Paper 3: Relationships

Question 1

(AO1) Who proposed the social exchange theory (SET) and what is it?

Answer 1

• Thibault and Kelly (1959) describe rels. using economics terminology through rewards and costs. Max. profit.
• Try maximise rewards (e.g. companionship, money, sex) and minimise costs (e.g. money, energy, time). ‘Minimax principle’
• subjective, what consider costly to one may not to other. + costs also change overtime may not be same as start of rel.

Question 2

(AO1) What was the first method Thibault and Kelly (1959) propose we use to asses how profitable a relationship is?

Answer 2

• Comparison level (CL) = persons idea how much reward they deserve + benchmark for judging rels.
• Subjective depends on previous rels. and culture e.g. films and tv.
• person high self-esteem = higher expectations, vice versa.
• perceived costs must be above CL

Question 3

(AO1) What was the second method Thibault and Kelly (1959) propose we use to asses how profitable a relationship is?

Answer 3

• Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)
• Wether other potential rels or being on own would be more rewarding
• stick to rel as long as more proftiable
• Duck (1994) = if content in own may not realise others

Question 4

(AO1) Outline the stages proposed by Thibault and Kelly (1959).

Answer 4

1. Sampling stage = explore potential rewards/costs of rels (not just romantic). experience or observation.
2. Bargaining stage = exchange rewards/costs figuring out most profitable and negotiate dynamics
3. Commitment stage = rel becomes more stable + partners become familiar expect of rew./costs.
4. Institutionalisation stage = When costs/rewards are well established.

Question 5

(AO3) For SET?

Answer 5

1) support - 185 couples; homosexuals and heterosexuals. Question. measuring rel commitment + SET variables. Satisfaction greater when many rewards + few costs + viewed alts as unattractive. Supports SET (CL and CLA). Means used to explain many types of rel- generalisable. CP: Self-report method. Social desirabltility + response bias. Reduce validity.
2) Difficult define - rewards/costs highly subjective. How much more attractive alts.??. Further, arguably don’t keep some form of tally, only for colleagues. research not balance but perceived fairness of rels. Low validity - only explain limit social rels.

3) Integrated behavioural therapy - 2/3 treated ICBT rels sig. improve. = much happier. Partners trained increase proportions pos. exchanges, decrease neg. changing neg. behaviour patterns. SET help real-life. Real-world appli.
CP: Only Western cult. i.e. ST rels where individs. have high mobility - divorce relatively socially acceptable. SET cul. biased not help all world. may limit real-life appli.

4) Lacks mundane realism - Research based studying strangers involved some game-based scenario rew/costs e.g. lab experiment 112 ppts given bargaining partner maximise personal score comp. game. ‘rels’ nothing like real life = knowing each other + establishing trust. Lack internal validity, bad real-life appli.

Question 6

(AO1) What does the Equity theory suggest?

Answer 6

• people concerned about fairness in rel.
• When people get what feel they deserve
• Winning formula of fairness is one partners benefits minus their costs, should equal the others.

Question 7

(AO1) Outline the equity theory

Answer 7

• If one partner deems the relationship as unfair they’re dissatisfied regardless over/under benefiting
• if one gets more benefits than they put in they feel guilty + shame, vice vera would be angry + resentful
• Focus on a balance between rewards/costs not how many
• Changes overtime = e.g. what seemed unfair at beginning may not over time

Question 8

(AO3) For equity theory?

Answer 8

1) Support - Utne (1984) = self-report scales measure equity + satisfaction recently married. 118 ppts. 16 to 45 yrs had been together 2 yrs or more before marrying. Found rated partners as more equitable = more satisfied with them.
CP: Self-repot = social desirability bias, affect validity or talk about only married couples can’t generalise beyond that

2) support animal studies = observe behaviour capuchin monkeys. Females play game receive highly desirable grapes, angry if not. If diff. monkey not in game given reward instead aggression towards experimenters. Brosanan - chimps more upset injustice casual rel instead intimate. Explanations have evo. basis. CP: Animal studies, can’t generalise humans.
3) Contradictory evidence equity - longitudinal study 38 couples. no increase equity overtime, but high level self-disclosure + perceived equity rel last longer. Low equity beginning = breakup. Contradict theory equity increase over time either at start or not.
4) Research compared couples in collectivist and individualistic cultures and found cultural differences in link between equity and satisfaction. Both men + women from indivi. (US) rels were most satisfied when equitable. Collectivists (Jamaica) found rels most satisfied when over benefiting. Suggests ET limited - doesn’t explain developments of rels in collectivist cultures.

