please discuss your reactions to the concept of relationship rewards. Do you think this concept has merit?  Why or why not? ******READ this section to understand how to answer the question********* From this perspective, social life entails the mutual exchange of desirable rewards with others, a process called social exchange. There are several different social exchange theories, but the ideas introduced by John Thibaut and Harold Kelley (1959; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978)—now known as interdependence Page 176 theory —are most often used by relationship scientists, so I'll feature them here. Let's first consider the central elements of social exchange. Rewards and Costs The rewards of interactions are the gratifying experiences and commodities we obtain through our contact with others. They come in very different forms ranging from impersonal benefits, such as the directions you can get from strangers when you're lost, to personal intimacies, such as acceptance and support from someone you love. I'll use the term reward to refer to anything within an interaction that is desirable and welcome and that brings enjoyment or fulfillment to the recipient. In contrast, costs are punishing, undesirable experiences. They can involve financial expenditures, such as buying dinner for your date, or actual injuries, such as split lips. However, some of the most important costs of intimate interaction are psychological burdens: uncertainty about where a relationship is headed, frustration over your partner's imperfections, and regret about all the things you don't get to do because you're in that relationship (Sedikides et al., 1994). All of the diverse consequences of interaction that are frustrating or distressing are costs. We'll summarize the rewards and costs associated with a particular interaction with the term outcome, which describes the net profit or loss a person encounters, all things considered. Adding up all the rewards and costs involved, Outcomes = Rewards − Costs (MILLER 175-176) MILLER. Intimate Relationships, 6th Edition . McGraw-Hill Learning Solution s, 10/17/2011. VitalBook file. The citation provided is a guideline. Please check each citation for accuracy before use. Gender Differences in the Evaluation of Relationship Rewards The various commodities and rewards people exchange in their relationships have no price tags, and partners sometimes disagree about what an exchange is worth. In a study by Wills et al., (1974), seven married couples kept track of their behavioral exchanges for 2 weeks. The rewards they exchanged either involved tasks and responsibilities (such as taking out the garbage) or emotion and affection (such as saying, “I love you”). When the spouses rated their pleasure with their partners' behavior, wives particularly appreciated their husbands' affectionate behavior, whereas husbands liked their wives' task-oriented help. The sexes apparently attached different values to such actions as doing the dis.

1. please discuss your reactions to the concept of relationship
rewards. Do you think this concept has merit? Why or why not?
******READ this section to understand how to answer the
question*********
From this perspective, social life entails the mutual exchange of
desirable
rewards
with others, a process called
social exchange.
There are several different social exchange theories, but the
ideas introduced by John Thibaut and Harold Kelley (1959;
Kelley & Thibaut, 1978)—now known as
interdependence
Page 176
theory
—are most often used by
relationship
scientists, so I'll feature them here. Let's first consider the
central elements of social exchange.
Rewards and Costs
The rewards of interactions are the gratifying experiences and
commodities we obtain through our contact with others. They
come in very different forms ranging from impersonal benefits,
such as the directions you can get from strangers when you're
lost, to personal intimacies, such as acceptance and support
from someone you love. I'll use the term
reward
to refer to anything within an interaction that is desirable and
welcome and that brings enjoyment or fulfillment to the
recipient.
In contrast,
costs
are punishing, undesirable experiences. They can involve

2. financial expenditures, such as buying dinner for your date, or
actual injuries, such as split lips. However, some of the most
important costs of intimate interaction are psychological
burdens: uncertainty about where a relationship is headed,
frustration over your partner's imperfections, and regret about
all the things you don't get to do because you're in that
relationship (Sedikides et al., 1994). All of the diverse
consequences of interaction that are frustrating or distressing
are costs.
We'll summarize the rewards and costs associated with a
particular interaction with the term
outcome,
which describes the net profit or loss a person encounters, all
things considered. Adding up all the rewards and costs
involved,
Outcomes = Rewards − Costs
(MILLER 175-176)
MILLER.
Intimate Relationships, 6th Edition
. McGraw-Hill Learning
Solution
s, 10/17/2011. VitalBook file.
The citation provided is a guideline. Please check each citation
for accuracy before use.
Gender Differences in the Evaluation of
Relationship
Rewards
The various commodities and rewards people exchange in their

