of intimate relationships Evolutionary: how we evolved to understand our relationships (evolutionary past) Attachment: need to understand childhood experience to understand relationships (personal past) Today’s theories: look to present (not past) – what is going on right now? • Each of the 3 remaining theories emphasizes differences aspects of relationships Social Exchange Theory We are all rational + try to achieve best outcomes we can • Economic theory of intimate relationships “Partners evaluate the rewards and costs associated with being in a relationship, along with barriers to leaving the relationship and their available alternatives” - Hal Kelley • We all pay attention to rewards + costs of our social situations • Try to maximize our outcomes o What am I getting vs. what am I giving? • Assumptions: • People evaluate and make decisions about their relationships the same way that they weigh economic decisions • OUTCOME = REWARDS – COSTS o Net outcomes: rewards - costs • What are rewards? What are costs? o Rewards: happiness, support, physical intimacy, children o Costs: distress, compromise, conflict, time, give support o Vary from relationship to relationship o Evaluate rewards + costs to find outcomes • What makes a good relationship? o Rewards > costs – but how much greater do rewards need to be? ! Different people have different standards about how good outcomes need to be before they are happy with a relationship Comparison Level (CL) • Varies across individuals • Standard against we compare our outcomes to evaluate whether we are happy Satisfaction • SATISFACTION = OUTCOME – CL • Depends on personal expectations• People can be unhappy even though their outcomes may be positive • Some people can have low CL – happy with small rewards • Helps us understand why different people evaluate same outcomes differently Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt) • People stay in relationships that are independent of their satisfaction (e.g. resources) • Decision to stay or leave relationship depends not on CL, but on CLalt • We consider alternatives to being in relationship: being alone, another partner o Alternatives? Dependency • DEPENDENCY = OUTCOME – Clalt • Perception of alternatives: if we believe that what we have in relationship is much better than what we could get somewhere else, we are more likely to stay in relationship • Some people have a low CLalt (low self-esteem) – don’t think they could find anyone else o Despite neg outcomes, being alone may be worse • Some people stay in bad relationships because they perceive they have nowhere else to go whereas some in good relationships leave because they have alternatives • How does this Theory Guide Research? Predicting break-ups + divorce • Between 20-40% of those who file for divorce change their minds. Why? o Financial dependence " alternatives: worse off o The greater the barriers, the greater the dependency o Co-own house, children, non-independent income o The more dependent they are, the more likely they are to change minds about divorce • Who stays with abusive partners? o People don’t have a desire to be punished o Some people are dependent on abusive partners o As bad as this is, the alternative is worse What do dependent people do? • Devaluating alternatives o If we are stuck in a relationship, there is no point in looking for other partners (because they cant have them) o Tend to devaluate potential alternatives o Evaluation of attractive people: those who were in committed relationships rate photos as less attractive than those who were not in a committed relationshipo Make sure relationship is strong because they would be in trouble if relationship ends • Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory What CAN it explain? • Why do some distressed relationships stay together? • Barriers that keep people in relationships whether they are happy or not What does it leave out? • How do stable, rewarding relationships become unstably costly ones? • Rewards + costs change over time – why? • Social exchange theory is about the now but not the process Social Learning Theory Highly related to social exchange theory (costs + rewards) Social learning: there is a kind of reward + kind of cost that is especially important: communication! • How they interact/communicate is highly important “Our behaviors is molded and shaped within relationships. Rewarding and punishing interactions may affect subsequent behaviors and judgments of satisfaction with a relationship.” Exchange: opportunity to feel good or bad • We learn about our relationships and teach our partner about relationship through our behavior towards them • Assumptions of Social Learning Theory: Behavior is the “final, common pathway” • Lousy childhood can only affect relationship through the way we act in a relationship • Partner cant know I am need…etc. unless I behave that way • Appraisal of each interaction accumulate o Good ones strengthen satisfaction whereas the bad ones chip it away o This is how change happens: gradual accumulation of pos or neg interactions Escape conditioning • Why do we behave poorly? • We unconsciously reinforce behaviors in our partners sometimes o Reward the behaviors that annoy us • If something neg is happening to me (shock), then behavior that makes neg thing stop will be reinforced o Ex) Nagging can have effect that other partner will react and do something" reinforced for nagger o Ex) Crying to stop fight (partner feels guilty and becomes nice) o Negative behavior that gets someone out of the situation is reinforced • Think about what is being reinforced in the situation From behavior to cognition • How does this Theory Guide Research? This theory gets us into the relationships (between people) Observing dyadic interactions • The talk table studies o 2 dials: 1 to rate everything I say, the other to rate what partner says o Neg, pos, or neutral ratings o Happy vs. unhappy couples – what is the difference between happy + unhappy couples? ! They did not differ in their ratings of intention (own ratings) but differed in impact ratings (evaluation of partner) ! Happy couples: intention matched impact ! Unhappy