Perhaps the social phenomena discussed in the preceding sections will become even clearer if we look at part of an academic body of work called rational choice theory. Previously, this body of work, and its line of reasoning, were labeled social exchange theory because its straightforward logic was based on the principles of economics.
Although rational choice theory contains five guiding propositions, only one of the five is relevant to the discussion at hand. Homans’ 4th proposition, the Deprivation/Satiation Proposition, is based on the economic logic of the law of declining marginal utility. I realize this academic-sounding label may seem confusing. Generally, it states that:
“The more often in the recent past a person has received a particular reward, the less valuable any further unit of that reward becomes for him (sic) (italics mine). “
The cartoon character Uncle Scrooge would not be too impressed by the proposition of someone giving him a hundred-dollar bill. Uncle Scrooge is filthy rich, so a mere hundred dollars doesn’t mean much to him. He has lakes of money (evidently more than one).
Uncle Scrooge is so wealthy, he has mounds of money twenty feet deep.
To most people, though, a hundred dollars is greatly appreciated.
Lately, I have enjoyed playing a slot game my friend Val downloaded to my phone. At first, the game allotted me 600 credits every four hours. I would look forward to receiving these credits and even began planning part of my day around the four hour replenishment schedule. At first I would hoard the credits; betting the minimum, or close to minimum as possible. Since the credits were hard to come by, I appreciated them. I rationed them. I look forward to using them. My appreciation for these credits was so much so, I would take a picture whenever I hit a big jackpot.
Today I have so many points that I now bet 1000 at a time. During those early days, I would never have dreamed of betting 1000 credits. Never! Today I bet 1000 or more. My winnings are so huge I no longer care to check my phone every four hours. I have so many credits that I am saturated with them, they don’t mean as much to me as they used to. The fact that I took the time to take a picture is indicative of how much I used to appreciate those credits. Today I would never even think of taking a picture. I’m saturated with them. They’ve lost value to me.
Today I measure my saturation point differently. The game has a “double-your-winnings” feature. After a winning a jackpot, the winner is given the chance to double their winnings up to seven times. Val told me she went for it with 44,000. I’m not that saturated yet… my highest double-or-nothing wager was a mere 10,000. Val said her account is in the billions and she can ONLY bet 1000! Slot winning saturation.
Homans’ Fourth Proposition provides us with the logic behind the phenomenon where certain types become attracted to the “not-so-nice” behaviors.
In pop culture images of persons produced by the mass media, certain physical characteristics of actors, fashion models, social commentators, and other talking-heads are emphasized and used to draw attention to products, movie plots, news broadcasts and a host of other mediated activities. In these cases, physically-attractive types tend to have a certain “look.” Normally, these people are attractive. Thus, these mass-mediated images of people serve as model types: those that we strive to copy in our own “style.”
Because these mass-mediated standards of beauty are considerably higher than average, only a limited number of persons are able to actually enjoy this level of beauty. As a result, the ratio of attractive to not-so-attractive is high. In other words, these physically attractive types are the exception to the rule. Therefore, unless we are employed in a business that involves working with models or the like, our day-to-day existence means we normally interact with a majority of average-looking types.
“Americans are socialized to discriminate in favor of the better-looking people.”
Through mass-mediated images, Americans are socialized to discriminate in favor of the better-looking people. We perceive them as being smarter, more capable and competent, and even having higher morals than those who are not so attractive (Miller, 1970). Thus, we prefer their attention and put more stake in their validation of us than we do the average-looking types. Although the definitions of attractiveness change over time, and are thus defined by each social era, the logic holds true for any given socio-historical period. Whatever types of high standards are indicative of the times, we have discriminated in their favor.
