Module 06 · Relationship Satisfaction and Dissolution关系满意度与解体
Leaving Good Relationships and Staying in Bad Ones关系去留决策
Overview 概述
Up until now, we’ve been focused on relationship satisfaction, discussing what makes us think a relationship is good or bad. It’s important to note that “Are you satisfied with this relationship?” and “Are you going to leave this relationship?” are two different questions (Rusbult & Martz, 1995). This page focuses on the processes by which people decide whether or not to end relationships and the sometimes irrational decisions that can follow.
截至目前，我们一直关注关系满意度，讨论什么使我们认为一段关系是好的或坏的。需要注意的是，“你对这段关系满意吗？”和“你打算离开这段关系吗？”是两个不同的问题（Rusbult & Martz，1995）。本页重点介绍人们决定是否结束关系的过程以及随之可能出现的有时是非理性的决策。
The Return of Social Exchange Theory 社会交换理论的重返
When we last talked about social exchange theory, we framed it as a theory of relationship satisfaction. It can also give insights about relationships enduring or ending. However, to successfully model these behaviors, we need to introduce another concept: the comparison level for alternative relationships (CLALT). As you can probably infer from its name, the CLALT represents people’s expectations about the costs and benefits of other potential relationships. Note that these are expectations and don’t necessarily reflect reality. (The saying “The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence” suggests that these expectations might be an overly positive take on the reality of the alternative relationship.)
当我们上次讨论社会交换理论时，我们将其视为一种关系满意度的理论。它还可以提供关于关系持续或结束的见解。然而，为了成功模拟这些行为，我们需要引入另一个概念：替代关系的比较水平（CLALT）。正如你可能从其名称中推断出的，CLALT代表了人们对其他潜在关系的成本和收益的期望。请注意，这些是期望，并不一定反映现实。（谚语“篱笆那边的草总是绿的”暗示这些期望可能是对替代关系现实的过于乐观的看法。）
When a person’s CLALT of a specific alternative relationship is more positive than the costs and benefits of their current relationship, the likelihood of their leaving the relationship increases substantially. However, there is one more factor that must be included in the calculation: the cost of leaving the current relationship. Imagine two members of a large group of friends who decided to try to start a romantic relationship. The relationship never clicked; they never developed intimacy and the relationship remained an exchange one. Eventually, one member of the couple found a relationship with a higher CLALT. However, before deciding to leave, this person needed to consider how their friend group would react to their breaking up with their partner. Would it damage their other friendships? Would it lead to their being excluded from the friend group entirely? These factors don’t affect the costs and benefits of the relationships themselves, but instead mean that the CLALT must be higher to offset the costs of leaving.
当一个人特定替代关系的 CLALT 比其当前关系的成本和收益更积极时，他们离开关系的可能性会显著增加。然而，还有一个必须包含在计算中的因素：离开当前关系的成本。想象一下，一群朋友中的两个成员决定尝试开始一段浪漫关系。这段关系从未成功；他们从未发展出亲密关系，关系一直是一种交换。最终，这对情侣中的一员发现了一段具有更高 CLALT 的关系。然而，在决定离开之前，这个人需要考虑他们的朋友群体会如何反应他们与伴侣分手。这会损害他们的其他友谊吗？会导致他们被整个朋友群体排斥吗？这些因素不会影响关系的成本和收益，但意味着 CLALT 必须更高，以抵消离开的成本。
Before we talk about the implications of social exchange theory for whether we stay in or leave relationships, let’s address two questions you might have been thinking about. First, because this is based on social exchange theory, it only applies to exchange relationships, not communal relationships. This makes sense, considering that you likely wouldn’t expect a person to leave a long-term, happy marriage for a new relationship just because it has a high enough CLALT to justify the cost of leaving.
在讨论社会交换理论对我们是否留在或离开关系的影响之前，让我们先回答您可能一直在思考的两个问题。首先，因为这是基于社会交换理论，它仅适用于交换关系，而不是社区关系。这很有道理，考虑到您可能不会期望一个人仅仅因为新关系有足够高的 CLALT 来证明离开长期幸福婚姻的成本而离开。
Second, people don’t always hop directly from one relationship to another. Sometimes people leave a relationship and stay single. Social exchange theory accounts for this by saying that people create a CLALT for not being in a relationship as well as for alternate relationships.
其次，人们并不总是直接从一个关系到另一个关系。有时人们离开一段关系后保持单身。社会交换理论通过指出人们为不在关系中以及为替代关系创造一个 CLALT 来解释这一点。
Acting Rational While Appearing Irrational 理性行动，看似非理性
Social exchange theory is a prescriptively rational theory, meaning that it models decisions that make sense from an economic perspective. If I’m a restaurant owner and a new food supplier comes along and offers me a price that is much better than that of my current supplier, it’s entirely rational to switch suppliers. Notice that the price that my existing supplier is giving me doesn’t enter into the decision. The new supplier is better, so I should switch. However, this same decision process applied to relationships implies irrationality. If a person is in a good relationship, but a better one comes along (as defined by a better CLALT) and the person leaves, outsiders might say things like, “They were so good together; why would she leave?”, questioning the rationality of the decision. Unlike in the purely economic case, the absolute quality of the existing relationship matters to observers in a way that the absolute price of the current food supplier did not.
