Understanding Proportional Justice and Commitment in Relationships

Proportional Justice in Relationships

• Core Concept of Proportional Justice

  • Defined as fairness in relationships based on the balance of contributions and outcomes.

  • Each partner's perception of fairness hinges on the ratio of what they give versus what they get in comparison to their partner.

• Voting on Relationship Equitability

  • Participants voted on four couples based on perceived equity:

  • Clark and Lois

  • Portia and Ellen

  • Travis and Taylor

  • Jack and Jill

  • Majority voted Clark and Lois as equitable despite differing contributions.

• Analysis of Clark and Lois

  • Equal outcomes do not guarantee equity if contributions differ.

  • Clark's contribution and return ratio:

  • Example: If Clark contributed 80 and received 40, the ratio is different from Lois contributing 80 and receiving 60.

  • Here, rac{80}{40}
    eq rac{80}{60}

  • Outcome: Clark is overbenefited, and Lois is underbenefited.

• Analysis of Portia and Ellen

  • Both had equal contributions but unequal outcomes leading to perceptions of inequity.

  • Example of inputs and outputs measured:

  • Portia underbenefited if outcomes do not match contributions even when inputs are equal.

• Equity Perspectives in Relationships

  • Importance of proportional justice is highlighted by practical issues like housework and childcare.

  • Heterosexual couples often reflect traditional gender roles in contributions.

  • Women disproportionately handle household labor despite having outside jobs, suggesting inequity.

• Research Findings on Inequities

  • The Second Shift concept explained women working outwardly yet still managing home duties.

  • Greater equity observed in:

  • Cohabiting couples

  • Same-sex couples

  • Hypotheses: Absence of strict gender roles may contribute to this variance.

• Consequences of Inequity in Relationships

  • Higher attention to inequities can decrease satisfaction in relationships.

  • Stress on equalities can foster resentment regarding contributions, invoking confirmation bias.

Commitment in Relationships

• Definition of Commitment

  • Loyalty and plans for the future within relationships, implying a mutual investment in the direction of the relationship.

  • Commitment grows with interdependence.

• Investment Theory

  • Central to understanding relationship stability and commitment.

  • Components measuring commitment:

  • Satisfaction: Defined by comparison to expected outcomes.

    • ext{Satisfaction} = ext{Comparison Level}

    • Positive correlation exists between satisfaction and commitment.

  • Alternatives: Rethinking other potential partnerships.

    • ext{Dependence} = ext{Comparison Level} - ext{Alternatives}

    • Negative correlation between available alternatives and commitment.

  • Investments: Historical contributions affecting duration in relationships and illustrating sunk costs, e.g., children, living arrangements.

• Variability of Commitment

  • Personal factors can affect individuals' readiness for commitment.

  • Types of Commitment

  • Personal Commitment: Based on personal joy and choice to maintain the relationship.

  • Constraint Commitment: External factors binding partners together, like shared responsibilities (children, leases).

  • Moral Commitment: Pressured by societal or personal ethics dictating obligation to stay.

• Consequences and Dynamics of Commitment

  • Fluctuating commitment types influence relationship satisfaction and emotional health.

  • High personal commitment generally leads to greater relationship stability.

  • Constraints can sometimes lead to enduring unhealthy relationships due to obligations.

• Mutual Influence and Relationship Maintenance

  • Higher commitment correlates with increased mutuality, facilitating relationship maintenance behaviors.

  • Behaviors include accommodation and willingness to sacrifice for the partner’s happiness.

• Perceived Superiority

  • Couples may view their relationship as superior relative to alternatives, promoting commitment and contentment.

  • Derogation of alternatives enhances perceived relationship value and stability.

• Potential Harms of High Constraint Commitment

  • Risk of rationale in staying may overshadow negative behaviors leading to dissatisfaction or even abusive relationships.

  • Individuals may remain in harmful conditions because of perceived commitments (moral and constraint).

• Final Reflections

  • Commitment, investment, and alternatives shape not just relationship intensity but personal security and well-being in partnerships.