1 Alexandra Musi Application Paper Comm 2312.

01 10 November 2011 Cant Live with Them or Cant Live Without Them? This study used the social exchange theory to test relational satisfaction and stability found in occurrences of disloyalty. Also, there was Rusbults Investment Model used, but the focus of this paper will be on the social exchange theory. This article is looking for a theory to figure out what affects relational decisions on whether to continue the relationship or break it off after having been betrayed in the relationship. Seeing what variables are connected to the decision and which causes a person to make the choice that they do. This study also looks at how the individuals handle forgiveness and if certain ways of communicating can direct a path towards the relationship continuing. The purpose of this investigation is to explain and predict relational satisfaction and stability following incidents of discovered betrayal by proposing the investment model and various communication strategies as factors related to betrayal outcomes. Then it looks at deciding what is a cost and what is a reward in these relationships. Betrayal would be seen as a cost, and satisfaction with the relationship would be a reward. The results ended up showing the relation connecting the usage of communication strategies (apology, responsibility acceptance, justification, promise change, and value relationship) and relational stability. The findings showed that the more the betrayers apologize, promise to change, and state that they value the relationship, the better chance they have of keeping the relationship. Communication justifying the betrayal and accepting

2 responsibility did not have significant effects on relational stability and were minor in size. None of the unique effects for individual strategies, however, were statistically significant when controlling for the other strategies. This implies that when it comes to saving a relationship post-betrayal, multiple strategies may be effective, and possibly what is specifically said (within some limitations) is less important than general communicative effort toward saving the relationship. Commitment and investment levels were positively associated with almost all message use ratings. Betrayal severity was positively associated with apology, promising change, and accepting responsibility and only promising change was significantly associated with satisfaction. It was hypothesized that higher levels of satisfaction, more investment, and fewer perceived relationship alternatives would predict greater levels of commitment. These predictions were tested with regression analysis. The effect of satisfaction and the effect for CLalt (comparison level alternative) on commitment was not significant. However, the investment level was highly predictive of commitment. The findings showed that the communication variables that were used are significant predictors of relational stability, but not when controlling for the investment model. The investment model variables, however, explain inconsistency beyond the communication components. Yet, only satisfaction predicted relational stability when controlling for other variables. This is because communication strategies were associated with the investment model components and the data suggest that the effects of communication strategies on stability may be mediated by relational satisfaction, or maybe both communication strategy usage and relational stability are consequences of relational satisfaction. Reviewing these results I feel as though they support the social exchange theory, and

3 that this study illustrates this theory with its findings. I support the findings that Ferrara and Levine came to, and concluded with. They conducted a well-planned investigation and the rewards and costs that were discussed in this article correlated with the discussion we had in class, but this just focused in on a certain subject and researched it in particular. Looking into betrayal is unique, because if you are the victim you are put in a situation where you would look at the rewards and costs of the relationship and see if it is worth working out. The social exchange theory presents a cost benefit analysis with respect to relationships. If the relationship is seen to be beneficial then people will enter into it and conversely, if it doesn't contain some benefits, they will not (Tucker). In the article it talked about individuals in longer relationships than people in shorter relationships are more likely to work things out, because they have invested more in the relationship and realize the costs and rewards. This makes a lot of sense considering not knowing someone as long you might not see anything that would be worth staying in the relationship for because you have not yet determined your costs and rewards. For some the satisfaction might outweigh the betrayal, which would be recognizing the cost and reward. Personally, I have been betrayed in a personal relationship (in several different relationships) and the rewards have never outweighed the cost of being deceived by the individual. The cost is too great to me and the reward is never enough to look past being disloyal. This study also looked at forgiveness and how it affects the likelihood of continuing a relationship. Accepting forgiveness is up to the one who was cheated in the relationship, but how and if the betrayer asked for forgiveness dictated the outcome. We suggest that although forgiveness ultimately rests in the hands of victims, perpetrator actions affect both the probability of forgiveness and the likelihood that a betrayal will be successfully resolved

4 (Madoka). That would prove to be true in many instances, and I agree that this is an acceptable consensus to reach. When it comes to personal relationships I feel as though we are easier to forgive someone if they are asking for forgiveness and recognizing their mistake. Recognizing what you did is important, but to me just as important is realizing how you hurt your partner and trying to amend the damage you caused. Forgiveness is not simply saying, Im sorry, or accepting an apology (Beckenbach). This directly correlates to what was found in the study. The more the betrayer tried to apologize, and not just a simple apology, the more they went into depth and admitted they were wrong the likelihood of the victim accepting was greater. This information can easily be seen as true, because the more persistent you are the farther you will get (in most circumstances). In the social exchange theory, you see your rewards and compare those to your costs and decide whether the relationship is balanced and worth staying in. Forgiveness is the letting go of the continual punishment from being offended and being an offender. It is to restore full relationship between parties where there has been friction, tension, and injury (Beckenbach). When you know the benefits you get out of your relationship then forgiving the offender will be more likely. The victim will be more motivated to try and restore the relationship that provides them with an ample amount of rewards. On that same note, it goes back to the findings that the longer you have been in a relationship the more likely you are to forgive and return to that relationship. When the betrayer does not recognize what he or she has done wrong this study found that there is a less likelihood that their partner would be willing to forgive them. I came across a similar study that investigated different couples where cheating had taken place in their relationship. The man that cheated did not approach his wife about in the correct manner and The message his wife receives is that she has no right to feel so angry or hurt because he had