3. relationships have no price tags, and partners sometimes
disagree about what an exchange is worth. In a study by Wills et
al., (1974), seven married couples kept track of their behavioral
exchanges for 2 weeks. The rewards they exchanged either
involved tasks and responsibilities (such as taking out the
garbage) or emotion and affection (such as saying, “I love
you”). When the spouses rated their pleasure with their partners'
behavior, wives particularly appreciated their husbands'
affectionate behavior, whereas husbands liked their wives' task-
oriented help. The sexes apparently attached different values to
such actions as doing the dishes and expressing warmth and
love. The consequences of this sex difference were revealed
when the husbands were asked to increase their affectionate
behavior toward their wives. Most did, but they also engaged in
more task-oriented helping, which suggests that they were
confusing the two. One husband was no more affectionate than
usual but was annoyed when he was asked why; he had washed
his wife's car, and he thought that was a perfectly good way to
communicate his affection for her. She didn't see it that way.
This study used a very small sample, so we shouldn't make too
much of it. However, the results offer the useful lesson that
although the language of social exchange sounds
straightforward—rewards and costs, gains and losses—the
reality is more complex. Exchanges with others involve a
psychological

4. arithmetic in which people's motives, beliefs, and emotions
affect their perceptions of the outcomes they receive. Judgments
of what favors are worth routinely differ for those who provide
the favors and those who receive them (Zhang & Epley, 2009),
and gender differences complicate things further. So, for
example, when spouses are asked what they would change if
they could, wives say they desire more emotion and affection
from their husbands whereas the husbands say they want more
sex (Heyman et al., 2009). What matters to me may not be quite
the same as what matters to you, and those differing perceptions
add complexity to our quest for mutually satisfying interaction.
Page 190
A second reason to note the roles of approach and avoidance
motivations in our relationships is that the chronic strength of
people's motive differ (Gable, 2006). Bad is generally stronger
than good, for instance, but some people are very sensitive to
negative events that wouldn't much ruffle others—and such
people may feel especially threatened by disagreements or
conflict with their partners. Indeed, a strong motive to avoid
costs leads people to notice all of the annoying things their
partners do whereas the motive to approach rewards leads them
to focus on all the thoughtful and generous actions their
partners take (Strachman & Gable, 2006). (Which point of view
do you think makes people more content?) When they make
small sacrifices to benefit their partners (such as going to a

5. movie they don't much want to see), people with approach
motives are pursuing greater intimacy with their partners; they
feel good about their actions, and their relationships profit. In
contrast, people with avoidance motives are trying to avoid
conflict; they begrudge the sacrifice, and their relationships
suffer (Impett et al., 2005). And as you might guess from these
patterns, people who have high approach motivations are also
generally less lonely and more content (Gable, 2006). They
enter social situations eager to make new friends whereas
people with high aversive motivations just want to avoid
annoying, offending, or upsetting anybody. Evidently, there's
more long-term profit in focusing on obtaining rewards, rather
than cutting costs, in our close relationships (Impett et al.,
2010b).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the independent
operation of approach and avoidance motivations means that
being happy may involve different strategies than those that are
involved in not being unhappy. We want to avoid painful
conflict and other costs, of course, but if we wish our
relationships to prosper and to be fulfilling, we need to do more
than simply avoid any unpleasantries. We need to combat
boredom: We must strive to meet our partners' approach goals
by providing them joyous, interesting, and exciting experiences
(Strong & Aron, 2006).
This conclusion is also at the heart of a

