The psychological contract

Perhaps the most essential (or master) problem in human relations is the assumption that other people's actions or inactions have the same underlying meanings as our own. I call this the master problem because we seldom deal with this problem in our relationships. Instead, we fight about the problems that are a consequence of this master problem. For example, we argue about cleaning, or the lack of a phone call, or an unwanted touch, but don't discuss the differences in meaning that these have for us.



We come to every human interaction with a set of expectations. Even when we are attempting to be free of expectations and go with the flow, we can not help bringing our expectations with us. Typically, we have different expectations for people in different roles in our life. The co-worker, the shop clerk, the friend, the lover, and the acquaintance each elicits in us a particular set of expectations based on our history, our culture, our upbringing, and our experiences. This, in and of itself, is not the problem. The problem is that we used these expectations (our psychological contract) to interpret the actions of others. So, when a 'friend' does something that does not match our 'friend contract', we no longer consider them a friend. Or, when a lover does not do the things our contract says a lover should do, we interpret this as a problem in the relationship as opposed to a problem in our psychological contract of what it means to be in a loving relationship.



One way to manage this problem is to only interact with people who have very similar psychological contracts to us. These are the friends who do all the things we expect a friend to do; the lovers who tell us what we want to hear. The problem with this approach is two-fold. First, it greatly limits whom you can successfully have interactions with. Secondly, when the places of difference are found (because no two people share exactly the same psychological contract) the betrayal can feel much deeper because there is no language to discuss the differences in expectations. However, this is a common strategy.



A more difficult path, though I believe much more fulfilling, is to work on noticing where you are giving meaning to actions (or the absence of actions) based on your own psychological contract. And, then, checking out your assumptions, before you act on them. The goal is to attempt to understand the other person – to learn their motivations before you begin to punish. At the same time, to begin to work on noticing how other people react to your actions, realizing that they are interpreting your actions through their own psychological contract.