5 nothing to do with his role as perpetrator of the neglect. Not surprisingly, invalidation of the injured partners pain seems to interfere with the forgiveness process (Meneses). This separate study supports the claims of Ferrara and Levines experiment, which claims that the way you communicate your disloyalty greatly affects how the apology is received. Ferrara and Levines investigation looked at whether betrayal had positive effects on the relationship and found that overall it had more negative than positive effects. Although some researchers have reported positive effects of extramarital relationships, most have found that such relationships have negative consequences (Boekhout). This seemed obvious to me, and I would assume to other people as well. However, part of this experiment did touch on an interesting helpful effect that it can have on the relationship. Surprisingly, the study found that betrayal can bring some couples closer going through this bad situation together. This is important to look at, and in my opinion something that is shocking but yet some individuals can attest to be being true. Research shows that people in close relationships can overcome hurtful acts and continue to grow closer. Preoffense closeness appears to be associated with current closeness because relational closeness facilitates prosocial processes in the offender (apology) and the offended partner (empathy) that foster the reestablishment of closeness (Ferrara). The article also used the paradox that can be heard in our society today that, people are most likely to forgive those who hurt them most. People seem to accept their offender back because of how much they have invested into the relationship as well. Investment researchers claim that a primary reason why people remain during unhappy times is because they have much invested in the relationship (Ferrara). This relates back to the social exchange theory, and the investment being the cost that they have put into the relationship. For some people they see the cost being to great to leave, because they

6 have invested such an immense amount into the relationship and it is not worth it for them to give that up. The cost is too great. Looking into another relationship study and comparing its findings with Ferraras and Levines intrigued me. The Relationship Conflict And Restoration Model: A Preliminary Exploration Of Concepts And Therapeutic Utility study looked at satisfaction in the relationship and how it correlated with empathy. This related directly to this study because it was found that the way you communicate after the deception takes place greatly defies what outcome you will receive from your partner. Relationship satisfaction also was strongly positively correlated with current levels of empathy. Thus, couples experiencing high levels of empathy would view their relationships as satisfying, and those experiencing low levels would conversely describe their relationships as unsatisfying (Beckenbach). This can be taken and used with the study by showing that empathy has a lot to do with how an individual will react with you in a situation of deceit. The victim can feel satisfaction even after the betrayal has taken place, but this depends on how the offender handles the situation. One article pointed out that, Respondents were significantly less insulted when shame was expressed rather than guilt and also reported significantly higher levels of respect and satisfaction in the shame versus guilt condition (Meneses). Communicating in the correct way does determine what outcome you receive, and I feel as though it is extremely important to approach issues such as betrayal in the appropriate manner to end with the outcome you want. In conclusion, the investment the individual who was betrayed put into the relationship and the rewards that at one time they might have received out of the relationship could not out weight the betrayal that their partner had committed against them. When the participants in the study were asked, cant live with them or cant live without them? about relational stability

7 after being betrayed by a romantic partner, most participants, regardless of the amount invested, commitment level, and alternatives said, I can live without them (Ferrara). The old saying has now been answered, and backed up by supporting results from other investigations. Further research on this topic should take place to support the validity of this study, and without doubt more research will be conducted. As for now, since we have the answer to the age-old question, the next question these individuals will need to ask themselves is How do I choose a partner that will not betray me? That will be another study, for another day.

Works Cited Beckenbach, John, Shawn Patrick, and James Sells. "Relationship Conflict And Restoration Model: A Preliminary Exploration Of Concepts And Therapeutic Utility." Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal 32.3 (2010): 290-301. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Nov. 2011.

Boekhout, Brock A., Susan S. Hendrick, and Clyde Hendrick. "Relationship Infidelity: A Loss Perspective." Journal Of Personal & Interpersonal Loss 4.2 (1999): 97-123. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

Devito, Joseph A. The Interpersonal Communication Book. 12th ed. 2007. Boston: Pearson Education, 2009. Print.

Ferrara, Merissa H., and Timothy R. Levine. "Can't Live With Them Or Can't Live Without Them?: The Effects Of Betrayal On Relational Outcomes In College Dating Relationships." Communication Quarterly 57.2 (2009): 187-204. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2011.

Madoka Kamashiro, et al. "In The Wake Of Betrayal: Amends, Forgiveness, And The Resolution Of Betrayal." Personal Relationships 17.2 (2010): 253-278. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2011.

9 Meneses, Catalina Woldarsky, and Leslie S. Greenberg. "The Construction Of A Model Of The Process Of Couples' Forgiveness In Emotion-Focused Therapy For Couples." Journal Of Marital & Family Therapy 37.4 (2011): 491-502. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Nov. 2011.

Tucker, David. "Social exchange theory: John Thibaut & Harold Kelley." The Proceedings of the Laurel Highlands Communications Conference (2010): 124+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2011.