6. self-expansion model
of human motivation that holds that we are attracted to
partnerships that expand the range of our interests, skills, and
experiences (Aron & Aron, 2000). Novel activities, the
development of new talents, and the acquisition of new
perspectives are all thought to be inherently gratifying (Nardone
& Lewandowski, 2008), and that's why new loves are often so
exhilarating: Newfound intimacy typically involves increases in
knowledge and changes in mutuality that enhance and expand
our self-concepts (Tucker & Aron, 1993).
But self-expansion usually slows once a new partner becomes
familiar, and that's when many partnerships begin to feel more
bland and ordinary than they initially seemed. The key to
staying happy, according to the self-expansion model, is to
combat boredom by creatively finding ways to continue your
personal growth. Thus, as well as continually seeking out novel
activities and challenges (Aron et al., 2000), consider the value
of intentionally inventing new ways to play and have fun (Aune
& Wong, 2002) and laugh together (Lee, 2008) during your
daily routine (Graham, 2008). Monotony can make any
relationship seem stale, but innovation and novelty may keep
boredom at bay.
Page 191
So, rewards and costs are different, and minimizing our costs
isn't the same thing as increasing our rewards. And as our

7. discussion of boredom suggests, relationships begin when a
couple's interactions are rewarding, but that can change with
time. Indeed, despite the partners' best intentions, many
relationships gradually become less satisfying as time goes by.
Let's take a closer look at how rewards and costs change as
relationships develop.
Rewards and Costs as Time Goes By
Here's the situation: You've started dating a new person and
things are going great. Your satisfaction is rising fast, and the
two of you are quickly growing closer. Does continual bliss lie
ahead? Probably not. After a period of initial excitement that is
characterized by a rapid increase in satisfaction, most
relationships—even those that are destined to succeed and
prosper—hit a lull in which the partners' pleasure stalls for a
time (see
Figure 6.5
). This can be disconcerting, but it shouldn't be surprising;
according to a model of
relational turbulence
created by Leanne Knobloch and Denise Solomon (2004), we
should
expect
a period of adjustment and turmoil as new partners become
accustomed to their increasing interdependence. In particular, as
the partners spend more and more time together, they disrupt

8. each others' routines. Instead of waiting to be asked
Page 192
out on a date, for instance, one of the partners may start
assuming
that they'll spend the weekend together, and that may interfere
with the other's plans. The partners may also encounter some
resistance from their friends as the new relationship absorbs
more of their time and they see less of their old companions.
Uncertainty and doubt can also accompany emerging
commitment; both partners may wonder where the relationship
is going and what the future holds, and the more uncertain they
are, the more turbulent the situation is likely to be (Knobloch &
Theiss, 2010). Altogether, the turbulence model suggests that an
unsettled period of adjustment and reevaluation is likely to
occur at moderate levels of intimacy in a developing
relationship as the partners learn to coordinate their needs and
accommodate each other.
FIGURE 6.5.
Satisfaction in beginning relationships.
After a rapid rise in satisfaction at the very beginning of their
relationships, many couples encounter a lull as they adjust to
their increasing interdependence. Successful relationships
survive this period of re-evaluation and become even more

9. satisfying, but at a more gradual rate.
Adapted from Eidelson, 1980.
The turbulence model is depicted in
Figure 6.6
. When intimacy levels are low in a beginning relationship,
interdependence is minimal and there is negligible interference
from one's partner and little doubt about the future of the
partnership. However, as the partners draw closer, they need to
adjust to increasing limitations to their autonomy, rising
uncertainty, and, perhaps, mounting ambivalence from their
friends, and this phase—the transition from
Page 193
casual dating to more serious involvement in the relationship—
can be tumultuous (Solomon et al., 2010). If the relationship
becomes more established and intimacy increases further, things
settle down as doubts diminish, friends adjust, and the partners
grow more adept at being interdependent. Successful
relationships survive the turbulent transition to the partners'
new status as a recognized couple, and a new but more gradual
increase in satisfaction may occur as the relationship continues
to develop. (Take another look at
Figure 6.5
.)
FIGURE 6.6.

