Personal Relationships Chapter 9 Personal Relationships Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Personal Relationships Three basic characteristics Frequent interaction over a long period of time Many different kinds of activities Strong mutual influence Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Interdependence Theory Analyzes the exchange and coordination of outcomes between interdependent partners Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Interdependence Theory A reward is anything a person gains from an interaction Particular or universal, symbolic or concrete Basic types of rewards: Love Information Money Goods Status Services Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Interdependence Theory A cost is any negative consequence that occurs in an interaction or relationship Time Energy Conflict Others’ Disapproval Opportunity Cost Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Interdependence Theory Outcome = Rewards – Costs We evaluate outcomes with standards Profitability Comparison level Based on past experience Comparison level of alternatives Based on other currently available relationships Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Interdependence Theory In relationships, we need to coordinate outcomes to maximize benefits to both partners Easier to do when partners are similar In case of conflicts of interest, partners must negotiate a settlement Social norms and social roles help provide solutions to some coordination problems Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Interdependence Theory People are most content when they perceive their relationships to be fair Rules for Fairness Equality Rule “To Each According to Need” Equity Rule: profits proportional to inputs P’s outcome = O’s outcome P’s contributions O’s contributions Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Interdependence Theory Basic Assumptions of Equity theory Individuals try to maximize their outcomes in a relationship. Rewards can be maximized by evolving rules or norms about fairness. Perceived inequity fosters distress. For both the under-benefited and the over-benefited People who perceive inequity will try to restore equity. Either actual or perceived equity may be restored. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Interdependence Theory Research on Equity Theory Concerns with fairness may be highest at the beginning of a relationship, and in a long-term relationship when it encounters stressful changes Equity is less important to happiness than the absolute level of rewards Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Interdependence Theory Exchange Relationships People give benefits expecting a return of benefits soon after Strangers & Casual Acquaintances Clark & Mills (1979) Communal Relationships People feel responsible for meeting their partner’s needs Family, Friends, Romantic Partners Including other in self means that benefiting partner benefits self too Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

The inclusion of other in the Self (IOS) Scale Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Self-Disclosure Self-disclosure is a special type of conversation in which we share intimate information and feelings with another person. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Self-Disclosure Reasons we disclose Social Approval Relationship Development Self-Expression Self-Clarification Social Control Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Self-Disclosure Liking Self-Disclosure In general, we most like people whose self-disclosure is reciprocal and gradual. The impact of self-disclosure on liking depends on the nature of the relationship. E.g., an intimate self-disclosure by one’s roommate may be received very differently than an intimate self-disclosure by a random stranger in a lecture hall. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

A comparison of self-disclosure to closest and least close companions by college students in the U.S. and Japan. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Self-Disclosure Self-disclosure also entails risks: Indifference Rejection Loss of Control Betrayal Because of the risks of self-disclosure, we sometimes conceal our deepest feelings and keep secrets Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Self-Disclosure Self-disclosure varies by culture and by gender E.g., Japanese are less self-disclosing than Americans across relationships Women reveal somewhat more than men, particularly in same-sex relationships in the U.S. Men may be more revealing in same-sex relationships in cultures that encourage this Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Intimacy Intimacy results not just from self-disclosure, but when self-disclosure evokes a response that makes a person feel understood, validated, and care for. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Intimacy as an interpersonal process Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Gender and Intimacy Men and women do not define intimacy differently. However, men experience less intimacy than women in their same-sex interactions (there are no difference in cross-sex interactions) Cultural norms may explain this. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

The Balance of Power Social power = a person’s ability to influence deliberately the behavior, thoughts, or feelings of another. In some relationships, power is balanced, in others, one person has more power than the other. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

The Balance of Power Heterosexual couples in the U.S.: Equal power 64% Male-dominant 27% Female-dominant 9% Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 Equal power can mean shared or “separate but equal” decision-making Consensus between partners is generally the key to happiness However, female-dominant relationships are less satisfying Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

The Balance of Power Three things determine whether a relationship is equal in power: Social Norms and Attitudes Relative Resources Especially if the one with greater resources is a man The Principle of Least Interest The person who is least dependent on the relationship has the most power (Waller, 1938) Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conflict The process that occurs when the actions of one person interfere with the actions of another The potential for conflict increases as interdependence increases Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conflict Three types of problems specific behaviors norms and roles personal dispositions Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conflict Conflict can help or hurt a relationship, depending on how it is resolved. On the one hand, it can lead to defensiveness, withdrawal, even threats and violence. On the other, it can provide opportunity for clarification of agreements, to discover their depth of feeling for each other, and renew efforts to create a satisfying relationship. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Satisfaction & Commitment Satisfaction = an individual’s subjective evaluation of the quality of a relationship. Better when: Rewards > Costs Outcome > C.L. Happy couples spend more time in joint activities, use more humor, engage in more affectionate touching, and in less criticism, hostility, & arguing Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Satisfaction & Commitment Commitment = all the forces, positive & negative, that act to keep a person in a relationship. Increased by Satisfaction Values & morals Barriers that make it costly to leave Investments Decreased by C.L. alt (available alternatives) Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Satisfaction & Commitment Generally, there is a close relationship between satisfaction & commitment However, sometimes couples stay together despite low satisfaction. Why? Higher investments Lack of alternatives Moral commitments Low feelings of personal control Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Satisfaction & Commitment Factors that help in understanding commitment in heterosexual relationships are generally useful in understanding homosexual relationships as well. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

The Investment Model of Commitment and Relationship Stability Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Satisfaction & Commitment Factors that increase commitment: Positive Illusions about Relationships Misremembering the Past Forgoing Tempting Alternative Partners Explaining a Partner’s Behavior in a charitable fashion Willingness to Sacrifice Accommodation & Forgiveness Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Satisfaction & Commitment Reactions to Dissatisfaction: Voice Loyalty Neglect Exit Rusbult, 1987 Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Relationship Maintenance Positive illusions about relationship Misremembering the past Forgoing tempting alternative partners Explaining a partner’s behavior Willingness to sacrifice Turning the other cheek: Accommodation and forgiveness Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

A Model of Forgiveness in a Close Relationship Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Responses to Dissatisfaction Voice Loyalty Neglect exit Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall