Chapter 6 (Unit 7) - Interdependence Flashcards
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
Relationship partners as rational actors
engaged in cost-benefit analyses
* Relationships begin when you give me some
of what I want and I give you some of what
you want
* This process, in which two people give and
take desirable rewards from each other, is
called social exchange
INTERDEPENDENCE
- Interdependence exists we need others and they need us in order to obtain
valuable rewards
– Behaviours of each partner affect the outcomes of the other - Interdependence theory = social exchange theory as applied to close
relationships (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)
INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY
* Postulates that relationship decisions are akin to economic decisions
– Weigh rewards and costs
* Rewards = desirable experiences & commodities
* Costs = undesirable experiences
* Driven to maximize rewards & minimize costs
REWARDS
* Any of the ways a relationship may satisfy our needs & desires, something that
is gratifying & pleasant
* Could be tangible/material
– E.g., financial assistance, dinner waiting for you when you get home
* But often intangible/social—rewards that meet our emotional &
psychological needs
– E.g., feeling loved & secure, validation, companionship, self-expansion
COSTS
* Any of the ways a relationship may prevent us from meeting our needs &
desires, something that is punishing/frustrating
* Can also be material (e.g., financial cost)
* Or social (e.g., jealousy, frequent arguments, uncertainty)
* Opportunity cost = cost of not pursuing a possible reward
– E.g., taking a job in another city, pursuing an attractive acquaintance,
having more time for hobbies
Outcome = Rewards – Costs
If rewards > costs, net positive outcome
If rewards < costs, net negative outcome
- Same outcome may not necessarily lead to the same amount of satisfaction
for different people - Level of outcome =/= relationship satisfaction
- When it comes to satisfaction, evaluate the outcomes we receive relative to
what we expect from our relationships - Comparison level (CL): personal standard, what we feel we deserve
Satisfaction = Outcomes – CL
COMPARISON LEVEL - When our outcomes exceed our comparison levels, we’re happy & content
- But when our outcomes fall below our comparison levels, we’re disgruntled &
distressed - Can be dissatisfied even if relationship is highly rewarding, can be satisfied
even if relationship is costly
RESEARCH EXAMPLE:
ZOPPOLAT ET AL., 2020
* Sacrifice = giving up one’s own immediate preferences/goals for the good of
the partner or the relationship
* Perceiving that a partner has sacrificed can lead to increased appreciation,
with potential positive consequences for the relationship
* BUT may depend on expectations around sacrifice
* Daily diary study: perceiving a partner’s sacrifice led to increase in partner
appreciation & relationship satisfaction only if recipient’s expectations were
low (positive expectancy violation)
So, even if a relationship is profitable and rewarding, you may not be satisfied
if the “profit” isn’t big enough to meet your expectations
SOURCES OF COMPARISON LEVEL
* Idiosyncratic–everyone has own CL
* Influenced by:
– Previous relationship experiences
(how others have treated us in the past)
– Observing others’ relationships
(personal experience or the media)
– Personality dispositions
(attachment orientation, self-esteem)
WHAT MAKES PEOPLE
STAY TOGETHER?
- Partners’ satisfaction with relationship fairly
small predictor of staying together over time
(Karney & Bradbury, 1995) - Other factors involved in the decision
DEPENDENCE
* Dependence = how free a person feels to leave the relationship (how strongly
tied a person is to another)
* Function of how our outcomes in a given relationship compared to possible
alternative outcomes (how well you think you could do elsewhere)
Dependence = Outcomes – CLalt
COMPARISON LEVEL FOR
ALTERNATIVES
* What we realistically expect we could get in another relationship or
situation/Other alternatives currently available
* Includes other partners or being single
* Standard against which we decide to stay or leave
* The lowest level we will tolerate from present partner
If we think we can do better in another relationship, all things considered, we’re
likely to leave our present partners and pursue those bigger payoffs, even when
we’re currently happy with what we’ve got
On the other hand, even if we’re currently unhappy in a relationship, we won’t
leave it unless a better alternative presents itself
FACTORS AFFECTING CLALT
* Individual differences—e.g.,
– Higher self-esteem à greater perceptions of available options
– Fear of being single (Spielmann et al., 2013)
* Cultural & structural factors
– How socially acceptable is singlehood?
