Relational Turbulence Model

Hi my dear friend x Hope you are ok and are having a nice week. It is rainy today and the temperature got down several degrees here, after of so many days so hot, at last, the rain and a little of cold arrived. I would have liked to write to you before, Ken, especially because since days ago I am thinking of you had to visit your doctor again this week, if I don't reckon wrong, and well, to tell you that I hope all is well with you.

Though one may favor exchange processes that conclude with a social association that values the idea of equality, however Blau states that exchange processes can “give rise to differentiation of power” (Blau 1964: 114), which results with relation to superordination and subordination. Blau explains this disequilibrium as a result of needs for resources from unlike partners and efforts among equals to gain advantages over the other (Blau 1964: 114). Relating to intrinsic rewards, if one counterpart gains a reward from the exchange, the other counterpart expects repayment in the form of future wards – hence the principle of reciprocity (Blau 1964: 121). Reciprocity between unlike counterparts creates this sense of imbalance

Stephanie Coontz is a sociologist who is interested in marriage and the change in its structure over the time-span as love became a main proponent of the relationship involved in marriages. In her article, “What 's Love Got to Do With It,” Coontz argues that the more love becomes a part of the equation the less stable the institution of marriage becomes. Marriage at one point was a social contract that bound two families together to increase their property and wealth as well as ally connections. Each party entered into the contract knowing their roles and if one partner failed to meet the expectations, they were still contractually obligated to one another and were not allowed to divorce. As love became part of the equation, each partner was less sure of their obligations and often chose to end their marriages if at all possible.

Another theory is the Filter Model proposed by Kerchoff and Davis; they say that relationships develop through three ‘filters’. It starts with the ‘field of availables’ which are people available for a relationship where we then filter out different partners for different reasons, so it narrows down to a ‘field of desirables’ who are the people we consider as a potential partner. The first filter involves the social model where we choose people without being aware by where they live, work, have been educated or their social class. With individual characteristics not being important at this point. Then there is similarity of attitudes and values, where a partner’s beliefs and ideas come into effect. This is where communication is easier and the relationship can progress, however if beliefs and views are very different then the relationship may not move from its current position. The final filter is the emotional needs, which is whether the people fit as a couple and can meet each other’s needs.

Having the best two days of my life. Hanging out, watching horrifying movies, and spending time with some teammates before one of the biggest cross country races that exist tomorrow morning. Hundreds of people were going to attend this event to cheer on a family member. Even though this was three years ago and I came just to support some of Forest Park cross country runners.

Social exchange theory includes the following concepts: success, stimulus, value, deprivation, satiation, aggression, and approval. Homans defined each of these concepts explicitly in his book and various articles. The success concept which he defines is the principle of reward. (Homans, 1983, p. 33) While stimulus is defined when a stimulus presents itself and it resembles a previously rewarded activity, that individual is likely to repeat that action again. (Homans, 1950, Chapter 4) Homans defined value as a system of rewards and punishments. (Homans, 1983, p. 32) Deprivation and satiation was defined as the more often a reward has recently been received, the less valuable further rewards become. And if forced for a long time to go without a certain reward, an individual will lose interest and move on. (Homans, 1983, p. 33) Lastly, aggression and approval falls under the principle of distributive justice. When behavior does not receive the expected reward the response is anger. Yet, when the individual receives a greater reward than what is expected or does not receive punishment he will be pleased. (Homans, 1950, Chapter 4).

Social Exchange Theory – Social behavior exchange theory is an exchange between parties as a representative of consent and status (Homans, 1958, p.

The Social Exchange theory proposes that we make decisions with the goal to maximize benefits and minimize costs (Newman, 2009, p.64). The choices we make require social approval and self-sufficiency. A family will make sacrifices if they perceive the action will equal rewards. Basically the theory refers to a give and take relationship where there needs to be balance for the relationship to be satisfying.

The primary theorists, John Thibaut and Harold Kelley, made a list of assumptions that the Social Exchange theory is based on. This list falls into two categories; one that focuses on individuals, and one that describes the social exchange between two people (Unger & Johnson 604). The assumptions that the Social Exchange theory makes are about human nature and the nature of relationships. The first, as mentioned earlier, is that of reward and punishment. Humans seek rewards and avoid

To explain human relationships further, the social exchange theory can be another definite explanation to help distinguish how we feel to be with other people and how one perceives to be with them, either to rekindle their relationship or to question the decisions that make to be in a relationship (Kelley 1959). The social exchange theory can be defined as a term that allows behaviour to be exchanged to allow a relationship between two people to happen (Huston et al., 2013). An individual social life involves interactions between two people which can be viewed as social exchanges in terms of costs and benefits (Nakagawa et al., 2013). By taking the view of human relationships the social exchange theory argues that individuals engage in a cost benefit analysis which forms their relationship with others (Milkie et al., 2004). When the costs and benefits are equal in a relationship, it is defined as equitable (Siddiqui 2008). Moreover, romantic relationships may be difficult for some people as it involves interpersonal skills in order to make them mutually satisfying therefore requires constant maintenance. Recently, Psychologists have begun to look at the breakdown of relationships and the characteristics which requires them to fail. The breakdown of relationship is a theory which explains the failure of certain human relationships and the factors that may be involved such as lack

The social exchange theory controls our behavior as well as the reinforcement for our actions because before we act in most circumstances, we will weigh the rewards and costs of the behaviors. The behavior that we use is the one believed to produce the highest reward and the lowest cost. What we may perceive to be acceptable or unacceptable in the relationship is our comparison level that we weigh the rewards and costs against. The comparison level of alternatives is when we weigh the rewards and costs relative to the perceived alternatives. People also have a comparison level for the alternative relationships. With a high comparison level, we may believe the world is full of lovely people just waiting to meet us. When this level is low, we may stay in a high-cost relationship simply because we believe we could not find any better elsewhere. Molm (1991) shows that in recent research on individual judgments losses have a greater effect on people then gains.

There is a principle that I heard from Tony Robbins that says every choice you make is based on pain or pleasure. Before you make any choice, you first decide which option will bring you pain or pleasure, and you may the choice that brings you less pain. So, staying in a relationship that is not happy must be the least painful option when faced with leaving or staying.

When one looks at romantic love, one would conclude that it is a social dyad that brings about certain responsibilities between two people in a relationship such as honesty, protection, openness and expressions of love. (William, 2008: 76). Contrasting with

Fairy tales tell us that once upon a time a girl met a boy; they fell in love, and lived happily ever after. Reality is not that simple. Long-term relationships force couples to get to know each other, involve themselves in each others’ worlds, fight through the hard times, and eventually develop deeper connections as noted through distinctive stages of Knapp’s relationship model. Although I have dated the same person for over two years, our communication through relationship stages makes it seem as though I am now dating a different person than the one I met years ago. Following dissolution and subsequent repair, I realize the most exhilarating of roller coaster rides develop through sets of ups and downs, much like the

Mrs. Jackson and I have the type of relationship based on reciprocity. “Reciprocity, a social norm dictating that an action performed by one party requires a compensating movement by the other, is a cornerstone of cooperative exchange relationships. I think our relationship works so well because we are both very in tune with how we think relationships should be within the workplace.