10. The relational turbulence model.
The amount of turmoil and turbulence in a new relationship
increases as the partners spend more time together, and begin to
interfere with each other's routines and to wonder where the
relationship is headed. This turmoil reaches a peak when the
couple decides to become more seriously involved, but it then
declines as they adjust to their new interdependency.
Figure adapted from Knobloch & Donovan-Kicken, 2006.
So, it's customary for increasing delight with a budding
relationship to suddenly level off for a time as the partners
adjust to their increasing interdependency. Are there predictable
changes in satisfaction over longer stretches of time in
established relationships? There are, and I've got good news and
bad news for you. Let's begin with the bad news, which starts
with
Figure 6.7
. Pictured there are the annual reports of marital satisfaction
from 538 newlywed couples, many of whom were tracked for 10
years (if they stayed married that long). As you can see, the
typical trajectory of marital bliss involved a gradual erosion of
delight that resulted in people becoming less satisfied as the
years rolled by (Kurdek, 1999). Even worse, recent studies that
probed carefully for different trajectories of marital satisfaction
over 4 (Lavner & Bradbury, 2010) and 20 years (Anderson et

11. al., 2010) found that in a number of couples—about one in
every six—the declines in contentment were much more severe.
Some newlyweds find their dreams dashed rather quickly.
FIGURE 6.7.
The average trajectory of marital satisfaction.
Some couples experience decreases in satisfaction that are
steeper than this, but others don't experience any decline at all.
In addition, on average, cohabitating gay and lesbian couples
experience milder decreases in satisfaction than heterosexual
couples do (Kurdek, 2008b).
Data from Kurdek, 1999.
Page 194
The good news from the recent studies is that, despite the
general trend pictured in
Figure 6.7
, a number of couples—about one in every five—don't
experience any decline in their delight at all. Most marriages
don't last as long as 25 years (Roberts, 2007), but some do, and
clearly, it really is possible for some couples to live happily
ever after.
What distinguished those who stayed happy from the majority
who experienced a decline in their delight? There were several
influences, and none of them will surprise a careful reader of

12. our prior chapters. Spouses who stayed content tended to be low
in neuroticism and high in self-esteem; they discussed touchy
issues with affection and humor and without anger; and they
encountered relatively few stressors such as economic hardship
or ill health (Anderson et al., 2010; Lavner & Bradbury, 2010).
Over time, then, the outcomes of their interactions were
undoubtedly more positive than those of couples who were more
fretful, insecure, surly, and beset with hassles and burdens—and
interdependency theory argues that that's why they stayed more
content.
It also turns out that happy couples keep their expectations in
check so that their CLs don't get too high. Remember that it's
hard to be satisfied when you expect things to be magnificent,
and sure enough, on average, people who begin their marriages
with the highest expectations of how special and wonderful
wedlock will be are the least happy spouses a few years down
the road. James McNulty and Ben Karney (2004) followed 82
newlywed couples across the first 4 years of their marriages and
found that, over time, the happiest couples were those who had
had the most realistic outlooks about what wedded life would be
like. In contrast, spouses who had unrealistically positive
expectations tended to be disappointed once the honeymoon was
over. (In fact, more than one-fifth of the couples followed by
McNulty and Karney were divorced after only 4 years.)
Indeed, I can offer several reasons why prudent and cautious

13. expectations about the futures of your intimate relationships are
more reasonable and sensible than romantic idealism is. First,
we all know how to be polite and thoughtful, and we can behave
that way when we want to, but it takes work. Once a courtship
is over and a partner is won, for instance, people usually stop
trying so hard to be consistently charming. The same people
who would never fart noisily on a first date may become
spouses who fart at will at the dinner table, perhaps dismissing
their lack of propriety by saying, “Sorry, I couldn't help it.” The
point is that they
could
help it if they wanted to—they just didn't go to the trouble to
do so (Miller, 2001).
Second, interdependency magnifies conflict and friction. We
spend lots of time with our intimate partners and depend on
them for unique, especially valuable rewards, and that means
that they are certain to cause us more frustration—even
inadvertently—than anyone else can. For instance, we're more
affected by the moods (Caughlin et al., 2000) or work stress
(Lavee & Ben-Ari, 2007) of intimate partners than by the
similar difficulties of others. Frequent interaction also means
that trivial annoyances may gradually cause real grief through
sheer repetition in the same way that the light tapping of a
slowly dripping faucet can drive you mad when you're trying to
sleep at night (Cunningham et al., 2005).

