Must be 250+ words in length.

After reading the information presented in Chapter 6 of Intimate Relationships, please discuss your reactions to the concept of relationship rewards. Do you think this concept has merit?  Why or why not?

However, another important assumption of interdependence theory is that satisfaction is not the only, or even the major, influence that determines how long relationships last. Whether or not we’re happy, we use a second criterion, a comparison level for alternatives (or CLalt), to determine whether we could be doing even better somewhere else. Your CLalt describes the outcomes you’d receive by leaving your current relationship and moving to the best alternative partnership or situation you have available. And if you’re a good accountant, you can see that our CLalts are also the lowest levels of outcome we will tolerate from our present partners. Here’s why: If other relationships promise better profits than we currently receive, we’re likely to leave our present partners and enjoy those bigger rewards. It wouldn’t matter if we’re currently satisfied with what we’re getting; we’d still go because, according to interdependency theory, we always want the best deal we can get. On the other hand, even if we are unhappy in a current relationship, we won’t leave it unless a better alternative presents itself. This is a very important point, which helps explain why people stay in relationships that make them miserable: Even though they’re unhappy where they are, they think they’d be worse off if they left. They won’t go anywhere until they think a better situation awaits them elsewhere (et al., 2011). This idea—that our contentment with a relationship is not the major determinant of whether we stay in it or go—is one of interdependence theory’s most interesting insights.

Thus, our CLalts determine our dependence on our relationships. Whether or not we’re satisfied, if we believe that we’re already doing as well as we possibly can, we depend on our present partners and are unlikely to leave them (Ellis et al., 2002). Moreover, the greater the gap between our current outcomes and Page 179our poorer alternatives, the more dependent we are. If our current outcomes are only a little better than those that await us elsewhere, we don’t need our current partners very much and may leave if our alternatives improve.

But would you really leave a satisfying relationship? Presumably, you would, if the alternatives luring you away were genuinely better than what you have now. To keep things simple when you consider this, think of your CLalt as the global outcome, the net profit or loss, that a person believes will result from switching partners, all things considered (Kelley, 2002). If the whole process of ending a present partnership and moving to an alternative promises better outcomes, a person should move. It’s just economic good sense.

A problem, of course, is that these are difficult calculations to make. There’s a lot to consider. On the one hand, we need to assess the desirability and availability of the alternative partners that could lure us away, and going it alone—being without a partner—is also an option to ponder. When other partners or simple solitude seem attractive, our CLalts go up. However, we’ll also incur a variety of costs by leaving an existing relationship, and they can dramatically affect the net profit to be gained by moving elsewhere. For instance, Caryl Rusbult demonstrated that one’s investments in a present relationship, the things one would lose if the relationship were to end, are also important influences on one’s decision to stay or go (e.g., Rusbult et al., 2012). The investments a person leaves behind can either be tangible goods, such as furniture and dishes you have to split with your ex, or intangible psychological benefits, such as love and respect from in-laws and friends (Goodfriend & Agnew, 2008). An unhappy spouse may refrain from filing for divorce, for example, not because she has no other options but because she doesn’t want to accept the potential costs of confused children, disappointed parents, and befuddled friends. All of these would reduce the global desirability of leaving and, thus, reduce one’s CLalt.

Another complication is that a person’s CLalt is what he or she thinks it is, and a variety of factors can influence people’s perceptions of their alternatives. Self-esteem, for one. When people don’t like themselves, they doubt their desirability (Swann & Buhrmester, 2012) and underestimate their prospects with other partners. Access to information affects one’s CLalt, too. If you become a stay-at-home parent who doesn’t work, you’ll probably have much more limited information about potential alternatives than you would have if you went to work in a large city every day (Rusbult & Martz, 1995); as a result, you’ll have a lower CLalt than you would have if you got out and looked around.

Indeed, desirable alternatives will only enhance your CLalt if you are aware of them, and if you’re content with your current partners, you may not pay much attention to people who could be compelling rivals to your existing relationships. In fact, people who are satisfied with their existing partnerships are relatively uninterested in looking around to see how they could be doing elsewhere. As a result, they think they have lower CLalts than do those who pay more attention to their alternatives (Miller, 2008). This may be important. College students who keep track of their options and monitor their alternatives with care switch romantic partners more often than do those who pay their alternatives less heed (Miller, 2008).

These results mean that although interdependence theory treats satisfaction and dependence as relatively independent influences on relationships, they are actually correlated. As an old cliché suggests, the grass may be greener in other relationships, but if you’re happy with your current partner, you’re less likely to notice. Still, there’s wisdom in remembering that satisfaction with a relationship has only a limited role in a person’s decision to stay in it or go. Consider the usual trajectory of a divorce: Spouses who divorce have usually been unhappy for quite some time before they decide to separate (Lucas, 2007). What finally prompts them to act? Something changes: Their CLalts finally come to exceed their current outcomes (Albrecht & Kunz, 1980). Things may get so bad that their outcomes in the marriage fall below those that are available in alternative options that used to seem inadequate. Or the apparent costs of ending the marriage may decrease (which raises one’s CLalt): Because the spouses have been unhappy for so long, for instance, their kids, parents, and pastor may change their minds and support a divorce for the first time. Or the apparent rewards of leaving increase, perhaps because they have saved some money or obtained a degree. (This also raises one’s CLalt.) The bottom line is that people don’t divorce when they get unhappy; they divorce when, one way or the other, their prospects finally seem brighter elsewhere.

So, if we remember that CLalt is a multifaceted judgment encompassing both the costs of leaving—such as lost investments—and the enticements offered by others, we get:

Let’s review. The three key elements of social exchange are people’s outcomes, comparison levels (CLs), and comparison levels for alternatives (CLalts). The net profits or losses people receive from interaction are their outcomes. When their outcomes exceed their expectations, or CLs, they are satisfied; however, if they are not doing as well as they expect (that is, when their outcomes are lower than their CLs), they are dissatisfied. In addition, when people’s current outcomes are better than those they could get elsewhere (that is, when their outcomes exceed their CLalts), they depend on their current partners and are unlikely to leave. However, if their outcomes from their current partners get worse than those that can be readily obtained elsewhere (and their outcomes fall below their CLalts), they will be independent and will be likely to depart.