– Feasibility of living on single income
* Opportunity to encounter alternatives (e.g., proximity)
* Motivated reasoning (more on that later)
BARRIERS & INVESTMENTS
* Barriers = all the forces outside of the relationship that act to keep partners
together
– E.g., social disapproval of divorce
* Investments = resources tied to the relationship that would be lost if the
relationship were to end
– E.g., pets, children, furniture, shared friends, loved in-laws
* Both reduce the attractiveness of leaving a current relationship
* Both barriers & investments reduce the attractiveness of leaving a current
relationship
* I.e., factored into Clalts
* Our Clalts include both rewards & costs of leaving a relationship
RECAP OF EQUATIONS
Outcome = Rewards – Costs
Satisfaction = Outcomes – CL
Dependence = Outcomes – CLALT
If Satisfaction is +
Then Happy
If Satisfaction is –
Then Unhappy
If Dependence is +
Then Stable
If Dependence is –
Then Unstable
HAPPY & STABLE Outcomes higher than CL and CLalt
UNHAPPY & UNSTABLE CL and CLalt higher than outcomes
UNHAPPY & STABLE CL higher than outcomes and CLalt
HAPPY & UNSTABLE CLalt higher than outcomes and CL
REWARDS & COSTS
* Recall the formula:
* Research suggests that valuation of rewards & costs is more complicated
* Costs may be particularly influential because they carry more psychological
weight (“bad is stronger than good”)
– Pay more attention to costs, remember costs more than rewards
* Roughly 5x greater influence
* “Magic” 5 to 1 ratio (Gottman & Levonson, 1992)
SACRIFICE DETECTION
- Presumably, a reward has to be noticed to enter into our calculations
- But may not notice all the kind & loving things partners do for us
- Visserman et al., 2019:
– Daily diary study of sacrifices
– Data collected from both members of the couple à comparison of partner
data allows researchers to see how often sacrifices are detected or missed
RESULTS - Thinking that the partner has made a sacrifice
(rightly or wrongly) boosts gratitude - But individuals miss partners’ sacrifices about 50%
of the time! - Missed sacrifices leave sacrificing partners feeling
underappreciated & dissatisfied
(see image)
APPROACH VS. AVOIDANCE
We try to do two things in our close relationships:
* Gain positive outcomes, which is known as an approach motivation
* Avoid negative outcomes, which is known as an avoidance motivation
And, importantly, these are two different things
Pleasure results from fulfilling our approach goals, and
pain results from failing to fulfill our avoidance goals
But these are different processes, and pleasure and pain can coexist,
or both may be absent, in any relationship
Flourishing (yes approach yes avoidance), boring (no approach yes avoidance), distressed (no approach no avoidance), precarious (yes approach no avoidance)
A LITTLE MORE NUANCE
* Pain & pleasure traditionally described as opposite processes (incl. by your
textbook)
– Not strictly the case
* Neuroscience research (e.g., neuroimaging, non-human animal models)
suggest anatomical overlap for processing of pleasure and pain
* Pleasure & pain processes interact in interesting ways
SOME DEFINITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS
Level of analysis Positive Negative
Type of event : Reward Punishment
Hedonic
value/experience : Pleasure Pain
Motivation : Approach Avoidance
REWARD LOSS AS PAIN
* Encountering bad outcomes not only source of pain
* Loss or omission of expected reward is also painful
– Loss of desired reward (tasty sucrose solution) leads to emotional arousal in
mice, activates part of the physical pain system (Papini et al., 2015)
BUCKLEY ET AL., 2004
* Ps assigned to role of “speaker”, confederate to role of “evaluator”
* Ps see feedback of evaluator-–how much they wish “to get to know the
speaker”
* Rejection leads to more negative reactions than acceptance, but increasing
trajectory of rejection hurts more than constant rejection
* Rejection & loss of social reward may be additive
ATTACHMENT AVOIDANCE
* Spielmann et al., 2012
– Individuals higher in avoidant attachment hold lower perceptions of reward
(potential for intimacy) in contexts where closeness is a possibility (current &
future partners), but not where closeness is not a possibility (ex-partners)
* Spielmann et al., 2012:
– Evaluate dating profiles
– High responsiveness target
* “When I’m dating someone, I really care about putting in the effort and
making it work…that means paying attention to my girlfriend and getting
to know who she really is as a person”
– Low responsiveness target
* “I like to keep conversations light and not too serious…I deal with enough
of that stressful stuff at work. Who needs that drama in their
relationship”?