14. Page 195
Third, intimacy means that others know your secrets, foibles,
and weaknesses. That gives them ammunition with which to
wound and tease us when conflict occurs. But even when they
have no wish to do us harm, their access to sensitive
information practically guarantees that they will accidentally
reveal some secret (Petronio, 2010), hurt our feelings
(Kowalski, 2003), or embarrass us (Miller, 1996) sometime or
other. They can unintentionally hurt us in ways others can't.
Fourth, even if people are usually aware of most of their
incompatibilities and problems before they marry, there will
almost always be some surprises ahead. These tend to be of two
general types. First, there's learning the truth about things we
thought we knew. Good examples of this are the
fatal attractions
I mentioned in
chapter 3
. You may know and even like the fact that your lover is fun-
loving and spontaneous, but you may not appreciate how
irresponsible, flighty, and unreliable that same behavior may
seem after a few years of marriage when you have babies and a
mortgage to contend with. Speaking of babies, the other type of
unwelcome surprise is learning undesired things that you didn't
know at all, and the real facts of parenthood are often good
examples. If you don't have kids, you might assume that

15. parenthood will be fun, your kids will be invariably adorable,
and raising children will bring you and your partner closer
together. The reality, however (as you know if you do have
kids), is that “after the birth of a child the prognosis for the
course of the marital relationship is unequivocally grim”
(Stafford & Dainton, 1994, p. 270). I can safely say that
parenthood is an extraordinary and often marvelous adventure,
but it is unquestionably hard on the relationship between the
parents. Children are endless work, and most parents experience
a steep and unexpected decline in the time they spend having
fun together (Claxton & Perry-Jenkins, 2008). When babies
arrive, conflict increases, and satisfaction with the marriage
(and love for one's partner) decrease (Doss et al., 2009), and
this occurs around the world (Wendorf et al., 2011). If the
parents don't expect such difficulties, they're going to be
surprised.
Finally, all of this means that close relationships are often much
different from the blissful, intimate idylls we want them to be,
and the difference between what we expected and what we get
can leave us feeling cheated and disappointed, sometimes
unnecessarily so (Amato et al., 2007). To the extent that even
great relationships involve hard work and sacrifice, people with
misplaced, glorified expectations about relationships may end
up disappointed in their outcomes even when they're doing
better than everyone else.

16. So, through (a)
lack of effort;
because (b)
interdependency is a magnifying glass;
and through (c)
access to weaponry,
(d)
unwelcome surprises,
and (e)
unrealistic expectations,
people usually encounter unanticipated costs, even in good
relationships (Miller, 1997b), and most spouses' satisfaction
actually declines during the first years of marriage. These are
all normal processes in close relationships, so it's naïve to think
that you won't encounter them. More annoyances and nuisances
lie ahead than you may have thought.
This may seem gloomy, but it isn't meant to be. Indeed, I don't
want this analysis to seem pessimistic at all! To the contrary,
knowledge is power, and
Page 196
I suspect that being aware of the usual trajectory of marital
satisfaction and thoroughly understanding these issues can help
people avoid needless disappointment, and it may even help
them to forestall or avoid a creeping decline in outcomes that
would otherwise occur. If informed caution leads you to form

17. reasonable expectations, you
should
be optimistic that your close relationships will succeed; a
positive outlook that is rooted in good sense is likely to make
lasting satisfaction more, rather than less, attainable (Churchill
& Davis, 2010).
And importantly, if nothing else, this perspective reminds us of
our constant responsibility to be as pleasant as possible to those
whose company we value. We want great outcomes, but so do
they, and even if they like us, they'll go elsewhere if we don't
give them enough reward. This is a consequential idea, and it
leads to some subtleties of the social exchange perspective that
we have yet to consider.
(MILLER 189-196)
MILLER.
Intimate Relationships, 6th Edition
. McGraw-Hill Learning