社会交换理论是一种规范性理性理论，意味着它模拟了从经济角度来看有意义的决策。如果我是餐馆老板，一个新食品供应商出现并给我一个比现有供应商更好的价格，更换供应商是完全理性的。请注意，我现有供应商给出的价格并不进入决策。新供应商更好，所以我应该更换。然而，将同样的决策过程应用于关系则意味着非理性。如果一个人处于一段良好关系中，但出现了一段更好的关系（定义为更好的 CLALT ），这个人离开，局外人可能会说：“他们在一起那么好；她为什么要离开？”质疑决策的理性。与纯粹经济案例不同，现有关系的绝对质量对观察者来说很重要，而当前食品供应商的绝对价格则不然。
Note that we’re not saying that the decision to leave the relationship in the previous example is a poor decision. That may or may not be true. We’re saying that it’s irrational, meaning that it doesn’t follow the prescriptive, rational, mathematical model laid out by social exchange theory. Or, put another way, sometimes it’s entirely rational to leave a good relationship.
请注意，我们并不是说在前面例子中决定结束关系是一个错误的决定。这可能是也可能不是真的。我们说的是这是不理性的，意味着它不符合社会交换理论所提出的规范性、理性、数学模型。或者换句话说，有时候结束一段良好的关系是完全理性的。
A similar argument can be made about staying in a bad relationship. If a person is in an objectively bad relationship, but they don’t see any better possibilities (i.e., they see only relationships whose CLALT is even lower than their current benefits and costs), they will stay in the bad relationship. Even if they have a potential relationship (or lack of relationship) that has a higher CLALT than their existing relationship, they may stay in their current bad relationship if the cost of leaving that relationship is too high. For example, if a person is in an abusive relationship and is concerned that, if they leave, their ex-partner will potentially seriously harm them, they could stay with the partner even with available alternative options. (Of course, staying in a relationship like that is also very dangerous, which is why numerous organizations have programs to keep abused partners safe, lowering the cost of leaving the relationship and making it easier for the abused partner to leave.)
一个类似的论点也可以用来解释为什么人们会留在一段糟糕的关系中。如果一个人处于一个客观上糟糕的关系中，但他们看不到任何更好的可能性（即，他们看到的关系的 CLALT 甚至比他们当前的收益和成本还要低），他们可能会留在糟糕的关系中。即使他们有一个潜在的关系（或缺乏关系），其 CLALT 比现有关系更高，如果离开这段关系的成本太高，他们也可能留在当前糟糕的关系中。例如，如果一个人处于一段虐待关系中，并且担心如果他们离开，前伴侣可能会严重伤害他们，即使有可用的替代选择，他们也可能与伴侣在一起。（当然，留在这样的关系中也是非常危险的，这就是为什么许多组织都有保护受虐待伴侣的项目，降低离开关系的成本，使受虐待伴侣更容易离开。）
Investment Theory 投资理论
Finally, we will mention another theory that seeks to explain the factors that control whether people stay in or leave a relationship: the investment model (Rusbult, 1979, 1983). Its primary contention is that people stay in their relationships to the extent that they’re committed to them, and that commitment comes from three sources: their satisfaction level with the relationship, the quality of alternative relationships, and their investment in the relationship.
最后，我们将提及另一种试图解释人们是否留在或离开一段关系的因素的理论：投资模型（Rusbult，1979，1983）。其主要论点是人们留在他们的关系中，程度取决于他们对关系的承诺，而这种承诺来源于三个来源：他们对关系的满意度、替代关系的质量以及他们在关系中的投入。
These three factors sound quite a bit like how social exchange theory explains relationship satisfaction and termination. Satisfaction level with the relationship comes from comparing actual costs and benefits to the comparison level, and quality of alternative relationships is CLALT going by another name. Investment, however, is new.
这三个因素听起来非常类似于社会交换理论解释关系满意度和终止的方式。关系的满意度来源于将实际成本和收益与比较水平进行比较，而替代关系的质量则是以另一个名称出现的 CLALT。然而，投资却是新的。
According to psychologist Caryl Rusbult, investment is the amount of resources (e.g., money, time, energy) that has been put into the relationship. The more you invest in the relationship, the more committed you are to the relationship and the more likely you are to stay in it. This shares some similarities with the costs of leaving a relationship in social exchange theory if you consider that leaving a relationship means that you lose all that you have invested. By staying in the relationship, you avoid that cost. However, there is one key difference between cost and investment: There are also costs that arise without investments. For example, if a person is dating her boss’s son and wants to break up with him, that may create the very large cost of losing her job.
根据心理学家 Caryl Rusbult 的观点，投资是指投入到关系中的资源（例如，金钱、时间、精力）的总量。你投入的关系越多，你对关系的承诺就越大，你留在关系中的可能性也就越高。这与社会交换理论中离开关系的成本有一些相似之处，如果你考虑离开关系意味着你失去了所有投入的资源。通过留在关系中，你可以避免这种成本。然而，成本和投资之间有一个关键的区别：即使没有投资，也会产生成本。例如，如果一个人在和她老板的儿子约会并想和他分手，这可能会产生失去工作的巨大成本。
Because social exchange theory and investment theory are so similar, you don’t need to choose to believe in one or the other. We’re covering both here because they give you a fuller picture of what factors can make people more or less likely to stay in a relationship and more or less likely to make seemingly irrational decisions about staying in or leaving a relationship.
由于社会交换理论和投资理论非常相似，您无需选择相信其中一个。我们在这里都涵盖了它们，因为它们为您提供了更全面的视角，了解哪些因素可以使人们更有可能或更不可能维持一段关系，以及更有可能或更不可能做出关于维持或离开关系的看似非理性的决定。