Pumax
Don Juan
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2025
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 75
What makes someone want a relationship with you?
And, more importantly, what makes them stay when they are no longer happy?
We're not focusing only on relationships with women, think about your friendships, and work relationships too!
A useful lens comes from Social Exchange Theory and Interdependence Theory: relationships can be understood through outcomes, rewards, costs, expectations, alternatives and dependence.
Over time we do judge whether a relationship is worth what we put into it based off this system.
The "nice guy vs. *******" debate misses the point.
What matters is what the other person perceives they get, relative to what it costs them.
A very nice person can offer a relationship that isn't rewarding.
A difficult person can offer something the partner values a lot.
The standard we judge outcomes against the Comparison leve, It's shaped by past experiences, so two people can receive the same treatment and feel completely different about it.
What feels extraordinary to one is normal to another.
So, satisfaction is not just what you get. It's what you get compared with what you expected.
But, satisfaction is only half the story.
The other half is the comparison level for alternatives.
So, the question is not "how good is my relationship?" but "what could I realistically get instead?"
Someone can be unhappy and stay because the alternatives look worse.
Someone can be fairly happy and leave because they see something clearly better.
Caryl Rusbult's Investment Model adds a third variable: what you'd lose by leaving.
Time, money, shared experiences, friends, a home, children, routines, plans, even parts of your identity.
In her study, commitment grew with higher satisfaction, worse alternatives and bigger investments.
Rusbult, Martz & Agnew later showed these four constructs (satisfaction, alternatives, investment, commitment) are measurably separate and predict whether relationships last.
A later meta-analysis with a 50k people sample found satisfaction had the strongest link to commitment, then investment, then alternatives. The model holds up, but it isn't deterministic.
Then, emerson's Power-Dependence Theory says that the more someone depends on you for what they want, the more influence you have.
Kelley and Thibaut folded this into Interdependence Theory.
If what you offer is valuable and hard to find elsewhere, you're less replaceable.
But being valuable is not the same as making someone dependent.
Isolating a person or cutting their options so they can't leave is control/manipulation, not value. (but still works, since dependency it's a part of the system)
So, summing up, this is the framework:
So what do we do with it?
Not "become an *******". Not even just "be nicer". I
t's this: raise the real value of the relationship and cut the unnecessary costs.
Raise value: build skills, take care of your body, have opinions, create things, build friendships and a life outside the relationship. This also widens your own alternatives, so you don't treat one person as your only source of connection or identity.
Cut costs: constant conflict, disrespect, chaos, insecurity, emotional instability. Anything that makes the relationship more expensive without giving anything back.
Lead with value: help, contribute, be useful.
The goal of seduction might be to make someone unable to leave. (this is common, look at relationships around you IRL).
But a good goal would be to be someone they're free to leave and still want to stay with. (harder to put in practice or find IRL)
When someone leaves you
"What was wrong with me?" is rarely the most useful question.
A better one: what were the rewards and costs for them?
What did they expect?
What alternatives did they see?
What had they invested?
How dependent were they?
So can you spot the framework?
Someone can leave while happy with you.
Someone can stay while deeply unhappy.
Someone can love you and still go.
Someone can complain for years and stay because leaving looks worse.
People don't stay only because they're happy.
They stay when the relationship still makes sense given their expectations, alternatives and cost of leaving.
And, more importantly, what makes them stay when they are no longer happy?
We're not focusing only on relationships with women, think about your friendships, and work relationships too!
A useful lens comes from Social Exchange Theory and Interdependence Theory: relationships can be understood through outcomes, rewards, costs, expectations, alternatives and dependence.
Over time we do judge whether a relationship is worth what we put into it based off this system.
The "nice guy vs. *******" debate misses the point.
What matters is what the other person perceives they get, relative to what it costs them.
A very nice person can offer a relationship that isn't rewarding.
A difficult person can offer something the partner values a lot.
The standard we judge outcomes against the Comparison leve, It's shaped by past experiences, so two people can receive the same treatment and feel completely different about it.
What feels extraordinary to one is normal to another.
So, satisfaction is not just what you get. It's what you get compared with what you expected.
But, satisfaction is only half the story.
The other half is the comparison level for alternatives.
So, the question is not "how good is my relationship?" but "what could I realistically get instead?"
Someone can be unhappy and stay because the alternatives look worse.
Someone can be fairly happy and leave because they see something clearly better.
Caryl Rusbult's Investment Model adds a third variable: what you'd lose by leaving.
Time, money, shared experiences, friends, a home, children, routines, plans, even parts of your identity.
In her study, commitment grew with higher satisfaction, worse alternatives and bigger investments.
Rusbult, Martz & Agnew later showed these four constructs (satisfaction, alternatives, investment, commitment) are measurably separate and predict whether relationships last.
A later meta-analysis with a 50k people sample found satisfaction had the strongest link to commitment, then investment, then alternatives. The model holds up, but it isn't deterministic.
Then, emerson's Power-Dependence Theory says that the more someone depends on you for what they want, the more influence you have.
Kelley and Thibaut folded this into Interdependence Theory.
If what you offer is valuable and hard to find elsewhere, you're less replaceable.
But being valuable is not the same as making someone dependent.
Isolating a person or cutting their options so they can't leave is control/manipulation, not value. (but still works, since dependency it's a part of the system)
So, summing up, this is the framework:
- Satisfaction: how good is this relationships compared with my expectations?
- Alternatives: what could I realistically get elsewhere?
- Investments: what would I lose or have to rebuild if I left?
- Dependence/Power: how much do I need what they give, and they what I give?
So what do we do with it?
Not "become an *******". Not even just "be nicer". I
t's this: raise the real value of the relationship and cut the unnecessary costs.
Raise value: build skills, take care of your body, have opinions, create things, build friendships and a life outside the relationship. This also widens your own alternatives, so you don't treat one person as your only source of connection or identity.
Cut costs: constant conflict, disrespect, chaos, insecurity, emotional instability. Anything that makes the relationship more expensive without giving anything back.
Lead with value: help, contribute, be useful.
The goal of seduction might be to make someone unable to leave. (this is common, look at relationships around you IRL).
But a good goal would be to be someone they're free to leave and still want to stay with. (harder to put in practice or find IRL)
When someone leaves you
"What was wrong with me?" is rarely the most useful question.
A better one: what were the rewards and costs for them?
What did they expect?
What alternatives did they see?
What had they invested?
How dependent were they?
So can you spot the framework?
Someone can leave while happy with you.
Someone can stay while deeply unhappy.
Someone can love you and still go.
Someone can complain for years and stay because leaving looks worse.
People don't stay only because they're happy.
They stay when the relationship still makes sense given their expectations, alternatives and cost of leaving.
Last edited: