In our post industrial capitalistic society, we exchange our labor for money in order to purchase what we need and what we want. However, this dynamic is not restricted to our economics and has also found its way into our interpersonal relationships. We've learned in our class about equity theory, where people are the most satisfied with a relationship when, for each partner, the ratio between what they put in and what they get out of the relationship is nearly the same. Even if one member makes a greater contribution, the relationship will still be considered equitable as long as they benefit more from it. In just the definition of equity theory, this expectation of equivalent exchange echos what is also found in capitalism, but there are more similarities to be found in three of the four propositions of equity theory.
Consider an example from the textbook about those who settle for lesser quality relationships in fear of being single (Kassin, 2016, p374). Why might those who are afraid of being single be interested in less attractive, less responsive partners? The first thought that may come to mind is that they don't think they are good enough. That they do not have the right characteristics or attributes like being attractive, smart, funny, and so on. Though what else has attributes and characteristics? Products do. Products in the market like that new smartphone (higher dpi, cordless charging, better pictures), or that necklace (sterling silver, heart pendant, better clasp) or anything else you can think of that you can buy. People who settled for what society typically consider subpar love interests may do so out of genuine love of them, but there are those who trade their perceived lack of desirable traits for someone they think is of equal value. They take a 'lower quality' person just like they would take a cheaper product due to a lack of money. Have you ever seen this in any of the people you know?
In a dating and married relationship, it is important that each partner has intrinsic motivation, a self-sustaining form of motivation, to keep the relationship going. In chapter 3 of our textbook, we learned how intrinsic motivation can diminish when the activity has become associated with a reward or other external factors ( Kassin, 2016, p64). This phenomenon is called the overjustification effect which when combined with equity theory, where satisfaction in a relationship is based on the benefits received, makes for a problematic duo in terms of maintaining intrinsic motivation. By expecting and receiving benefits for one's contributions in a relationship, equity is maintained but intrinsic motivation may become partly, if not more, replaced by extrinsic motivation instead. As a result, benefits will become more important, potentially required, to keep the couple together.
Now consider those relationships where one partner is disabled and has more needs than the average person. The partner who isn't disabled is likely to put more effort into the relationship equal to the severity of their significant other's condition. Unless the disabled partner does enough to accommodate the difference, there will be inequity in the relationship. However, how could equity be measured accurately? In the article “The 20-year trajectory of marital quality in enduring marriages”, DeMaris stated that “only a few types of spousal contributions could be objectively measured” like providing income, keeping good health, completing household chores and so on (DeMaris, 2010, p469). Emotional contributions in a marriage, like sharing innermost thoughts and feelings, improving morale, quality as a parent, as a lover, etc, are not easily measured despite being equally important (DeMaris, 2010, p469). Determining whether a relationship is actually equitable can be very subjective as a result. In DeMaris's article, he found that the “men's tendency to see themselves as under benefited was unrelated to their relative objective contributions” (DeMaris, 2010, p467). However, their contributions became related when only considering religious men, but in a way that does not correlate with equity theory, “they were less likely to report under benefit the greater their objective contributions” (DeMaris, 2010, p467). This lack of objectivity can also lead to disagreements between partners on whether their relationship is equitable. As shown in Van Yperen and Buunk's article, where they conducted a longitudinal study on 171 couples, they found that only 60% of couples agreed on who was being equitably treated or not (Van Yperen, 1990, p295).
Do you disagree with my observation that capitalist attitudes are not good for relationships? What do you think would be a better approach to make our relationships more satisfying and fulfilling? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.
Fromm, E. (1956). The Theory of Love. In The Art of Loving (pp. 22-29). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. (2016). Social Psychology [MindTap] (10th ed.).
