Baumeister and colleagues' insights about large groups and their individual members are also applicable to the small group of two people who are in a committed romantic relationship (often marriage). More specifically, they tell us something about the circumstances that make it more likely that people stay within such a group and less likely that they replace their partner. Ensuring that love endures is an acute problem in our current society, glittering as it is with many alluring romantic options. In this society, remaining in one place – namely, in the same romantic group – is often regarded as treading water. We will not address here the moral issue of whether it is right to leave a romantic group, but rather the psychological issue of whether staying within the group contributes to the agent's wellbeing.
Baumeister et al. indicate that sometimes groups perform better than the sum of their individual members. This clearly also holds for a couple in a marriage (and in other types of committed relationships). Indeed, various findings confirm the advantages of these groups (see, e.g., Waite Reference Waite1995; Reference Waite, Waite, Bachrach, Hindin, Thomson and Thornton2000). Nevertheless, low-quality marriages have significant negative effects on the overall well-being of both agents. Remaining unhappily married is associated with lower levels of overall life satisfaction and health as compared with being unmarried or being happily married (e.g., Hawking & Booth Reference Hawking and Booth2005).
We take the following insight of Baumeister et al. to be central for enhancing the value of committed relationships and making the beloved less replaceable: “Acquiring a unique role within the group can promote belongingness by making oneself irreplaceable” (target article abstract).
The easy accessibility and alluring pull of alternate partners in our society give rise to feelings of romantic compromise in those within committed romantic groups. Two main types of romantic compromises are: (1) compromises on romantic freedom when entering the committed group, and (2) compromises on the choice of the partner while remaining within the group. In the first type, the major concern is giving up tempting alternatives while still continuing to yearn for them. In the second type, another concern is added: accepting the negative aspects of your romantic partner (Ben-Ze'ev Reference Ben-Ze'ev and Bagnoli2011). We believe that the best way to meet both concerns is for each individual to acquire a unique role within the romantic group. This promotes belongingness by making the agent less replaceable.
When the partner's value is assessed merely by the aggregate value of her individual characteristics – independent of her activities within the group – the agent can easily compare this value to the value of other people. This in turn may lead to yearning and searching for a higher-value person, prompting a strong and painful feeling in the agent of having relinquished a promising alternative and of being stuck in a romantic compromise. The partner's negative characteristics will typically gain further weight under such conditions. However, when the partner's value is assessed by her characteristics as a partner within the given romantic group –that is, by her unique contribution to the thriving of the relationship (as well as to the agent's individual thriving) – feelings of being romantically compromised are less likely to emerge. This is because it is more difficult to estimate the potential contribution of a stranger with whom you have never even interacted.
Our need for uniqueness is indeed a basic emotional craving: “We don't always see ourselves as superior, but we almost always see ourselves as unique” (Gilbert Reference Gilbert2007, p. 252). In many matters, uniqueness outranks exclusiveness. Exclusivity is characterized in negative terms that establish rigid behavior and boundaries: It entails “not permitting” and “restricting.” Uniqueness is characterized in positive terms that establish distinctiveness: “being one of a kind,” “different from others in a way that makes somebody or something special and worthy of note.” Emphasizing our uniqueness contributes to profound satisfaction (Ben-Ze'ev & Goussinsky Reference Ben-Ze'ev and Goussinsky2008).
When emphasis is put on uniqueness, the partner's individual characteristics no longer constitute her major romantic value; rather, the value lies in her contribution to the romantic connection. The thriving of the romantic group becomes the central concern of the lovers. Achieving such thriving requires spending time with each other and getting to know each other fully. In addition to making comparison harder, this also gives the current partner a better starting point. Moreover, it provides an incentive for the agent to further develop and deepen the existing relationship, rather than frequently replacing the partner with someone who seems to have better individual characteristics, but whose suitability as a good partner is completely unknown.
The above considerations are further supported by the Dialogue Model of romantic love, which has its origins with Aristotle and has recently been significantly advanced by Angelika Krebs. This model considers the connection between the partners to be at the center of love. Dialogical lovers share emotional experiences and perform joint activities; feeling and acting together amplifies the flourishing of each lover as well as the flourishing of their relationship (Krebs Reference Krebs, Maurer, Milligan and Pacovská2014; Reference Krebs2015). The Dialogue Model, which builds upon contemporary philosophical literature on collective intentionality (e.g., Bratman Reference Bratman1999; Gilbert Reference Gilbert1989; Searle Reference Searle, Cohen, Morgan and Pollack1990), is a viable alternative both to the more common Fusion Model (or Siamese Twin Model; see Schnarch Reference Schnarch1997, p. 109), and the Care Model (e.g., Frankfurt Reference Frankfurt2004). The Dialogue Model stresses the connection and the qualities of the group, which are different and more than the aggregate value of the lovers' individual characteristics. The connection gives rise to a sense of uniqueness, irreplaceability and belonging. As the American writer Tom Robbins nicely puts it: “The highest function of love is that it makes the loved one a unique and irreplaceable being” (Robbins Reference Robbins2003, p. 161).
