Lessons 07 - 10 Flashcards
Principles of Equity theory by Hatfield and Walster
1) Profit: maximise rewards, minimise costs
2) Distribution: negotiation is needed to ensure fairness. Compensations may occur, but it should be fair
3) Dissatisfaction: if the relationship is unfair, it produces stress and dissatisfaction for the disadvantaged person
4) Realignment: the disadvantaged person tries to restore equity so the relationship continues and is successful
People will expect to receive rewards proportional to the rewards they give the other person. Aim to achieve fairness.
Equity = happiness = relationship continuing
Over-benefit = feel guilty or pity
Under-benefit = feel angry or sad
Rewards - costs = X, where X should be the same for both partners for the relationship to be equitable
Equity theory evaluation
(+) Research by DeMaris (2007) supports. He studied 1500 couples and found that if women under-benefitted to a high degree there was a risk of divorce. Therefore equity is very important for females
(-) More applicable to western individualistic cultures, where people are more concerned with rewards and costs. In eastern cultures, extended family networks and family values may be more important
(-) Buunk (1996) found no association between equity and the future quality and maintenance of a relationship. An equal relationship does not mean it will continue. People have free will to choose
(+) Brosnan (2003) studied monkeys and found females were angry when denied a prize (grapes), especially when they saw another monkey receive it. They hauled food at the experimenter. This supports the idea of equity and the negative consequences, and can be applied to humans
(-) Mills and Clark (1982) said it is not possible to assess equity theory, as many rewards are emotional/psychological and cannot be easily quantified. Operationalisation is an issue
Research on the Equity theory
Hatfield (1979) asked newly married couples to fill out a questionnaire about the rewards they were receiving
Those people who under-benefitted has the lowest overall satisfaction and the most anger
Those people who over-benefitted felt guilty
Equitable couples had the highest level of satisfaction and more chance of the relationship continuing
Men who over-benefit are satisfied. Women who over-benefit are less satisfied (feel guilty)
Evaluation of the research of equity theory
(-) Measures equity via a questionnaire. Participants may lie, it might affect the validity of the study and the results
(-) Only examines newly married couples. It might have been better if Hatfield used a range of couples who were at different stages in the relationship
(+) Highlights important gender differences that occur. Equity is more important for females when examining relationship satisfaction. Men do not value equity as highly, and they may be happy for inequality to occur, especially if they are over-benefitting
(+) Support from other economic theories, such as Kelley’s ‘Social Exchange Theory’. Lots of evidence to suggest rewards and costs are important, such as the idea that successful relationships have equal costs and rewards
Rusbult’s investment model
Satisfaction, alternatives, investments –> commitment level –> future stay or leave decision
Satisfaction levels are the positive or negative experiences a person feels. Influenced by the extent the partner fulfils needs. Can be compared to previous relationships
Comparison/quality of alternatives is when a person might think their needs may be better fulfilled elsewhere. A good quality alternative (another person or being single) may mean the person leaves their relationship.
Investment size is a measure of the importance and extent of resources that contributes to the stability of the relationship. They could be lost if the relationship ends (home, friends etc.). Is a great psychological force that motivates people to continue with their relationships
Intrinsic investment - direct investment (money, energy, emotion)
Extrinsic investment - investment not present at the start of the relationship and that has developed over time (children, memories)
Commitment level. If commitment is high and both people are happy, the relationship should continue. High satisfaction, low comparison/quality of alternatives, high investment size all lead to high commitment levels
Evaluation of Rusbult’s Investment Model
(+) Research by Van Lange (1997). He studied students from Taiwan and the Netherlands and found that high commitment levels were linked to high satisfaction, low comparison/quality of alternatives and high investment size
(+) Useful because it can explain the behaviour of infidelity (low satisfaction, high quality of alternatives). It can also explain why some people stay in abusive relationships (low quality of alternatives and high investment e.g. children)
(-) Criticised because it is difficult to measure the factors of commitment. Rusbult responded by making the investment model scale which measured the variables in a reliable and valid way. But the research conducted with the scales used self-report which created problems of social desirability bias
(-) Lin (1995) criticised because it does not take gender differences into account. Lin found that females tend to report higher satisfaction, lower quality of alternatives, greater investment and stronger commitment than males. So gender differences do exist
(+) Can be applied to explain commitment in a variety of relationships. Rusbult used the investment model scale with homosexual couples and found all factors were important
Research on the Investment Model
Le and Agnew conducted a meta analysis of 52 studies between 1970 and 1990. 11,000 participants from 5 countries (UK, USA, Taiwan, Israel, Netherlands)
Found that satisfaction, comparison/quality of alternatives and investment size were all correlated with commitment.