Traupmann, J., Petersen, R., Utne, M., & Hatfield, E. (1981). Measuring Equity in Intimate Relations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5(4), 467-480. doi:10.1177/014662168100500405
Van Yperen, N. W., & Buunk, B. P. (1990). A longitudinal study of equity and satisfaction in intimate relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(4), 287-309. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420200403
Parallels in Propositions
“Proposition I: Individuals will try to maximize their outcomes (where outcomes equal reward minus punishments)” (Traupmann, 1981, p467)
Business men and women are always looking to maximize the outcomes of their business decisions, typically where the overarching goal is to create more profit. With more profit, their business can expand and develop more financial cushioning from future setbacks. Without profit, their business may fail which would harm their reputation and render their investments unrecoverable. Those who are married or dating also do not want to lose their investments in a relationship and work to get the most out of their relationship, whatever their version of 'profits' may be.
“Proposition III: When individuals find themselves participating in inequitable relationships, they will become distressed. The more inequitable the relationship, the more distress they will feel.” (Traupmann, 1981, p467)
Business people, as well as consumers, will become irritated by expensive investments and purchases that do not live up to their expectations. They will also become distraught when the products or services they depend on become more expensive over time. These reactions will become more pronounced the more money that is spent. In a similar way, we will experience varying levels of disappointment and/or frustration when our significant other is not as amazing as we thought they were, or when they ask more of us than we feel is justified.
“Proposition IV: Individuals who discover they are in inequitable relationships will attempt to eliminate their distress by restoring equity. The greater the inequity that exists, the more distress they will feel, and the harder they will try to restore equity.” (Traupmann, 1981, p467)
When business people believe they've received the bad part of a deal, they will definitely do something to fix the situation. In only somewhat unfair deals, they are more likely to discuss their contentions with the deal peacefully and may not push the issue too firmly. However, in worse situations, they may silently and purposely not keep their side of the deal in entirety, and force a new version of the deal that they consider equitable. Lastly, in even worse cases, they may go to great lengths to find and use information and/or property as collateral to obtain a level of equitability. We too may choose to bring up issues in dating and married relationships peacefully, or on the another hand, not buy them their favorite pudding or force them to stop watching Netflix till they do the dishes.
 |
| Image from A Christmas Carol (1970) at 52:38 |
Faults in these attitudes
Despite being natural in our business decisions, the capitalistic attitudes within equity theory cause a number of problems in our dating and married relationships. Theses include the exchange of personal characteristics like commodities, expectations of returns, and an evaluation of relationship satisfaction based on unmeasurable contributions.Consider an example from the textbook about those who settle for lesser quality relationships in fear of being single (Kassin, 2016, p374). Why might those who are afraid of being single be interested in less attractive, less responsive partners? The first thought that may come to mind is that they don't think they are good enough. That they do not have the right characteristics or attributes like being attractive, smart, funny, and so on. Though what else has attributes and characteristics? Products do. Products in the market like that new smartphone (higher dpi, cordless charging, better pictures), or that necklace (sterling silver, heart pendant, better clasp) or anything else you can think of that you can buy. People who settled for what society typically consider subpar love interests may do so out of genuine love of them, but there are those who trade their perceived lack of desirable traits for someone they think is of equal value. They take a 'lower quality' person just like they would take a cheaper product due to a lack of money. Have you ever seen this in any of the people you know?
In a dating and married relationship, it is important that each partner has intrinsic motivation, a self-sustaining form of motivation, to keep the relationship going. In chapter 3 of our textbook, we learned how intrinsic motivation can diminish when the activity has become associated with a reward or other external factors ( Kassin, 2016, p64). This phenomenon is called the overjustification effect which when combined with equity theory, where satisfaction in a relationship is based on the benefits received, makes for a problematic duo in terms of maintaining intrinsic motivation. By expecting and receiving benefits for one's contributions in a relationship, equity is maintained but intrinsic motivation may become partly, if not more, replaced by extrinsic motivation instead. As a result, benefits will become more important, potentially required, to keep the couple together.
