“Give me a place to stand, and a lever long enough, and I
will move the world.”
Archimedes
The famous quote by Archimedes is fundamentally about the mechanics
of leverage. You might remember a teacher explaining fulcrums and levers, and
how a lever could help you move a heavy weight with less force than otherwise
needed. Though the mechanics are interesting, what captivates me most in this is
the simple idea of there being a lever to pull that will make something else
happen.
Over my career, I keep returning to the importance of differentiating
between the kinds of constructs used by researchers to describe romantic
relationships. I believe some constructs imply levers that might be pulled to
cause an effect, and others do not. This distinction matters theoretically and in
our personal relationships.
Construction
Psychologists use the term “construct” to refer to cluster
of things that reflect a concept. It is easy to think of a construct in the way
most people use the term variable, but the idea of a variable usually refers to
a specific measure of a construct as used in a study. Common constructs in the
study of romantic relationships are things like satisfaction, commitment,
conflict, appreciation, forgiveness, distress, attachment, and communication. A
variety of things can be included in a construct but, in each case, there is a ball
of stuff around a label reflecting one inherent thing. A construct has a clumpy,
thingness to it.
When it comes to romantic relationships, satisfaction has
gotten the most attention. Satisfaction is part of the same ball of stuff as happiness.
This clump represents an overall, broad sentiment about a relationship.[i]
As a researcher and intervention minded psychologist, I’m
not wild about the construct of satisfaction, and I can explain why. Think
about some other constructs relevant to romantic relationships.
Communication
Commitment
Sacrifice
Investment
Support
Empathy
Forgiveness
What is different about these constructs from satisfaction? First,
notice that all those terms refer to something more specific than satisfaction.
If your friend has started dating someone, and you are curious to know how it’s
going, you might text and ask, “do you like her?” The answer will tell you a
lot without telling you anything specific. Liking, happiness, and satisfaction
are all part of the same clump of non-specific positive sentiments.
More importantly, each of those constructs just listed—and
many others—have plausible levers. They each imply someplace to stand and
something to pull. In other words, those constructs are actionable. Although they
each can also reflect something about the current state of a relationship, it’s
that idea of something to pull that sets them apart from satisfaction.
Willful
Satisfaction, and anything like it, will predict a good deal
about the future of a relationship. It is an important construct and nearly
always measured in relationship science. It also can cause other things and yet
still be relatively lever-less. For example, if a person is not satisfied in
their relationship, they may give their partner less attention and their
relationship will deteriorate further. In that case, satisfaction is causal by
way of motivation—demotivating, really.
The notion of levers focuses attention on a different thing
than just causality. A construct with a lever will reflect something that could
be plausibly acted on by will. Thus, having a lever means the construct is potentially
both causal and possible to direct.
Let’s say you wanted to increase satisfaction in your
relationship this week. I do not think you will get very far with a plan that
merely specifies your objective. Can you will yourself to be happier? I cannot.
Can you decide to just be more satisfied with your partner? You could, but if you
decide to do that you will shortly thereafter be thinking about your options to
do something that could make that happen. A construct with a lever will imply an
answer to a question, “What has a lever I could go pull this evening, that
would probably have a good effect on my relationship, tonight, this week, or
this year?"
Here are some possible answers. You can decide to listen more
to your partner. You can work at articulating more clearly what you want. You
can show your commitment by some tangible act like inviting your partner to do
something with you that you both enjoy. You can look for ways to provide more emotional
or tangible support to your partner around an ongoing personal struggle. You
can show joy about something your partner has achieved. Lever-actions, all.
You can see this principle in various things my colleagues
and I have written over the years about commitment. The following is a passage
from a chapter on how to use commitment theory in marital therapy (from Stanley,
Lobitz, & Dickson, 1999)[ii]:
While satisfaction is certainly
a crucial construct, focusing on it alone will lead to incomplete
understandings of the complex motivations that underlie stay-leave decisions
(Johnson, 1978, 1982, 1985; McDonald, 1981; Stanley & Markman, 1992;
Rusbult, 1983). Furthermore, satisfaction alone gives therapists little
instruction in how to help unhappy couples. "Don't worry, be happy"
makes a great motto, but it does not offer much in terms of specific therapeutic
strategies.