* Attachment avoidance negatively
predicts reward potential for high but
not low responsiveness target
* Not getting the reward we expect is
painful
* By not getting their “hopes up” may
pre-empt feelings of pain and
disappointment that result when
expectations for reward are not met
PAIN RELIEF AS A REWARD
* Relief from pain (i.e., omission or reduction of an aversive event/punishment)
is more than simply an attenuation of pain; it feels pleasant (Leknes et al.,
2008)
– Meets the definition of a reward
* Pleasure of relief derived from violation of negative expectancy
– Pessimists (who generally hold more negative expectations) experience
greater dread of adverse event & greater relief when adverse event is
avoided (Leknes et al., 2011)
REWARD PROCESSES
(LEKNES ET AL., 2011)
* May be helpful to distinguish between two types of reward/pleasure:
– Appetitive rewards = reward experienced when approaching some positive
or pleasurable stimulus/outcome we are motivated to seek
– Relief = reward experienced when some aversive state is avoided or
mitigated
* Hedonic aspects of appetitive reward & relief are additive
– E.g., food is more enjoyable when also providing relief of hunger
REWARD PROCESSES
* May seek relationships for two reasons
– Fun, excitement, passion, novelty (e.g., selfexpansion)
– Safety & security
* Attachment theory suggests that feeling of safety &
security is more than absence of bad outcome—a
fundamental reward in its own right
* Ideally want both in relationship
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
* Chronic strength of approach & avoidance motivations differs between
individuals (Gable, 2006)
Measure of interpersonal goals (Elliot et al., 2006):
“I will be trying to avoid getting embarrassed, betrayed, or hurt by any of my
friends”
“I will be trying to make sure nothing bad happens to my close relationships”
“I will be trying to enhance the bonding and intimacy in my close relationships”
* Implications for processing of social information (Strachman & Gable, 2006)
– Avoidance motivation:
* Biases attention toward negative stimuli
* Enhances memory for negative stimuli
* Increases negative construals of ambiguous/neutral events
– Opposite pattern of results for approach motivation
MOTIVATIONS FOR SACRIFICE
- Is it healthy to make sacrifices for your partner?
- May depend on why you do it (Impett et al., 2005)
– Approach motives: make partner happy, grow intimacy in relationship
– Avoidance motives: avoid disappointment or conflict - Approach reasons: more positive affect, greater relationship & life satisfaction,
less conflict, less chance of breaking up 1 month later - Avoidance reasons: more negative affect, less relationship & life satisfaction,
more conflict - Perceiving partner as sacrificing for approach reasons associated with more
positive affect, life & relationship satisfaction - Perceiving partner as sacrificing for avoidance reasons associated with less
positive affect, life & relationship satisfaction
– Experience of reward may not be as simple as getting the outcome we want
SEXUAL MOTIVES
(IMPETT ET AL., 2005)
* Similar story for approach & avoidance sexual motives
* Approach motives: please self & please partner
* Avoidance motives: avoid partner disappointment, avoid relationship conflict
* Approach motives associated with more positive affect, life & relationship
satisfaction, less conflict
* Avoidance motives associated with more negative affect, less relationship
satisfaction, more conflict
* Perceiving partner’s behaviour as
approach motivated associated
with more positive affect &
relationship satisfaction
* Perceiving partner’s behaviour as
avoidance motivated associated
with more negative affect, less
relationship satisfaction, more
breakups 1 month later
VELOCITY
- Recall that not just distance from goal—
velocity with which we approach a
desired goal is an important predictor of
affective experience (Laurenceau et al.,
2005)
– Emotions as reactions to change - Satisfaction based more on recent
improvements (changes) in relationship
quality than overall quality of
relationship (Karney & Frye, 2002)
CHANGES IN SATISFACTION
On average, marital satisfaction declines as the years go by
* This doesn’t happen to
everyone:
* About one in every four
couples do not experience
large declines in their
satisfaction
* But many do—why?
