MOTIVATION

Investment Model: our commitment depends on what we have invested

Description

Our commitment to a relationship depends on how satisfied we are about:

• Rewards and costs and what we see as a fair balance.

• A comparison with potential alternative relationships
• How much we have already invested in the relationship.

Investments can be financial (like a house), temporal (such as time spend together) or
emotional (such as in the welfare of the children). Investments can thus has a ‘sunk cost’
effect, where a person stays in a relationship simply because they have already invested
significantly in it.

Research

Rusbult tracked relationships of college students. Their satisfaction and investment were
key predictors staying in the relationship, with availability of alternatives as a trigger for
getting out.

Example

Cults often have a sequence of 'inner circles', each of which requires increasing
investment. To get through these doors cult members have to donate their worldly wealth,
go through bizarre rituals, learn lengthy texts, and so on.

So what?

Using it

To keep a person in a relationship, get them to invest heavily in it.

Defending

If you are unhappy with a relationship, remember that the past is past. Look to the future
and what you can get there rather than what you have spent and can never retrieve. All
you have is the rest of your life
Intimate Relationships and Commitment

Social psychologists are interested in determining which factors help partners stay
committed to one another. Intimate relationships progress when two people come
together and are fully committed to making their relationship work (Sprecher, 1998).
Commitment is defined as and individual’s intent to maintain the relationship and to
remain psychologically attached to it (Rusbult, 1980). The individual wants to sustain a
relationship with their partner over time. Rusbult’s Investment Model of Commitment
identifies determinants in relationship commitment. This model consists of three
processes that are positively associated with commitment, satisfaction level, quality of
alternatives, and investment size.

Satisfaction level “refers to positive versus negative affect experienced in a relationship”

(Rusbult, Martz, Agnew, 1998). A person whose needs are met by his or her partner will
enjoy a higher level of satisfaction. Quality of alternatives is defined as the attractiveness
of the best obtainable alternative to a relationship (Rusbult et .al, 1988). For example if
someone's need for intimacy could be met elsewhere, their quality of alternatives would
be high. Investment size is the amount and significance of the resources that are attached
to a relationship, and if the relationship were to end the resources would decline in value
(Rusbult et. al, 1988). Resources of investment can be family such as mutual friends and
time or shared material possessions such as a house and cars. Rusbult also found two
variables which were linked to commitment. The first variable is equity, the ability to be
fair. Equity in a relationship is highly important because inequity, or being unfair, causes
distress. Rusbult’s proposition suggests a partner in a inequitable relationship would be
less committed to the relationship and want to omit the distress, ending the relationship.
The second variable is social support such as family and friends. This variable is external.
If family and friends commend the relationship it produces a positive influence causing
the couple to stay together longer.

Rusbult’s Investment Model of Commitment is supported by Rusbult’s empirical

research. Three studies utilizing various methods calculated the consistency and strength
of the Investment Model Scale. The studies administered scales to a sample of individuals
who were involved in ongoing romantic relationships utilizing items that have been
exploited in previous research on the investment model. In the first study she managed
scale items to a sample of individuals who were involved in ongoing romantic
relationships, utilizing items that have been exploited in previous research on the
Investment Model (Rusbult et. al, 1988). The second study was modified based on the
results of the first, (Rusbult et. al, 1988). The third study Rusbult made alterations to the
previous ones and followed up with a telephone interview. The scale is intended to
measure commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.
The Model of Investment Scale revealed good consistency to measure each process,
satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment model.

Rusbult also conducted another study to support her findings of determinants for
relationship commitment using the Investment Model. Her research complies with her
prediction. “According to the investment model, satisfaction with a relationship should be
greater to the extent that a relationship provides high rewards and low costs, whereas
commitment increases not only due to greater relationship satisfaction but also to
increases in the investment of resources in relationships and declines in the quality if
available alternative partners”(Rusbult, 1980). Satisfaction and quality of alternatives
drive the commitment in a relationship with high rewards and low costs. Susan Sprecher
also conducted a study which supports Rusbult's findings. Sprecher (1988) found all of
the predicting variables except investments were related to relationship commitment.

The consistency of these studies were examined on both martial relationships and gay
and lesbian relationships (Rusbult et. al, 1988). Rusbult’s second study and Sprecher's
study both support Rusbults Investment Model of commitment. Commitment has three
processes of dependence-satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.
The items all had high correlations with commitment level, but satisfaction level and
quality of alternatives are positively associated with commitment level, were investment
size is negatively associated. Rusbutl's Investment Model will produce further research to
understanding the process in ongoing intimate relationships.
Control theory (sociology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Control Theory Diagram[1]

Control Theory in sociology can either be classified as centralized or decentralized or

neither. Decentralized control is considered market control. Centralized control is
considered bureaucratic control. Some types of control such as clan control are
considered to be a mixture of both decentralized and centralized control.

Decentralized control or market control is typically maintained through factors such as

price, competition, or market share. Centralized control such as bureaucratic control is
typically maintained through administrative or hierarchical techniques such as creating
standards or policies. An example of mixed control is clan control which has
characteristics of both centralized and decentralized control. Mixed control or clan
control is typically maintained by keeping a set of values and beliefs or norms and
traditions.