When average-looking people interact with the better-looking types, they tend to act in a different manner than they would when interacting with people in their own “league.” Average-looking types tend to act more favorably toward the beautiful types. That is, the more attractive the person is, the more likely it is that other people will act nicely toward him/her. Treating the attractive types better than others normally amounts to giving the beautiful person their way. The better-looking the person, the more likely they are “given” more of their way. This “special” behavior is given to the attractive individual with the hope of the less-attractive person making a favorable impression upon the more attractive type. Average-looking individuals feel that if they can impress the better looking person, then perhaps the good-looking person will enjoy interacting with the average-looking person and thus will want to interact with them again in the future (e.g. a relationships of some sort).
In Homans’ view, individuals who are shown preferential treatment will likely become so used to nice behavior that they will start to take it for granted.
But what happens when good-looking people experience an unbalanced ratio of “nice” to “not-nice” behaviors? In Homans’ view, individuals who are shown preferential treatment will likely become so used to nice behavior that they will start to take it for granted. Remember the proposition: “The more often in the recent past a person has received a particular reward, the less valuable any further unit of that reward becomes for him (sic).” Once this happens, reinforcing- or nice- behavior will even become expected during social interaction. Thus, such nice behavior will likely become common and mundane and will lose much of the special meaning it once may have had.
This is what Homans referred to as a person becoming saturated by something. These saturated types experience enough reinforcing (nice) behavior that they come to expect it as a normal part of their interaction. When this type of saturation occurs, these saturated types no longer take note of “nice” behaviors as they may have in the past. Now such “pleasing” behavior becomes the norm to them. It is when the nice behavior isn’t elicited toward these saturated types that they take special note of it.
Put succinctly, the negative aspect of this “be-nice-to-hunks and hotties” phenomenon occurs when these types reach the point of becoming saturated with reinforcing, nice behaviors. When this occurs, these saturated-types are then likely to take notice of behavior that they experience less frequently: not-nice behavior. When people experience an over-abundance of reinforcing behaviors, soon non-reinforcing behavior begins to stick out to these types, and thus catches their eye.
It is when the nice behavior isn’t elicited toward these saturated types that they take special note of it.
There are a range of not-nice behaviors to which a saturated person can become attracted. They range anywhere from a mere indifference to downright mean and abusive. Neutral behavior (that is, it is neither “nice,” nor is it “not-nice”) exists somewhere in the middle of these two opposing behavior types. This neutral behavior isn’t “mean” behavior, yet neither can it be considered “nice.” Thus, it will be contrasted with nice, or reinforcing behavior, and may catch the eye of a “nice-saturated” person. So in these cases, since neutral behavior isn’t considered “nice,” it is also likely to catch the eye of “nice-saturated” types.
The saturation phenomenon isn’t static in nature. On the contrary, saturated types become attracted to behaviors relative to their saturation level (low, medium, or high). Persons saturated by lower levels of nice behavior, tend to become attracted to low-levels of “not-nice” behaviors. Those types affected by a medium-level of saturation tend to become attracted to medium-levels of “not-nice” behaviors. Highly saturated types can become attracted to high-levels of “not-nice” behaviors. In these incidents, the behaviors may include more intense mental abuse or even overt physical abuse. People experiencing this level of saturation often tolerate incredulous amounts of emotional and/or physical abuse.
Let me be clear on this point. I’m not implying that all physically attractive people automatically become saturated with nice behaviors elicited toward them. My point is that the more society socializes its members to discriminate in favor of the physically attractive types, the more likely these attractive types stand the chance of becoming saturated by such behavior. Remember, this is a generalization. There may be some exceptions to the rule, but the logic stands in most cases.
Other social types can also become saturated by reinforcing behavior(s). We also afford special treatment to celebrities, politicians, wealthy entrepreneurs and other social dignitaries. In these cases, such behavior isn’t necessarily related to their physical attractiveness, but these types may still be afforded special treatment. Thus, it is also possible for these celebrity types to become saturated by such favorable treatment. But for purposes of our discussion of relationships, the issue of saturation we are interested in varies most closely with one’s level of physical attractiveness.