Now consider those relationships where one partner is disabled and has more needs than the average person. The partner who isn't disabled is likely to put more effort into the relationship equal to the severity of their significant other's condition. Unless the disabled partner does enough to accommodate the difference, there will be inequity in the relationship. However, how could equity be measured accurately? In the article “The 20-year trajectory of marital quality in enduring marriages”, DeMaris stated that “only a few types of spousal contributions could be objectively measured” like providing income, keeping good health, completing household chores and so on (DeMaris, 2010, p469). Emotional contributions in a marriage, like sharing innermost thoughts and feelings, improving morale, quality as a parent, as a lover, etc, are not easily measured despite being equally important (DeMaris, 2010, p469). Determining whether a relationship is actually equitable can be very subjective as a result. In DeMaris's article, he found that the “men's tendency to see themselves as under benefited was unrelated to their relative objective contributions” (DeMaris, 2010, p467). However, their contributions became related when only considering religious men, but in a way that does not correlate with equity theory, “they were less likely to report under benefit the greater their objective contributions” (DeMaris, 2010, p467). This lack of objectivity can also lead to disagreements between partners on whether their relationship is equitable. As shown in Van Yperen and Buunk's article, where they conducted a longitudinal study on 171 couples, they found that only 60% of couples agreed on who was being equitably treated or not (Van Yperen, 1990, p295).
Alternative Attitudes
With the reasons above in mind, I would like to suggest an alternative attitude in our relationships instead of the for benefit mentality of capitalism within equity theory. Though I first would like to state that I am not arguing or suggesting to stay in an unfulfilling relationship, but that the focus on receiving benefits hinders the relationship's well-being. Instead of focusing on what benefits can be received from one's relationship, I suggest we consider more of what we can do for our significant other. How we can act on our desire for the well-being of those we love based on a foundation of care, responsibility, respect and knowledge of them ( Fromm, 1956, p22-29 ). |
| The pictorial equation was constructed by Joshua Bergen at the direction of Dr. and Mrs. Jensen |
Sources:
DeMaris, A. (2010). The 20-year trajectory of marital quality in enduring marriages: Does equity matter? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(4), 449-471. doi:10.1177/0265407510363428Fromm, E. (1956). The Theory of Love. In The Art of Loving (pp. 22-29). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. (2016). Social Psychology [MindTap] (10th ed.).
Traupmann, J., Petersen, R., Utne, M., & Hatfield, E. (1981). Measuring Equity in Intimate Relations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5(4), 467-480. doi:10.1177/014662168100500405
Van Yperen, N. W., & Buunk, B. P. (1990). A longitudinal study of equity and satisfaction in intimate relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(4), 287-309. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420200403
It is a very interesting thought about how we almost monetize relationship attributes. I had not considered it before. I think that you are completely correct when you talked about trying to quantify things that can not be quantified. We as human constantly try to make it easier for us to understand our world and being able to have a finite, definite and traceable value is something that we strive for. If we can attain this value we can meet or exceed it. This is along the same lines of why we stereotype, it allows us to see our world in a more predictable way. I don't know if there is necessarily a way for us to fix this issue that we have but I think that the best that we can do is be aware of it and to be rational in its outcomes.
ReplyDeleteLife is definitely easier when you can quantify everything and weight options but with so many grey areas, there are things that can not be known for sure. Current emotional states and the things weighing on a person's mind can definitely skew how equitable a relationship is perceived. How people measure the relationships as equitable can also make calculating inequity difficult since the characteristics people use and the importance of each characteristics used can vary from person to person. If this wasn't the case, we would have much easier time determining whether a relationship is worth it or not.
DeleteI appreciate that you touched on how crucial intrinsic motivation is to a healthy romantic relationship. While I can't say for certain what motivates all the relationships my friends share, it has never seemed like any of them were due to solely an extraneous goal; I'm fairly certain they all have truly romantic feelings for their partners.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that it's also important to do what we can to support our SO's, it's hard for me to go along with the idea of not focusing on how you're benefiting from the relationship. I don't mean that in a selfish way however; by helping improve the well-being of your SO, merely putting your SO in a better state should provide some level of satisfaction, which doubles as a personal benefit. As such, by benefiting your partner, you're still benefiting yourself, to some extent.
I think you brought up a great point about how benefitting your significant other can in fact benefit yourself as well. This is important to understand in a relationship because in order to have a healthy relationship, there needs to mutual support. People are inherently selfish, so it is hard to not think of your benefits in a relationship. Feeling better by making your significant other feel better is a good indication of equity theory in healthy relationships.