CHANGES IN REWARDS & COSTS
* Effort declines
– Reduction in impression management,
“deromantization”
- Spouses display more negative & fewer positive
behaviours towards each other than they do towards
strangers (Birchler et al., 1975)
* Interdependency is a magnifying glass for conflict &
friction
– “Social allergies” (Cunningham et al., 2015)
* In intimate relationship, high access to weaponry
– Ammunition for conflicts, greater ability to hurt our feelings
– Can also unintentionally reveal secrets or embarrass us
* Unwelcome surprises
– Fatal attractions
– May discover undesirable things about partner when adjusting to new
circumstances or roles (e.g., parenthood)
* Worse if we hold unrealistic expectations
CONSTRUAL LEVEL THEORY
* Different mental representations of events based on the psychological
distance of the event (Gilbert, 2006)
* Psychologically distant events are thought about in abstract terms (higherlevel construal)
* Psychologically near events that are thought about in concrete terms (lowerlevel construal)
IMPLICATIONS FOR RELATIONSHIPS
* What do you think about when you think about eventually settling down with
someone in the distant future?
– Love, companionship, intimacy (higher level construal)
* May not think about the day-to-day realities (lower level construal)
SHOULD WE BE PESSIMISTS?
- Optimism (tendency to expect
good things to happen) is good for
your relationship
– Optimists enjoy more satisfying
relationships (Carver & Scheier,
2009) - Key is probably expectation that
inevitable difficulties can be
resolved
RELATIONSHIP BELIEFS
Statement #1
Relationships that do not start off well will inevitably fail
Statement #2
A successful relationship evolves through hard work and resolution of
incompatibilities
Destiny beliefs:
People are either
compatible or
they are not
Growth beliefs:
Relationship
challenges can
be overcome
DESTINY BELIEFS
* People with destiny beliefs are initially happier with their relationships
* But when faced with conflict, satisfaction declines
* Especially sensitive to signs that their relationship is “not meant to be”
* Disengage from the relationship when there is a problem
GROWTH BELIEFS
* People with growth beliefs are constructive, optimistic, and committed in the
face of conflicts
* Fewer one-night stands, dating a partner for a longer period of time
* Try to maintain the relationship when there is a problem
CHANGES IN CL
* Recall that
* Satisfaction may go down when outcomes deteriorate or CL goes up
Satisfaction = Outcomes – CL
THE HEDONIC TREADMILL
* When we attain positive outcomes, our
happiness levels may temporarily increase—
but so do our expectations (Lyubomirsky,
2010)
* Variety = extent to which events of a given
valence vary in their content
– Adaptation occurs to constant/repeated
stimuli, not varying ones
MITIGATING HEDONIC ADAPTATION
* Longitudinal study of happiness intervention (Sheldon et al., 2012)
* Students told to repeat same kind acts every week for 10 weeks (low variety
condition)
* Or vary the kind acts they performed (high variety condition)
* In high variety condition, increased happiness following intervetnion
* In low variety condition, happiness actually declined
* Variety may indeed be the
spice of relationship satisfaction
* Maintain reasonable
expectations & aspirations
* Cultivate gratitude
COMMITMENT
- Best predictor of stability
- 3 components:
– Affective: psychological attachment to relationship
– Cognitive: taking a long-term orientation
– Conative: intention to persist in relationship
AFFECTIVE COMPONENT
* As interdependence grows, become increasingly
susceptible to strong emotional experiences triggered
by partner
* May not be fully aware of full extent to which this
happens
– May be surprised by impact of separation
“I feel very strongly linked to my partner—very attached
to our relationship”
“I am very affected when things are not going well in
the relationship”
COGNITIVE COMPONENT
* Imagining oneself being involved with the
partner in distant future
– Making plans, adopting shared identity
“I am oriented toward the long-term future
of this relationship (e.g., I imagine being with
my partner several years from now)”
“My partner and I joke about what things will
be like when we are old”
CONATIVE COMPONENT
* Motivational component—intention to persist
“I intend to stay in this relationship”
“I feel inclined to keep our relationship going”
INVESTMENT MODEL OF COMMITMENT
(RUSBULT ET AL., 1998)
Satisfaction level (+), Quality of alternatives (-), Investment size (+) = commitment
CONSEQUENCES OF COMMITMENT
* In interdependent situations, will inevitably encounter situations where
partners’ needs conflict
* Relational turbulence model: period of turmoil & dips in satisfaction as
partners adjust to new interdependence (Knoblock & Solomon, 2004)