Control Theory, as developed by Walter Reckless in 1973, states that behavior is caused
not by outside stimuli, but by what a person wants most at any given time. According to
the control theory, weak containing social systems result in deviant behavior. Deviant
behavior occurs when external controls on behavior are weak. According to control
theory; people act rationally, but if someone was given the chance to act deviant they
would. So, basically, if you have strong social bonds to positive influences, deviant
behavior is less likely than someone who has no family or friends.

Control theory stresses how weak bonds between the individuals and society free people
to deviate or go against the norms, or the people who have weak ties would engage in
crimes so they could benefit, or gain something that is to their own interest. This is where
strong bonds make deviance more costly. Deviant acts appear attractive to individuals but
social bonds stop most people from committing the acts. Deviance is a result from
extensive exposure to certain social situations where individuals develop behaviors that
attract them to avoid conforming to social norms. Social bonds are used in control theory
to help individuals from going after these attractive deviations.

According to Travis Hirschi, humans are selfish beings, we all make decisions based on
which choice will give us the greatest benefit to our needs or wants. A good example of
control theory would be that people go to work. Most people do not want to go to work,
but they do, because they get paid, to obtain food, water, shelter, and clothing. The
people that do not have a job or income will commit deviant acts in order to get what they
need to survive.

Hirschi (1969) identifies four elements of social bonds[2], which consist of:

1. Attachments- which are ties to other people. How much the person cares about
others and how others view them based on the things they do. Having close
attachments with individuals and society stop someone from deviating because
they care about what others would think of them, they value their relationship and
don't want to risk losing it.
2. Commitment- what we have spent most of our lives building up, which gives us
satisfaction, we expect a certain reward from it. Investments work to keep people
from deviating because the more investments one has the less likely they will be
deviant. Individuals don't want to risk losing what they have spent time building,
while someone with little investments will see that they have nothing to lose so
the act is more appealing.
3. Involvements- developing activities that demand time and energy. The more a
person spends on activities that conform the norms of society, the less time the
individual will have to do deviant acts. Deviance occurs when an individual is not
involved in activities and has too much time on their hands; this causes the acts to
be more attractive and likely to take place.
4. Beliefs- how a person should act. The norms the person views as what should
happen or what seems right. Beliefs come from how the world works and how it
should work. We develop beliefs as a guide for norms on how people should act,
including ourselves. Beliefs are conformed by our relationships with others
because they expect us to do certain things which stops deviation.
Control Theory

Control Theory is the theory of motivation proposed by William Glasser and it contends
that behavior is never caused by a response to an outside stimulus. Instead, the control
theory states that behavior is inspired by what a person wants most at any given time:
survival, love, power, freedom, or any other basic human need.

Discussion

Responding to complaints that today’s students are “unmotivated,” Glasser attests that all
living creatures “control” their behavior to maximize their need satisfaction. According to
Glasser, if students are not motivated to do their schoolwork, it’s because they view
schoolwork as irrelevant to their basic human needs.

Boss teachers use rewards and punishment to coerce students to comply with rules and
complete required assignments. Glasser calls this “leaning on your shovel” work. He
shows how high percentages of students recognize that the work they do–even when their
teachers praise them–is such low-level work.

Lead teachers, on the other hand, avoid coercion completely. Instead, they make the
intrinsic rewards of doing the work clear to their students, correlating any proposed
assignments to the students’ basic needs. Plus, they only use grades as temporary
indicators of what has and hasn’t been learned, rather than a reward. Lead teachers will
“fight to protect” highly engaged, deeply motivated students who are doing quality work
from having to fulfill meaningless requirements.

How Control Theory Impacts Learning

Curriculum–Teachers must negotiate both content and method with students. Students’
basic needs literally help shape how and what they are taught.

Instruction–Teachers rely on cooperative, active learning techniques that enhance the

power of the learners. Lead teachers make sure that all assignments meet some degree of
their students’ need satisfaction. This secures student loyalty, which carries the class
through whatever relatively meaningless tasks might be necessary to satisfy official
requirements.

Assessment–Instructors only give “good grades”–those that certify quality work–to

satisfy students’ need for power. Courses for which a student doesn’t earn a “good grade”
are not recorded on that student’s transcript. Teachers grade students using an absolute
standard, rather than a relative “curve.”
Control Theory

Explanations > Theories > Control Theory

Description | Research | Example | So what? | See also | References

Description

We have a deep need for control that itself, paradoxically, controls much of our lives. The
endless effort to control can lead us to be miserable as we fail in this impossible task of
trying to control everything and everyone around us.

The alternative is to see the world as a series of choices, which is why Glasser later
renamed Control Theory as Choice Theory. Control theory was also taken up by Wiener
in his study of cybernetics and other behaviorists.

A principle of direct control theory is that of negative feedback, where outcomes are
compared with intent (or 'goals') and consequently used to moderate actions until intent is
optimally achieved. (The 'negative' in the feedback is the difference between the intent
and the outcome).

An important consequent aspect of control theory is self-regulation. People are seen as

intelligent, goal-driven individuals who control their activities in order to achieve their
objectives, goals and needs.

So what?

Using it

Give people things to control, help them control the things in their path, or threaten their
sense of control.

Defending

Do not try to control everything -- instead see the world as a series of choices