Satisfaction has the strongest correlation, then investment, the quality of alternatives (lowest correlation because negative)
Those who had high commitment were likely to stay in the relationship, and vice versa
Evaluation of Research into the Investment model by Le and Agnew
(+) Conducted in a range of cultures to assess. Has cultural support
(+) ‘Quality of alternatives’ is very similar to ‘Control level of alternatives’ in the Social Exchange Theory
(-) Relies on correlation coefficients to examine strength. Can be problematic because relationships are very complex. We cannot say high investment leads to high commitment because there may be other variables to be considered (e.g. kids, finances, obligations etc)
(-) The concept of ‘investment’ has been oversimplified. It is not just about the resources a person puts into a relationship, It might also be about future plans. Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) extended this research to include the fact that investments can include future plans
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown
When one partner becomes increasingly dissatisfied with the way the relationship is going
1) Intrapsychic processes: the dissatisfied person privately thinking about their relationship and evaluating. May feel depressed and withdraw from social interactions.
2) Dyadic processes: a private confrontation/discussion with their partner. There could be reconciliation/marital therapy.
3) Social processes: after a breakup, it is made public to friends and family. Advice and support are given. Can involve criticism (‘I never liked them anyways’). Younger people experience breakdown more frequently than older people
4) Grave dressing processes: there is the need to mourn and justify actions. Begin to publicise accounts of how and why the relationship broke down. Stories may be told about betrayal. Partners reinterpret their views of their ex partners
Evaluation of Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown
(+) Improvements have been made as time has passed. Duck introduced a fifth phase called ‘The Resurrection stage’, where a person engages in personal growth and gets prepared for new relationships
(-) Akert (1998) found that the role people had in deciding if a relationship should break down was the most important prediction of breakdown. People who did not initiate the breakdown were the most miserable, lonely and angry. Those who did initiate were less stressed and less upset, but did feel guilty
(+) Support from the ‘Social Exchange Theory’ by Kelley. Agrees with the idea that high costs and minimal rewards means the relationship is not worth continuing
(-) Ignores gender differences. Kassin (1996) found that females emphasise unhappiness, lack of emotional support and incompatibility as reasons for breakdown, where men say lack of sex/fun. Females often wish to stay friends with an ex, men do not
(-) Many ethical issues. Relationship breakdown is a socially sensitive topic and there are many ethical issues that may arise (e.g. psychological harm, invasion of privacy)
(-) Could be viewed as reductionist and not very accurate. Relationship breakdown is complex and cannot be put into four distinct basic stages. The order may also be different in reality (e.g. make up, break up, make up, break up). Relationship breakdown is very unpredictable
Research by Duck into relationship breakdown
Identified several factors that can lead to an unhappy marriage
More unstable:
- partners who marry when young
- partners who become parents young (little time to adjust, financial and housing problems)
- partners from different socioeconomic backgrounds
- partners with different social demographic backgrounds (links to the filter theory)
- people with divorced parents
- people who had many sexual partners
Evaluation of the research conducted by Duck into relationship breakdown
(+) Supported by the filter theory. Both state that having similar social demographics is important for a successful relationship. Duck found different social demographics meant instability, because maybe they do not have much in common
(+) Supported by Bowlby and the internal working model. Duck said people with divorced parents had unstable marriages, possibly because it might have affected their internal working model
(-) Criticised because the identified factors are not the only cause of relationship strain. Brehm (1992) said there are other factors, e.g. ‘structural factors’ (relationship duration, children) and ‘conflict resolution’
(-) Does not consider gender differences. Fiske (2004) found that males get more upset in a marriage due to ‘sexual holding’ whereas females get more upset about ‘sexual aggression’. Also females report dissatisfaction more in a relationship than males
Virtual Relationships in social media
Self Disclosure and Reduced Cues Theory
Likelihood and speed of self-disclosure is quicker in virtual relationships
Virtual relationships might lack cues that would be present in face-to-face relationships (physical appearance, body language, facial expressions)
De-individuation may occur online, where people feel a reduced sense of responsibility. This encourages disinhibition, where people feel more comfortable saying negative things that they would not necessarily say in real life
Evaluation of reduced cues theory
(+) Research evidence to show de-individuation and disinhibition. People go online and ‘troll’ others and do things they would not do face to face
(+) Reduced cues theory can be useful for shy or anxious people who find it hard to communicate directly. It is beneficial so they can use the computer as a ‘shield’
(-) People can ‘catfish’ each other, steal identities, lie, there is more possibility for dishonesty. Can cause issues and problems, there is more scope for deception
Research by Joinson (2001) about self-disclosure and computer communication
Lab study with same sex pairs, where they had a conversation
Experiment A: half discussed face to face, half discussed on an online chat room (could not see each other)
Experiment B: half discussed on an online chat room (could not see each other), half had a video connection
In A, more self-disclosure when using the chat room compared to face to face
In B, lower self-disclosure with the video connection than in the chat room
CONCLUSION: people self-disclose more when using a computer (cannot see each other), compared to face to face interaction. Using video reduces self-disclosure.
