by: Lediya dumessa
“Close relationships involve people interacting with and influencing each other, for a while, with a mutual understanding of intimacy and the potential for strong feelings” (Fiske, 2014). The core social motives for close relationships include interdependence, attachment, and social norms. Interdependence refers to the ability to rely on one another and involves controlling and trusting. While controlling in this context refers the extent to which one allows to be influences by the other, trust involves believing that the other has one’s best interest. Attachment refer to having secure links to others through belonging and understanding each other. Finally, social norms refer to unwritten social rules regarding belonging and understanding.
Close relationships, specifically those romantic in nature are characterized by the potential for passion, interdependence, and commitment. Passion refers to a strong emotion of sexual attraction. In interdependence, each person’s goal depends on both people’s behavior and what each person does affects the other (Kelley et al., 1983; Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996). Moreover the strength (to what extent the two individuals influence on another), frequency (how often the couple influence each other), and diversity (the variation domains in which the couple influence each other) of interdependence constitute closeness. The stronger, more frequent, and more diversified the interdependence is the closer the couple. Commitment refers to the desire to maintain the relationship, wanting it to last a long time, and orienting toward a relationship. It partly depends on comparison level and comparison level for alternatives. Comparison level refers to people’s tendency to compare their outcomes with the level of outcomes they believe they deserve from a relationship. If an individual believes they are getting what they deserve or more than what they deserve in a relationship, then they are likely to commit. Comparison level for alternatives refers to people’s tendency to compare their outcomes in the current relationship with those they might experience in other relationships. Finally, intimacy refers to feeling understood and validated by the partner’s response, and involves revealing personally revealing feelings or information and the other person responding empathetically. Self-discloser enhances liking and increases closeness.
What determines whether or not we stay in a relationship?
According to the Investment model (Fig. 1; Rusbult et al., 1998; Le & Agnew, 2003) the decision to leave or stay in a relationship is based on four factors: satisfaction, alternatives, investments, and commitment level. Satisfaction refers to the affect associated with the relationship; that is the level of positive and negative emotions that one experiences while in the relationships. The more positive emotions that an individual associates with the relationship the higher the likelihood of staying. Alternatives refer to the quality of relational options that the individual perceives are available if they left the relationship. The lower the perceived quality of alternatives, the higher the likelihood of staying in the current relationship. Investments refer to the amount and importance of resources that are associated with the relationship. Investments can include financial resources, time, emotional ties, and children. Higher quantity and importance of investments is associated with increased likelihood of staying in a relationship. The investment model may also explain why people stay in or return to abusive relationships. For example, Rusbult and Marts (1995) conducted a study examining why victims of domestic violence return to their abusers and found that those that were satisfied in the relationship as measured by their internal attribution of the violence, lacked alternatives, and had more investments in the form of children or length of time in the relationship were more likely to return to an abusive relationship. Finally, commitment within this model refers to the desire to maintain the relationship long-term, and is predicted by the other three factors (i.e. high satisfaction, low quality of alternatives, and more investments).
The Vulnerability-Stress Adaptation Model (Figure 2; the VSA model; Karney & Bradbury, 1995) explains why even the most stable relationships may deteriorate or even end. The VSA model posits that different processes such as solving problems and explaining each other’s behavior directly affects how intimate relationship satisfaction changes over time. Each individual’s vulnerabilities such as cognitive styles, personality traits, and childhood experiences, as well as external life stressors such as health or financial problems further affect these processes.
Gratitude
Gordon and colleagues (2012) examined gratitude as a potential factor that maintains relationships. Participants (50 couples) completed daily dairies of felt and expressed gratitude as well as relationship satisfaction for two weeks. Their results indicated that people who are more appreciative if their romantic partners report being more committed and more likely to remain in the relationship.
Willingness to Sacrifice
Van Lange and colleagues (1997) complete meta-analysis of 6 studies that examined willingness to sacrifice as a factor that maintains romantic relationships. Their results indicated that willingness to sacrifice was associated with strong commitment, high satisfaction in the relationship, poor alternatives, high investments, dyadic adjustment, and persistent as a couple.
Conclusion
While there are no conclusive ingredient that guarantee that that a relationship will survive life stressors, research gives us enough factors to consider and make more informed and conscious effort to maintain our close relationships.
References:
- Gordon, A. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2012). To have and to hold: gratitude promotes relationship maintenance in intimate bonds. Journal of personality and social psychology, 103(2), 257.
- Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 558-571.
- Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal relationships, 5(4), 357-387.
- Van Lange, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(6), 1373.