intimacy relationship fidelity

Intimacy Relationship Fidelity

IDOLERNEST

Origins of Prisoners' Dilemma

Two criminals arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a chargeSeparated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal:- either testifying- or remain silentEach one is assured they would not know about each other’s decision until the end of the investigation.

The Prisoners' Dilemma

  Prisoner B Stays Silent

Prisoner B testifies

Prisoner A Stays Silent

Each serves 6 months

Prisoner A: serves 10 yearsPrisoner B: goes free

Prisoner A testifies

Prisoner A: goes freePrisoner B: serves 10 years

Each serves 5 years

Modeling Two-party choice

Cooperate

Defect

Player 1

Modeling Two-party choice

Cooperate Defect

Player 2

6

Cooperate Defect

CooperateBoth cooperate

Player 1 cooperates, Player 2 defects

Defect

Player 2 cooperates, Player 1 defects

Both defect

Player 2

Player 1

Modeling Two-party Choice

7

Cooperate Defect

Cooperate

Defect

Player 2

Player 1

The Prisoners' Dilemma

The best course of action is for the prisoners to cooperate so that they each get 6 months.If one betrays while the other cooperates, the betrayer will be set free, leaving the other one serving 10 years in prison.As both prisoners take the same rational decision, both end up serving 5 years Betrayer concerns about himself more.

The Prisoners' Dilemma Game

two players in the game can choose between two moves, either "cooperate" or "defect". The idea is that each player gains when both cooperate with each other.If only player A cooperates, the other one (player B) defects, will gain more. If both defect, both lose (or gain very little) but not as much as the "cheated" cooperator whose cooperation is not returned. 

Real Life Examples: Case 1

Either one is not cooperating in the relationship. E.g. Cheating 婚外情

Outcome of the relationship happens to turn out badly in some cases.

夫疑戴綠帽妻揚言跳樓 ??

戶主姓郭（四十七歲），妻子姓黃（三十三歲）一對年約十歲子女 Husband suspects Wife has been cheating. (Giving him the GREEN HAT)Only suspecting but not sureWife obviously deniesFight!Wife bites Husband on the arm!To Clarify she was innocent, try to COMMIT SUICIDE! 跳樓

太陽報網頁提供

http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20101124/00407_055.html?pubdate=20101124

Real Life exampleCase 2

婚外情屢爆慘案 去年十一月十一日 Wife found out being cheated . 妻子發現「包二奶」Husband proposed Divorce 丈夫 要求離婚 FIGHT! Wife goes mad and threatens to slaughter the daughters if he insists on divorcing.Husband refuse to cooperateWife murders the daughters ( 以利斧將兩名女兒劈死 )

太陽報網頁提供

But ! sometimes….Not all leads to bad outcomeE.g. Forgive and acceptingIn the end, both cooperate againMight also improves the relationship

Case 3

Forgiving

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COwD-ecci7s

《婚前試愛》（ Marriage With A Liar ）

Case 4

Keeping silent

Some may decide to keep silent Even though he/she finds out they are the only one cooperatingBeing cheated

戀愛青年啞忍少求助Girl being cheatedBut keeps silentBoy does not care in cooperating even it is overt.Girl’s pressure builds up physical aggression.Uncontrolled TragedyMay talk to someone about the problem e.g. social workers

What is special about the dilemma?

Unlike simple PDGwhat is really Cooperation in a relationship?Everyone has different perceptionsFor example:- You cheat on your partner but you treat him/her very well.- You don’t betray your partner but do very little to improve/maintain the relationship.

Different player may perceive different outcome and partner’s choice!

Cooperate Defect

Cooperate 2 2 0 3

Defect 3 0 1 1

Player 2

Player 1

Different player may perceive different outcome and partner’s choice!

Cooperate Defect

Cooperate 2 2 0 3

Defect 3 0 1 1

Player 2

Player 1

Are there any other choices?

Withdrawal (divorce/break up)

Costly punishment (murder offspring etc)

- Real Life example Case 2

So how do we perceive?

Mainly depends on the Satisfaction/Outcome of relationship?

What does it depend?

Social Exchange and Equity Approaches (Berscheid & Walster 1978)Outcome = Benefit - Cost

Equity : My Benefit = Your Benefit

Equality : My Benefit = Your Benefit My Cost Your Cost

Similar equity and equality better satisfaction of relationship

Social Exchange and Equity Approaches (Berscheid & Walster 1978)

Little effect only on satisfaction of relationship (Rodney M. cate,1982, 1988, JW Michaels , 1984, NW Van Yperen , 1990,)

i.e. Maybe I contribute more than you/you only contribute a little, but I am satisfied !

We perceive the change as:

Cooperate Defect

Cooperate 2 2 0 3

Defect 3 0 1 1

Although I contribute a lot, he contribute only a little bit, but we are satisfied!

