Todays plan Interdependence Theory Social Exchange

Today!s plan
Developing and Maintaining
Relationships:
Interdependence, Commitment,
and Trust
Interdependence theory
Commitment
pro"relationship behavior
October !", !##$
pro"relationship cognitions
Last names A " K:
Please turn in papers in the front
Interdependence Theory
Social exchange: Rewards, Costs, and Outcomes
Determinant of Satisfaction: Comparison Level
#CL$
Determinant of Dependence: Comparison level for
alternatives #CLalt$
The combination of CL and CLalt: 4 types of
relationships
Trust and the development of commitment
Social Exchange
Rewards: anything about the relationship that results
in desirable experiences for the individual
Costs: anything about the relationship that results in
undesirable experiences for the individual
Outcome = Rewards " Costs
We seek relationships that will provide the best
possible* outcomes
* meets or exceeds expectations, better than we could get elsewhere
How well could you do elsewhere?
What do you expect to get?
Comparison Level !CL": What you think you
deserve in your relationships
Outcomes " CL = Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction
+
!
+
!
"
!
+
!
"
CL
CL
Outcomes " CLalt = Dependence/Independence
+
!
!
CL
Outcomes
Outcomes
Outcomes
Comparison level for alternatives !CLalt":
How well you think you could do elsewhere
Outcomes
"
!
"
CLalt
Outcomes
CL
Outcomes
CLalt
Satisfaction = Outcomes " CL
Dependence:
The Double"edged Sword
Satisfying
Outcomes
Stable
!
!
Unsatisfying
Outcomes
CL
!
CL
!
CLalt
!
CLalt
Outcomes
!
CL
CLalt
Unstable
Dependence =
Outcomes " CLalt
CLalt
CL
I
Outcomes
!
CLalt
I
!
Outcomes
CL
Dependence promotes stability
"
Outcomes
CLalt
Outcomes
Potential
for extreme
rejection
"
!
CLalt
CLalt
Satis%es need to
belong
+
Outcomes
Outcomes
CL
+
CLalt
I
!
CL
Outcomes
CL and CLalt as Time goes by
In society at large
CL:
Expectations of magic #Attridge & Berscheid, 1994$
Within a relationship:
CL and habituation
Outcomes
CL and CLalt as Time goes by
Outcomes
CL
CL
Outcomes
CL
CL
Outcomes
CL
time
CL and CLalt as Time goes by
In society at large
CL:
Expectations of magic #Attridge & Berscheid, 1994$
CLalt:
Women!s increase %nancial independence #South & Lloyd,
1995$
Mobility #Putnam, 2000$
Eroding barriers against divorce #Berscheid & Lopes, 1997$
Beliefs of &Permanent availability' #Farber, 1987$
CLalt
Outcomes
CLalt
CL
CL
Outcomes
Outcomes
The big question
Will we we stay
together?
Relationship maintenance
Commitment
A common assumption: &Steady as she goes'
Interdependence dilemmas
The real story: maintaining a relationship
requires work, willingness to sacri%ce
Rusbult!s Investment model
Commitment and pro"relationship behaviors
The role of commitment...
Commitment and pro"relationship cognitions
Trust and the development of commitment
Interdependence dilemmas
Investment Model
#Rusbult, Wieselquist, Foster, & Witcher, 1999$
Immediate self"interest vs. pro"relationship behavior
Commitment motivates pro"relationship behavior
+
"
+
Investment Model
Investment Model
#Rusbult, Wieselquist, Foster, & Witcher, 1999$
#Rusbult, Wieselquist, Foster, & Witcher, 1999$
+
"
+
"
+
+
Behavior
Overriding gut"level responses and behaving
in pro"relationship ways instead...
Overriding gut"level
responses when...
...a partner behaves in a
potentially destructive manner
Accommodation: Inhibiting the impulse to %ght
%re with %re; reacting constructively instead.
Associated with...
Couple well"being #Rusbult et al., 1998; Rusbult et al., 1986, 1991$
Commitment in both dating and married
relationships #Rusbult et al., 1998; Rusbult et al., 1991$
Overriding gut"level
responses when...
...a partner!s preferences are
incompatible with one!s own
Willingness to Sacri#ce: tendency to forego
immediate self"interest to promote well"being or
partner and relationship #Van Lange et al., 1997$; Associated
with...
Relationship satisfaction; probability of staying
together
Overriding gut"level
responses when...
...a partner breaks the rules of
the relationship
Forgiveness of betrayal: Willingness to forego
desire for vengeance; reacting in less judgmental
way instead
Correlational and experimental evidence that
commitment promotes forgiveness #Rusbult, Finkel,
Hannon, Kumashiro, & Childs, 2000$
Commitment in both dating and married couples
Investment Model
#Rusbult, Wieselquist, Foster, & Witcher, 1999$
Cognition
Construing the world in pro"
relationship ways...
+
"
+
Cognition
Cognitive interdependence: Collective
representation of self"and"partner vs.
individual representation of self
Cognition
Cognitive interdependence: Collective
representation of self"and"partner vs. individual
representation of self
Use of pronouns: we, us, our vs. I, me, mine
#Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998$
Role in reactions to partners! successes
#Beach et al., 1998; Gardner, Gabriel, & Hochschild, 2002$
Cognition
Positive illusions
Overly positive view of partner #e.g., Murray,
Holmes, & Gri(n, 1996$
The problem of attractive alternatives
Exposure to highly attractive opposite"sex
individuals can reduce perceived attractiveness of
Opposite"sex acquaintances #Kenrick & Gutierres, 1980$
Current romantic partners #Kenrick, Gutierres, &
Goldberg, 1989$
Perceived superiority of own relationship
#e.g., Martz et al., 1998$
Derogation of alternatives #e.g., Johnson & Rusbult,
1989; Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990$
Outcomes
CLalt
CLalt
Outcomes
Derogation of alternatives
Derogation of alternatives
Participant!s status:
Not dating
Dating
Participants: 204 male and female undergraduates
View 16 advertisements, 6 of them depict young,
opposite"sex models
Rate physical and sexual attractiveness of the
models
Report own dating status
perceived attractiveness
of target
Procedure:
70
No di)erence among Dating
and Not"dating groups in
perceptions of young same"
sex or older opposite"sex
targets
60
50
40
Men
Women
Participant!s sex:
#Simpson, Lerma, & Gangestad, 1990$
E)ect is not due to
participant!s own
attractiveness, self"esteem,
empathy, self"monitoring, or
altruism
Relationship commitment
enhances the derogation
e)ect #Johnson & Rusbult, 1989$
#Simpson, Lerma, & Gangestad, 1990$
Commitment carries risk, too...
Satis%es need to
belong
Trust #Homes & Rempel, 1989$
Predictability: partner!s behavior is
consistent
Potential
for extreme
rejection
A mechanism for regulating commitment...
Dependability: partner can be counted on
to be honest, reliable, and benevolent
Faith: conviction that partner is intrinsically
motivated to be responsive and caring
Trust and commitment development
Jack!s Trust
Jill!s
Predictability
Dependability
Faith
Trust as a function of...
Jill!s Trust
Jack!s
Predictability
Dependability
Faith
The individual""e.g.,
attachment style
A relationship"speci%c
process #Holmes & Rempel,
1989; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna,
1985$
Interdependence dilemma:
Jack demonstrates
commitment
Interdependence dilemma:
Jill demonstrates
commitment