On a similar note, many students hear me say that in order to gain the attention and affection of attractive types, the pursuer must treat them unkindly. Oh contraire, I do not suggest that anyone be mean or engage in malicious behavior toward anyone else. My point is simply that when someone is pursuing an attractive type, they shouldn’t necessarily put them on a pedestal, bending to their every wish and whim like the rest of the herd. Doing so is likely increases the chance that the attractive person will become even more saturated by such behavior, and will then take the nice person for granted. Once saturation occurs, it’s often difficult to reverse its course.
I should also mention to the viewer that all abuse is not related to the deprivation/satiation phenomenon. Some abuse is caused by other factors, such as chemical imbalances, insecurities on the part of others, authoritarian personalities, etc. Please do not conclude that saturation effects are the only causes of abuse.
Before we conclude this section, I want to comment on a phenomenon related to saturation effects. We often comment to those who are attracted to abusive partners, “Just leave the jerk.” But until others who interact with these highly saturated types (not you of course) stop putting them on a pedestal, these popular types will continue to remain saturated. Trading one challenging partner for yet another.
Saturation is a group phenomenon and thus isn’t the result of just one person’s behavior. Therefore, despite the pleas for the seeming abuse-lover to leave his/ her current partner, and despite the seemingly sound logical arguments against any further contact with such a person, these saturated types will continue to be attracted to persons who elicit a larger ratio of not-nice behaviors to smaller ratios of nice behaviors. To the saturated types, the nice behavior will continue to contrast with the not-nice behaviors. Since the nice treatment will occur at a smaller ratio than the not-nice behavior, it will be rarer and thus, it will stick out to these saturated types.
It’s not any particular individual person that catches the eyes of these saturated types, it’s a type of person they tend to be drawn to. Only the names would be different. The magnetism these types experience draws from their interaction with these non-reinforcing types. Not-nice people tend to rub others in a frictionous manner. They often act in a self-centered manner, are difficult to get along with, or are hard to pin down. It’s their ill manner that draws the attention of the saturated types and creates the desire to go towards them. This happens to stick out precisely because it contrasts their “norm.”
The saturation phenomenon then, affects more than just the two partners in a relationship. Outside forces also affect the saturation phenomenon. For instance, if myriad of people shower reinforcing attention on any one of the partners, that partner is likely to be affected by the related saturation effects, independently of the actions of the partner he/she is paired with. Or put differently, no matter how you treat someone, you cannot completely control how others interact with him/her. Others may cause saturation effects in your partner independent of any of your behaviors.
This section can be summarized in a series of ten statements. They are:
[1] The numbers of persons who match the mass media’s criteria of social beauty are relatively rare.
[2] Under normal circumstances, we interact with more average-looking types than we do with the more attractive types.
[3] Our interaction scripts are different for non-attractive types than it is for interaction with attractive types.
[4] We tend to discriminate in favor of attractive types (treating them nice is done with the aim of pleasing the attractive other, and thus hoping to spark a desire further interaction).
[5] As a result of social discrimination, good-looking types tend to experience an unbalanced ratio of nice to not-nice behaviors; thus, experiencing considerably more nice behavior than not-nice behaviors. When this balance (ratio differential) is tipped, the types on the receiving end of the “nice parade” tend to become saturated with such “niceness.”
[6] When the attractive types become saturated by niceness, they begin to take “nice” for granted.
[7] Once the nice behaviors are taken for granted, they are no longer considered special; that is, they no longer stand out from ordinary behaviors (to these types, they are ordinary behaviors).
[8] When nice behavior no longer catches someone’s eye, the opposite type of behavior (not-nice) begins to stand out. That is, the nice-saturated types tend to notice “not-nice” behaviors.
[9] There are a range of not-nice behaviors to which a saturated person can become attracted. They range anywhere from mere indifference to malicious and overt abuse.
[10] The saturated types will become attracted to behaviors according to their saturation level (low, medium, or high).
*******
onlinerelationshiphandbook.com
pete padilla