Triangular theory of Love (Sternberg, Robert J., 1986 )

Passionate affect:

Included: Positive affinity, sexual desire, quick-tempered…But decay over time!!!

Very strong effect on outcome of relationship (Tatewaki, Yosuke, 2007)

Passionate affect:

It decays over time, meaning that:

You might have a good outcome at the beginning of the relationship

After sometimes, passion decays, if no appropriate relationship-maintaining behaviours are taken, the outcome of relationship droped!!!

We perceive the change as:

Cooperate Defect

Cooperate 2 2 0 3

Defect 3 0 1 1

He doesn’t care!!He doesn’t put effort in the relationship

We perceive the change as:

Cooperate Defect

Cooperate 2 2 0 3

Defect 3 0 1 1

Our love fades away…I’m not doing enough

Attribution Style(Arriaga, X. B., & Rusbult, C. E., 1998)

It matters on perception of the dilemma:

As previous slides said:We might attribute the blame differently

Attribution style is affected by level of trust!(Tatewaki & Yosuke, 2007) (Also attachment style! But we are not going to discuss it)

Interdependence theory (kelly & Thibaut, 1978, Kelley et al., 1983)

Comparison level= Your expectation of outcome in this relationship!

Satisfaction = Outcome – Comparison level

If outcome does not reach the comparison level:‘You don’t love me!’

Comparison level may depends on past experience, cognitive understanding and alternatives choice!!!!

Comparsion level - Past experience

If your past intimacy relationship is very bad, you might expecting less.

You are more easily satisfied even a low outcome is given only.

Oppositely….

Comparsion level:Cognitive understanding (cf. Beck, 1988; Gottman, 1994,1995)

Especially puppy love

Expecting a lot of unrealistic desires.

Very high comparison level !!!

Comparison level: Quality of alternatives (Philip Broemer,2003)

A better alternatives choices: A higher Comparison level:

So perhaps if you are the poor but he is the richYou have to be very very good.

So we perceive OUTCOME and Partner’s CHOICE depends on:

Equity and Equality (Weak)Passionate affectAttribution StyleComparison level, which depends

Past experienceCognitive understandingQuality of Alternative choices

So…

HOW DO WE ACHIEVE MUTUAL COOPERATION???????????

If you are selfish,

You tend to defeat.

However, you are not (perhaps),

You care the outcome of your partner,Then mutual cooperation has the best outcomes to both.You tends to provoke mutual cooperation!

The problem is:

The outcome of relationship easily change due to the previous factors we mentioned:

Also not everyone are totally ‘selfishness’.

So how can we achieve mutual cooperation?

Social dilemma Heuristics: Perception of outcome as assurance of goal (Toko Kiyonari, 2000)

We might perceive the PDG as an AG

Cooperate Defect

Cooperate 2 2 0 1

Defect 1 0 1 1

Best outcome is

Cooperate Defect

Cooperate 2 2 0 1

Defect 1 0 1 1

Perceiving everyone has the best outcome in mutual cooperation

Such perception enables partners to choose cooperation: Higher probability of mutual cooperation

Our interview result is consistent to it:They believe that mutual cooperation is best to the partners.

Although they agree that for selfish person PDG is suitable to them

Logic of Appropriateness (J. Mark Weber,2004)

We use social referencing to choose our behaviours:

Social norm affects how we choose response to react when partners cooperate/defeat

Social norm also provoke mutual cooperation.

Trust level (Tatewaki, Yosuke, 2007)

High trust level partners have higher cooperation rate.( Jansseen Ma, 2008)Also effects on other aspects: to be mentioned.

If a choice of withdrawal is given:

When trust level is high: A choice of withdrawal actually increase cooperation rate

When trust level is low: A choice of withdrawal has no effect on cooperation rate.(Pamela C. Regan, 2003)

Especially when there is a very good alternatives(Caryl E. Rusbult, 1999)

When there is a good alternative, trusted partner will have a higher cooperation rate as well!!!

Decision on whether to withdraw:

Investment theory (Rusbult et. al, 1988)Investment sizeQuality of alternativeRewards

If 1,3 is low but 2 is high, very likely to withdraw from the relationship.

Future expectation (from interview result)

Afraid of loss: Shadow of future (Eugene W. Mathesa, 1982)

Afraid of bear /outcome loss after breaking up/divorce.

High investment size: Afraid of total loss

Shadow of future raises cooperation rate.

Communal love Theory (Clark & Mills, 2001

Each member has a concern for the welfare of the other (Clark & Mills, 1982, 1994, 2001)

Provide benefits to the other without expectation of a specific benefit in return

(Parents-children relationships )

Choice of costly punishment (Wu J. J., 2009)

Given a choice of costly punishment has no effect on cooperation rate.

And costly punishment serious damage trust level:

Q & A

Fun PartQuestion for Males :How would you feel and react in the following situation ??