. . .
The good news is that the
factors that underlie dedication are things about which people have choices.
People can choose how they will handle the allure of alternatives. People can
choose the priority they will place on their relationships. People can choose
to nurture a positive, long-term vision for their relationship.
There are many models of measurement and theory about
commitment, but one that resonates the most with me contrasts commitment as
constraint and commitment as dedication. Constraints are things that can lead
someone to remain in a relationship, whether or not they want to, and constraints
tend naturally to build up over time. They often function harmlessly or even
positively (as evidence of investment and a brake on ruining years of
investment during a down time), but if satisfaction is low, they are what makes
a person feel trapped. Constraints are hard to change or change quickly. Dedication,
in contrast, is loaded with parts (sub-constructs) that are festooned with possible
levers.
Consider this next list and how everything on it reflects
not only something that will tell you something about a person’s commitment to
their partner but will also leave a clue about aspects of behavior that might
be changed to make a difference.
Priorities
A desire
for a future together
Sacrifice
Couple
identity
A person can think about ways to make their relationship a
higher priority, and likely do something even slightly different the next day.
For example, a person can choose to find ways to reinforce something about the
future they want with their partner. That could mean planning a trip together
or simply talking about the future with their significant other. Sacrifice, especially in little things, can also play a
potent role in signaling commitment. There is a small but conceptually tight
literature on sacrifice that suggests that, aside from situations where
sacrifice is grossly uneven or resented, little sacrifices are going to make a positive
difference.[iii] I have written a briefarticle about some of the ways one can focus on small acts of sacrifice in their
relationship. Small positive sacrifices not only reflect this idea of levers, they
might also have the very property Archimedes touted where a little effort can
do a lot.
Here is a similar distinction in another paper, where we are
differentiating dedication from romantic attachment (from Stanley, Rhoades,
& Whitton, 2010)[iv]:
If commitment develops partly to
secure romantic attachments, which aspects of the broader construct of
commitment serve this purpose? . . . Constraint can foster a sense of
permanence, which can contribute to overall security, but dedication will be
reflected in behaviors that are more readily seen as under personal control,
and, thereby, informative about commitment in ways that fosters trust and
security between partners.
. . .
One of the important differences
between commitment and romantic attachment lies in the fact that intention is
central in understanding commitment while romantic attachment only implies
depth of emotional connection.
These examples are focused on aspects of commitment because that
has been a focus of a lot of my thinking about relationships, but it is just an
example of my main argument about constructs with levers. I often similarly
contrast communication with satisfaction, where communication implies loads of levers
and satisfaction does not.
Rock your world
I bet Archimedes believed that he could literally move the earth
with a long enough lever, a fulcrum, and a place to stand just beyond it—hypothetically,
of course. And you and me? Sometimes we’re looking too hard for something to
rock our world when we just need to pull the lever that is nearest to where we
presently stand.
Special thanks to Troy Fangmeier for help in editing this piece. A shorter version of this piece first appeared at my blog for Psychology Today on 12-3-2019.
[i]
In fact, satisfaction is potentially so broad a construct that many in my field
of family psychology keep referring back to a concept of positive sentiment
override, a term put forth by Robert Weiss to describe a phenomenon where one
partner can hold such a positive overall sentiment about the other partner that
pretty much nothing but positive can be seen. There can be negative sentiment
override, also. This idea comes up often in discussions with colleagues over
the years when the question is asked if some other construct is really just
satisfaction by a different name. Citation: Weiss, R. L. (1980). Strategic
behavioral marital therapy: Toward a
model for assessment and intervention, Volume 1. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.) Advances in Family
Intervention, Assessment, and, Theory (pp. 229-271). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
[ii]
Stanley, S.M., Lobitz, W.C., & Dickson, F. (1999). Using what we know:
Commitment and cognitions in marital therapy. In W. Jones & J. Adams (Eds),
Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp.
379-392). New York: Plenum.
[iii]
Especially on this point, see: Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A.,
& Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,
942-966.; and also: Stanley, S. M., Whitton, S. W., Low, S. M., Clements, M.
L., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sacrifice as a predictor of marital outcomes. Family
Process, 45, 289-303.
[iv]
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment:
Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of
Family Theory and Review, 2, 243-257. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x
