دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله خروج، اعتراض، وفاداری و بی توجهی – 1982

خروج، اعتراض، وفاداری و بی توجهی: پاسخ به نارضایتی در رابطه های عاشقانه

Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: Responses to Dissatisfaction in Romantic Involvements

چکیده
روش
نتایج و بحث
مطالعه 2
روش
نتایج و بحث
مطالعه 3
روش
نتایج و بحث
مطالعه 4
روش
نتایج و بحث
پایایی شاخص ها
بحث عمومی

Abstract

A typology of characteristic responses to dissatisfaction in romantic relationships is discussed, and hypotheses concerning the determinants of each category of response are outlined. It is argued that the four primary reactions to relationship decline are exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Three investment model variables (Rusbult, 1980a) should predict the conditions under which each response is most likely to be enacted: (a) the degree of satisfaction with the relationship prior to the emergence of problems, (b) the magnitude of the individual’s investment of resources in the relationship, and (c) the quality of the best available alternative to the relationship. Four studies provided generally consistent support for the hypotheses. As predicted, to the extent that prior satisfaction was high, voice and loyalty were more probable, whereas exit and neglect were less probable. Similarly, increases in investment size encouraged voice and loyalty, whereas lower levels of investment appeared to inspire exit or neglect responses. More attractive alternatives promoted exit while hampering loyalist behavior. These results are in agreement with investment model predictions. However, there seemed to be no (or, at best, a weak) relation between alternative quality and voice or neglect reactions to dissatisfaction.

How do individuals respond when they become dissatisfied with their romantic involvements? Under what circumstances are they likely to actively discuss problems, and under what circumstances are they likely simply to end their relationships? When are people likely to react with quiet loyalty, and when do they respond with benign neglect? Social scientists have proffered numerous theories designed to describe the development of romantic relationships (Clore & Byrne, 1974; Levinger & Snoek, 1972; Murstein, 1976; Saegert, Swap, & Zajonc, 1973), but insufficient attention has been given to the phenomenon of relationship decline. Some researchers have explored the impact of a variety of concrete factors (e.g., income, education, age) on specific responses to dissatisfaction, such as divorce and breakups (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976; Levinger & Moles, 1979), communication style and content (Fineberg & Lowman, 1975; Wills, Weiss, & Patterson, 1974), extrarelationship sexual involvements (Glass & Wright, 1977; Jaffe & Kanter, 1976), and the expression of negative affect or hostility (Billings, 1979; Gottman, Notarius, Markman, Bank, & Yoppi, 1976). Researchers working within this tradition have identified a wide range of potential responses to dissatisfaction and have explored the impact of numerous basic factors on these behaviors. However, few of these authors have developed systematic taxonomies of this domain of behaviors, nor have they constructed abstract models of the conditions that promote one response over alternative reactions. Other psychologists have proposed theories of the development and deterioration of relationships. For example, in their discussion of the “depenetration process,” Altman and Taylor (1973) explore the process of conflict management and suggest that depenetration involves “a cycling between excessive interaction and withdrawal” (p. 174), which leads to more constricted exchange.Levinger (1979) describes relationship growth and dissolution in terms of attractions (positive minus negative) and barriers (commitments, obligations, termination costs) inherent in a given romantic involvement. Rusbult (1980a) also proposes that the individual’s level of commitment to maintain a relationship is in large part a function of three simple factors: declining satisfaction, increases in alternative quality, or “divestiture,” which lead to declining commitment and relationship dissolution. Each of these approaches provides an interesting theoretical account of growth and decline processes, but all focus primarily on individuals’ stay/ leave decisions to the exclusion of alternative reactions to dissatisfaction. Thus, one body of literature provides a rich description of the range of available responses to decline, and a second tradition presents theoretical models of the process of deterioration. The present article attempts to integrate these two approaches. Its goals are to (a) outline a simple typology of reactions to declining satisfaction and (b) propose a theory that delineates a set of abstract predictors of these responses. The present model draws on knowledge accumulated in research and theory, reported above, and emerges directly from several additional sources: (a) Hirschman’s (1970,1974) theory of responses to decline in economic/ political organizations, (b) Rusbult and Zembrodt’s (in press) typology of responses to declining satisfaction in romantic associations, and (c) Rusbult’s (1980a) investment model of satisfaction and commitment in exchange relationships. In his discussion of reactions to decline in firms, organizations, and states, Hirschman (1970) attempted to outline a simple typology of responses to dissatisfaction. He proposed that three characteristic responses to deteriorating satisfaction exist: (a) exit—ending the relationship, (b) voice—actively and constructively expressing one’s dissatisfaction, with the intent of improving conditions, arid (c) loyalty—passively but optimistically waiting for conditions to improve. Rusbult and Zembrodt (in press) performed a multidimensional-scaling study of responses to declining satisfaction in ongoing, adult romantic involvements and found that these three categories characterize behaviors in romantic relationships. They also identified a fourth logical response to dissatisfaction, neglect: passively allowing a relationship to atrophy. These four categories appeared to provide a fairly comprehensive, yet simple, description of the domain of reactions to deteriorating satisfaction. The following are examples of behaviors representative of each category of response: Exit—formally separating, moving out of a joint residence, deciding to “just be friends,” getting a divorce. Voice—discussing problems, compromising, seeking help from a therapist or clergyman, suggesting- solutions to problems, asking the partner what is bothering him or her, trying to change oneself or change the partner. Loyalty—waiting and hoping that things will improve, “giving things some time,” praying for improvement. Neglect—ignoring the partner or spending less time together, refusing to discuss problems, treating the partner badly emotionally or physically, criticizing the partner for things unrelated to the real problem, “just letting things fall apart,” (perhaps) developing extrarelationship sexual involvements.