DeleteI definitely agree with your idea about focusing on what we can give the other person in the relationship, or how to make their lives easier. But in the end, it relies on both partners giving an equal amount of effort in (in my opinion) for it to be effective. For instance, if I give all I've got and my partner does not reciprocate, it's falling back into the issues we see in non-equitable relationships. I guess the difference between focusing on what we get out of it, and what our partner gets out of it, ends up being very similar, at least from the way I'm thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that when a partner does not reciprocate and share the same mentality of desiring the good of their partner, problems do arise. The attitude I offered does not work well when not universally practiced by everyone. However, I would like to also note that there is also no point in being in a relationship with someone who does not have an interest in the long term well being of the relationship. As a result, there probably should be a focus on the well being and benefits of the relationship overall in addition to what I mentioned in the blog.
DeleteDo you mind elaborating on what you mean by " the difference between focusing on what we get out of it, and what our partner gets out of it, ends up being very similar"? I don't quite understand what you mean.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that there are going to be some people in society that are not going to be able to match 1:1 the efforts of their partner in their relationship. Some will be okay with that even if their benefits are not equal to the effort they put in ( like the religious men I mentioned above in my blog) and others will not. Their reasons could range from a lack of self-love, being overworked for financial reasons, or a number of personal reasons that they were not the cause of and are struggling to overcome. Yes there are some selfish people out there that do not reciprocate because they are selfish. Others are not. For the sake of those who aren't, I offered a focus on the desiring of one's partner's well-being with no strings attached.
DeleteGood post! I had never really thought of relationships in this light, but reading what you had to say makes sense to me. I agree that this sort of capitalist mentality is not good for relationships. There needs to be a give and take in any relationship, an overall sense of willing the good of the other. If individuals get to focused on simply what they are or are not getting out of a relationship, then that person is making the whole relationship about themselves.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you Jake. The relationship is about future investment and narrowly defined goals rather than being present in each moment of the relationship if relationships have a capitalist mentality.
DeleteThis is really interesting and a good approach to relationships! This mentality can be extremely detrimental to relationships and I believe it causes way more problems than it does solutions. I found a quote one time that I think really illustrates how much "effort" you are supposed to put in to a relationship. The quote goes, " relationships are not always 50/50, sometimes it is 80/20 but you have to pick up that extra effort because that is love." I really like this quote and I feel that if you are truly in love with someone then you do what you can for them. I really like the foundation of care, responsibility, respect and knowledge of them. I think this is also extremely true and by knowing and figuring out each other, Love will prosper.
ReplyDeleteI really like the quote you used. Growing up and watching my parents' relationship, this quote is exactly true. When one person had to stay late at work, the other would pick up the kids and cook dinner. When one was not feeling good, the other would take care of them. If someone thinks all relationships will be 50/50 then most likely the relationship will not last. It is crucial for people to understand the effort given by both sides might not always balance out. It is the selflessness of giving all your effort to your significant other even when they cannot do the same at the time that helps healthy relationships.
DeleteAbsolutely! Being a selfless person can be such a good thing in a relationship. By looking out for one another and having their backs no matter how hard it gets is an amazing quality to have.
DeleteI'm glad you both agree. Love definitely requires a lot of effort that isn't always immediately returned or sometimes never is. Waiting for a kind deed to be returned before doing another doesn't promote a healthy relationship. Actively caring for another - being selfless and having their back no matter what - prevents grudges and fosters a positive mental attitude in the relationship.
DeleteThat semi-question "How we can act on our desire for the well-being of those we love based on a foundation of care, responsibility, respect and knowledge of them" is actually a paraphrase of the best definition of love I have heard. The Opie library actually has an original copy of the book it is from if you would like to read more.
An interesting comparison--modern day planned obsolescence capitalism, and relationships.
ReplyDeleteI think another factor in why people may settle for an unhealthy or negative relationship would be due to the age-old adage, "men age like fine wine; women spoil like milk".
Not to perpetrate the saying or the stereotype, though, but it is true that some people buy into this... idea. With regards to reproductive abilities there's some truth to it, but at the same time, I know of at least one individual who employed the adage to justify getting married to another individual, despite their relationship not being ideal, out of fear that their age would make them undesirable if they kept looking.