* Commitment can be conceptualized as transformation of motivation
– Shifting away from selfish motivations to focus on broader relationship
concerns
- Think in terms of “us” instead of “me” and “him”
– What’s good for the partner is good for the self—reduces cost of
sacrifice, derive benefit from partner’s positive outcomes
MOTIVATED REASONING
* Process information in a way that supports relationship maintenance
– Faults into virtues
– Seeing one’s relationship as better than everyone else’s
– Unwarranted optimism about the future
– Greater perceptions of control over the relationship
– More benign interpretations of negative acts
BEHAVIOURAL MECHANISMS
* Accommodation: greater willingness to respond to destructive acts with
constructive response
– E.g., suggesting discussion, waiting out the storm
* Greater willingness to forgive
* Greater willingness to sacrifice
RECIPROCAL INFLUENCES
* Commitment increases satisfaction through motivated reasoning
* Commitment also decreases perceived quality of alternatives
– Greater inattentiveness/less vigilance towards desirable alternatives
– Devaluation of attractive alternatives
* Commitment predicts devaluation of attractive (threatening) but not
unattractive (non-threatening) alternatives (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989)
COMMITMENT CALIBRATION
HYPOTHESIS
* Does higher commitment necessarily lead to greater devaluation? Maybe not
(Lydon et al., 1999)
* Commitment maintenance response may emerge when level of threat is
commensurate with level of commitment
– May not emerge when level of threat is either higher or lower than level of
commitment
* Distinguished between low, moderate, & high levels of commitment
* Introduced Ps to moderate or high levels of threat
LYDON ET AL., 1999
* Ostensible goal of the study: evaluating new dating service
* Create & evaluate dating profiles
* Presented profile:
– Attractive desired-sex target
– “Single and not currently involved”
– Pleasant personality
* Moderate threat condition: algorithm may or may not have matched you
* High threat condition: target chose you
When person in moderate commitment and moderate threat, rate the profile as more attractive
When in high commitment relationship and high threat, rate the profile as less attractive
REFLECTIONS
(ARE WE REALLY THIS GREEDY?)
REWARDS & COSTS
* Have seen that tallying of rewards & costs is not as simple as initially
suggested
– Foregoing attractive alternatives can be seen as a cost that should decrease
dependence—but motivated reasoning processes discount the cost
* With interdependence, do not see ourselves as entirely separate entity from
partner
– Focus shifts from single-minded self-interest to broader relationship
concerns
INTERDEPENDENCY &
RELATIONSHIP DECISIONS
* Previously discussed self-focused reasons for staying in or leaving a
relationship
– E.g., investments
* But make relationship decisions with partner in mind as well
– Less likely to initiate breakup when believe that partner is highly dependent
on the relationship (Joel et al., 2018)
EXCHANGE VS. COMMUNAL
RELATIONSHIPS (CLARK, 1984)
* Exchange relationships = governed by explicit norms of even exchange (titfor-tat)
– Keep track of each other’s contributions
– Expect immediate repayment for benefit given, and more comfortable
repaying others right away
* Communal relationships = governed by genuine concern for welfare of the
other
– Avoid strict cost accounting
– Do favours & make sacrifices without expecting explicit repayment
* Processes of social exchange still apply
– Exchanges still take place in communal relationships, but they involve
diverse types of rewards that are provided over a long span of time
– People don’t need to “sweat the small stuff” in happy, highly rewarding
relationships
– But they may begin to do so if dissatisfaction looms
EQUITY
* Fairness in a relationship
* Each partner gains benefits from the relationship that are proportional to his
or her contributions to it
* The ratio of your outcomes divided by your contributions is equal to the ratio
of your partner’s outcomes divided by your partner’s contributions
* Is equity a big concern in intimate relationships?
* Underbenefited partner may feel frustrated, overbenefited partner may feel
guilty
* Seems to be particularly important for division of household labour &
childcare
* But equity may not matter much if a relationship is highly rewarding and
both partners are prospering
ATTACHMENT
* Avoidant attachment
– Prioritization of autonomy, discomfort with interdependence
– More likely to keep options open, pay more attention to attractive
alternatives
– Less attracted to those who use communal norms (Bartz & Lydon, 2008)
* Anxious attachment
– Focus on avoiding negative outcomes may undermine own & partner
relationship satisfaction
