Social exchange theory
A general theoretical framework for the study of interpersonal relationships is social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). This approach regards relationships as effectively trading interactions, including goods (e.g. birthday presents), information (e.g. advice), love (affection, warmth), money (things of value), services (e.g. shopping, childcare) and status (e.g. evaluative judgements).
A relationship continues when both partners feel that the benefits of remaining in the relationship outweigh the costs and the benefits of other relationships. According to this framework, these considerations apply to even our most intimate friendships. We now turn to a consideration of these closest relationships in our lives. It is argued that these relationships are also based on complex cost–benefit analyses (‘she brings the money in and is practical, but I have a secure pension and do more for the children’). According to the more specific equity theory, partners in such relationships are happier if they feel that both partners’ outcomes are proportional to their inputs, rather than one partner receiving more than they give (Walster, Walster & Berscheid, 1978).
Happy vs. distressed relationships
A major characteristic of happy, close relationships is a high degree of intimacy. According to Reis and Patrick (1996), we view our closest relationships as intimate if we see them as: n caring (we feel that the other person loves and cares about us); n understanding (we feel that the other person has an accurate understanding of us); and n validating (our partner communicates his or her acceptance, acknowledgement and support for our point of view).
Unhappy or ‘distressed’ relationships, on the other hand, are characterized by higher rates of negative behaviour, reciprocating with such negative behaviour when the partner behaves negatively towards us. Reciprocation, or retaliation, is the most reliable sign of relationship distress (Fincham, 2003). Those in unhappy elationships also tend to ignore or cover up differences (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1990), compare themselves negatively with other couples (Buunk et al., 1990) and perceive their relationship as less equitable than others (van Yperen & Buunk, 1991). They also make negative causal attributions of their partner’s behaviours and characteristics (Fincham & Bradbury, 1991). For example, being given flowers might be explained away with ‘He’s just trying to deal with his guilt; he’ll be the same as usual tomorrow.’ In a happy relationship, the explanation is more likely to be something like ‘It was nice of him to find time for that; I know how stressed he is at the moment.’ The investment model Ultimately, what holds a relationship together is commitment – the inclination to maintain a relationship and to feel sychologicallyattached to it (Rusbult, 1983). According to the investment model (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993), commitment is based on one or more of the following factors: high satisfaction, low quality of alternatives, and a high level of investments. Highly committed individuals are more willing to make sacrifices for their relationship, and to continue it even when forced to give up important aspects of their life (Van Lange et al., 1997).
Close relationships do, regrettably, often dissolve, sometimes as a result of extreme levels of violence committed within intimate relationships (Gelles, 1997). The ending of a relationship is often a lengthy, complex process, with repeated episodes of conflict and reconciliation (Cate & Lloyd, 1988). Women tend to terminate intimate relationships more often than do men (Gray & Silver, 1990) and are more distressed by relationship conflict (Surra & Longstreth, 1990).
A general theoretical framework for the study of interpersonal relationships is social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). This approach regards relationships as effectively trading interactions, including goods (e.g. birthday presents), information (e.g. advice), love (affection, warmth), money (things of value), services (e.g. shopping, childcare) and status (e.g. evaluative judgements).
A relationship continues when both partners feel that the benefits of remaining in the relationship outweigh the costs and the benefits of other relationships. According to this framework, these considerations apply to even our most intimate friendships. We now turn to a consideration of these closest relationships in our lives. It is argued that these relationships are also based on complex cost–benefit analyses (‘she brings the money in and is practical, but I have a secure pension and do more for the children’). According to the more specific equity theory, partners in such relationships are happier if they feel that both partners’ outcomes are proportional to their inputs, rather than one partner receiving more than they give (Walster, Walster & Berscheid, 1978).
Happy vs. distressed relationships
A major characteristic of happy, close relationships is a high degree of intimacy. According to Reis and Patrick (1996), we view our closest relationships as intimate if we see them as: n caring (we feel that the other person loves and cares about us); n understanding (we feel that the other person has an accurate understanding of us); and n validating (our partner communicates his or her acceptance, acknowledgement and support for our point of view).
Unhappy or ‘distressed’ relationships, on the other hand, are characterized by higher rates of negative behaviour, reciprocating with such negative behaviour when the partner behaves negatively towards us. Reciprocation, or retaliation, is the most reliable sign of relationship distress (Fincham, 2003). Those in unhappy elationships also tend to ignore or cover up differences (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1990), compare themselves negatively with other couples (Buunk et al., 1990) and perceive their relationship as less equitable than others (van Yperen & Buunk, 1991). They also make negative causal attributions of their partner’s behaviours and characteristics (Fincham & Bradbury, 1991). For example, being given flowers might be explained away with ‘He’s just trying to deal with his guilt; he’ll be the same as usual tomorrow.’ In a happy relationship, the explanation is more likely to be something like ‘It was nice of him to find time for that; I know how stressed he is at the moment.’ The investment model Ultimately, what holds a relationship together is commitment – the inclination to maintain a relationship and to feel sychologicallyattached to it (Rusbult, 1983). According to the investment model (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993), commitment is based on one or more of the following factors: high satisfaction, low quality of alternatives, and a high level of investments. Highly committed individuals are more willing to make sacrifices for their relationship, and to continue it even when forced to give up important aspects of their life (Van Lange et al., 1997).
Close relationships do, regrettably, often dissolve, sometimes as a result of extreme levels of violence committed within intimate relationships (Gelles, 1997). The ending of a relationship is often a lengthy, complex process, with repeated episodes of conflict and reconciliation (Cate & Lloyd, 1988). Women tend to terminate intimate relationships more often than do men (Gray & Silver, 1990) and are more distressed by relationship conflict (Surra & Longstreth, 1990).
But for both partners the consequences can be devastating.
The physical and mental health of divorced people is generally worse than that of married people, or even people who have been widowed or never married (Stroebe & Stroebe, 1987). Factors that predict better adjustment to divorce include having taken the initiative to divorce, being embedded in social networks, and having another satisfying and intimate relationship (Price-Bonham et al., 1983).
No comments:
Post a Comment