Yes, I do agree the comparison I made was unusual. I first read about it from a book written by Erich Fromm, cited above, as a Valetine's day present from my parents after my first failed relationship. My father, an avid reader of Erich Fromm, talks about it from time to time and I decided to do my blog about it.
DeleteIt is unfortunate that people are afraid they will look too old to attract anyone if they wait too long to get married. This idea that worthwhile qualities in people are a finite resource, like money, is not true. Not to say that people could work to make themselves a better "package" to be exchanged, but that we can be worth the chance to date/marry, even if we think we've grown uglier from age, because of the wisdom and experience we've gained.
Relationships are never perfect and we all know that. As perfect as some people try to make theirs seem, they are not. The way that you compared relationships and business was very interesting. Honestly, scary how much easier it was to connect relationship issues with money when I really would have thought before reading this that they have nothing in common. What I got out of this was in the end, the "monetary" value you put on your relationship with bring it to a screeching halt because a relationship is not a business in the end. You get out of a business what you put in and the same can be true to a relationship but the difference being what your significant other puts in as well. As Joe said above, sometimes its 80/20 whether it be you picking up the slack or your significant other. It all works both ways.
ReplyDeleteVery well written! I agree with you about how toxic capitalist attitudes can be for relationships. It had never occurred to me how similar the two really were.
ReplyDeleteWhat I enjoy is that both systems have the same solution: to consider the other person(people) and work together with them. Basically don't be so self centered.
DeleteCapitalistic attitudes in relationships mimic the relationships of the early 1900s. I watched my grandparents relationship and then I grew up with my mom emulating my grandma. I noticed every thing was give and take in our family. In order to achieve a reward, we needed to put in the work to get it. I thought this tactic worked well at times but it did create a lot of tension. The tension came when the effort in the work was not good enough or there was not enough reward for our work. My mom made dinner, then us the kids had to do the dishes. This created lots of anger when us as kids became angry when my parents sat and watched. A community work environment would have been more effective in my mind. This would be making dinner together and doing the dishes together. Not always, but at certain times I feel the community tactic would be more beneficial than the capitalism approach.
ReplyDeleteHave you considered that perhaps capitalism was made to follow human nature. With that idea, it would make a lot of sense for us to see it mirrored in most day to day interactions.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the effect of living under different economic systems has on people. Surely the local economic system would also be a part of the local culture, which we know has an effect on people’s ideals. I wonder how far reaching this effect is, I remember reading some study on how eastern and westerners actually think differently, as in their brains light up with different patterns for the same questions. I don’t remember what the study gave as a reason, but it seems like it could be somewhat relevant.
I definitely agree that focusing on the costs and benefits of a relationship in a numerical way can hinder a relationship. By looking at the small details of who does what and who gains what you lose sight of what really matters and this can cause a lot of strain in the relationship. Rather than looking at rewards minus costs I think that looking at the big picture of "Am I happy in general with this person" is a better way of deciding if a relationship is good or not.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you are saying Rose. I believe that you have to look at the overall big picture to see if you are happy or not in your relationship. Some people get too caught up in the little things in their relationship and that can in turn cause turmoil between the two. If you are generally happy in your relationship, then you shouldn't look too far into the little things, unless there is reason to.
DeleteIn my own experience (relationship of 6 years and soon to be married), I have found there is a fine line to contributions in relationships between focusing on the other person and hindering yourself. I think that focusing and taking the time to care and learn about the other person and what they want out of the relationship is important, but if they do not do the same, you could easily start to over work yourself. I truly to believe it has to be 50/50 for effort. I really like your opinion on the matter and they way you tied everything together. Great job on your post.
ReplyDeleteI found the idea of applying economics to relationships to be very interesting. It makes sense as it goes along with what we have previously learned about people staying in failing relationships due to the feeling of investment. I feel like if we can break down that barrier of the capitalistic viewpoint of investment in a relationship it can lead to a lot healthier decisions about our relationships. Good post!
ReplyDelete