You have
Access
Baumeister and colleagues' insights about large groups and their individual members are also applicable to the small group of two people who are in a committed romantic relationship (often marriage). More specifically, they tell us something about the circumstances that make it more likely that people stay within such a group and less likely that they replace their partner. Ensuring that love endures is an acute problem in our current society, glittering as it is with many alluring romantic options. In this society, remaining in one place – namely, in the same romantic group – is often regarded as treading water. We will not address here the moral issue of whether it is right to leave a romantic group, but rather the psychological issue of whether staying within the group contributes to the agent's wellbeing.
Baumeister et al. indicate that sometimes groups perform better than the sum of their individual members. This clearly also holds for a couple in a marriage (and in other types of committed relationships). Indeed, various findings confirm the advantages of these groups (see, e.g., Waite Reference Waite1995; Reference Waite, Waite, Bachrach, Hindin, Thomson and Thornton2000). Nevertheless, low-quality marriages have significant negative effects on the overall well-being of both agents. Remaining unhappily married is associated with lower levels of overall life satisfaction and health as compared with being unmarried or being happily married (e.g., Hawking & Booth Reference Hawking and Booth2005).
We take the following insight of Baumeister et al. to be central for enhancing the value of committed relationships and making the beloved less replaceable: “Acquiring a unique role within the group can promote belongingness by making oneself irreplaceable” (target article abstract).
The easy accessibility and alluring pull of alternate partners in our society give rise to feelings of romantic compromise in those within committed romantic groups. Two main types of romantic compromises are: (1) compromises on romantic freedom when entering the committed group, and (2) compromises on the choice of the partner while remaining within the group. In the first type, the major concern is giving up tempting alternatives while still continuing to yearn for them. In the second type, another concern is added: accepting the negative aspects of your romantic partner (Ben-Ze'ev Reference Ben-Ze'ev and Bagnoli2011). We believe that the best way to meet both concerns is for each individual to acquire a unique role within the romantic group. This promotes belongingness by making the agent less replaceable.
When the partner's value is assessed merely by the aggregate value of her individual characteristics – independent of her activities within the group – the agent can easily compare this value to the value of other people. This in turn may lead to yearning and searching for a higher-value person, prompting a strong and painful feeling in the agent of having relinquished a promising alternative and of being stuck in a romantic compromise. The partner's negative characteristics will typically gain further weight under such conditions. However, when the partner's value is assessed by her characteristics as a partner within the given romantic group –that is, by her unique contribution to the thriving of the relationship (as well as to the agent's individual thriving) – feelings of being romantically compromised are less likely to emerge. This is because it is more difficult to estimate the potential contribution of a stranger with whom you have never even interacted.
Our need for uniqueness is indeed a basic emotional craving: “We don't always see ourselves as superior, but we almost always see ourselves as unique” (Gilbert Reference Gilbert2007, p. 252). In many matters, uniqueness outranks exclusiveness. Exclusivity is characterized in negative terms that establish rigid behavior and boundaries: It entails “not permitting” and “restricting.” Uniqueness is characterized in positive terms that establish distinctiveness: “being one of a kind,” “different from others in a way that makes somebody or something special and worthy of note.” Emphasizing our uniqueness contributes to profound satisfaction (Ben-Ze'ev & Goussinsky Reference Ben-Ze'ev and Goussinsky2008).
When emphasis is put on uniqueness, the partner's individual characteristics no longer constitute her major romantic value; rather, the value lies in her contribution to the romantic connection. The thriving of the romantic group becomes the central concern of the lovers. Achieving such thriving requires spending time with each other and getting to know each other fully. In addition to making comparison harder, this also gives the current partner a better starting point. Moreover, it provides an incentive for the agent to further develop and deepen the existing relationship, rather than frequently replacing the partner with someone who seems to have better individual characteristics, but whose suitability as a good partner is completely unknown.
The above considerations are further supported by the Dialogue Model of romantic love, which has its origins with Aristotle and has recently been significantly advanced by Angelika Krebs. This model considers the connection between the partners to be at the center of love. Dialogical lovers share emotional experiences and perform joint activities; feeling and acting together amplifies the flourishing of each lover as well as the flourishing of their relationship (Krebs Reference Krebs, Maurer, Milligan and Pacovská2014; Reference Krebs2015). The Dialogue Model, which builds upon contemporary philosophical literature on collective intentionality (e.g., Bratman Reference Bratman1999; Gilbert Reference Gilbert1989; Searle Reference Searle, Cohen, Morgan and Pollack1990), is a viable alternative both to the more common Fusion Model (or Siamese Twin Model; see Schnarch Reference Schnarch1997, p. 109), and the Care Model (e.g., Frankfurt Reference Frankfurt2004). The Dialogue Model stresses the connection and the qualities of the group, which are different and more than the aggregate value of the lovers' individual characteristics. The connection gives rise to a sense of uniqueness, irreplaceability and belonging. As the American writer Tom Robbins nicely puts it: “The highest function of love is that it makes the loved one a unique and irreplaceable being” (Robbins Reference Robbins2003, p. 161).