Question 9

(AO1) What is the investment model?

Answer 9

• proposed by Rusbult (1980) as develop of SET
• Many stay together despite costs outweighing rewards, so must be other factors
• Commitment: Satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives (CLalt) & investment size

Question 10

(AO1) What is meant by commitment in Rusbults model?

Answer 10

• partners desire to remain in couple + have long-term future
• Rusbult believes commitment acts as maintenance factor in rel i.e. attempt to work through ‘rough patch’
• no suitable alternatives

Question 11

(AO1) What is meant by satisfaction in Rustbults model?

Answer 11

• Based on notion of comparison level seen in SET
• Higher sat. if receive more rewards + incur fewer costs
• may be felt with equal domestic, compassionate interactions and meeting sexual desires.

Question 12

(AO1) What is meant by CLalt in Rusbults model?

Answer 12

• echoes SET
• receive more satisfaction outside rel? can also include staying on own
• ‘is there a better alt. to satisfy my needs?’ ‘no’ = commitment

Question 13

(AO1) What is meant by investment in Rusbults model?

Answer 13

• most important factor
• intrinsic = things partner puts directly into rel e.g. money, possessions…
• Extrinsic = things brought to peoples lives through rel e.g. children, shared memories or friends…
• Rusbult = bigger invest more likely stay cause can loose

Question 14

(AO3) For Rusbults investment model?

Answer 14

1) Support - m-a 53 studies. 11,582 ppts from 5 countries 1970s-1990s. Found sat., CLalt + Investment sig. correlate with commitment. Those with most commit. most stable + lasted longest. Across board of sexes. Supports R’s claims its universal. CP: Correlations not show cause. May be more committed, more invest. Limit predictive validity. how much for LT? Not clear identified cause of commitment or factors connected with it.
2) Abusive - accord. theory if fear invest lost, still remain even if costs (physical abuse) outweigh rewards. Support, study on domestically abused women in shelter. women more likely return abusive partner if feel invest. + no appealing alts. Ivest. model can be applied wide variety unlike SET or Equity.
3) Cult. bias not issue - the m-a found support across Indivi. + collectivist societies e.g. USA + Taiwan. Further, shown be valid for sub-groups e.g. friendships homo. rels., cohabiting couples… Model universality, wide range.

4) Metholo - difficult measure model e.g. commitment + factors leading to it e.g. CLalt, diff. quantify + may be subjective. Concepts diff. measure so model limited.
CP: R developed ‘investment model scale’ - high in reliability + validity + suitable wide variety of pops.

Question 15

(AO1) Breakdown Ducks (2007) phase model.

Answer 15

1. Intra-psychic stage = Admits to self that dissatisfied with rel. Spend time ways to move forward. Threshold, ‘ can’t stand this anymore’ before moving next stage.
2. Dyadic phase = Confronts partner, voice dissatisfaction. Complain about it. Meet threshold ‘ I would be justified in withdrawing’
3. Social phase = involved friends, family etc. Now more difficult to mend rel. Freinds/family take sides making reconciliation much more probmaitc. Say what hadn’t before. Threshold ‘I mean it’. Dissolution of rel.
4. grave-dressing = left partner. Minimise self faults + maximise partners. Show as truths worth + loyal to attract new partner. Threshold ‘its time to start a new life’.

Question 16

(AO3) For Ducks (2007) phase model?

Answer 16

1) support - 208 regular Facebook college students. Quest. measure medium during recent rel breakdown. 22% publicise rel status on face. 10% check up on ex. ‘blocking’ ‘unfriending’ common post breakup. Can be directly mapped to ducks model. e.g. social + grave-dressing.
CP: Retrospective data - Questions/interviews usually occur just after breakup. People’s answer/views may be distorted by current situation. data may not be reliable i.e. long time ago as well. Distorted memory .

2) Incomplete model - Duck later added 5th stage being the resurrection phase. Ex-partners apply to future rels the experiences gained from recently-ended one. Researchers also argue progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable cause possible to return to earlier point. Processes thet occur in phases more important than linear. Original model not account for complexity of breakdown + dynamic nature.

3) Real-world appli. - Couples counselling. Couples may be advised use different strategies depending on phase in. e.g. Duck recommends person in intra-psychic may useful shift attention positive aspects of partner. Dyadic - communicate dissatisfaction + work it out. Help/support family/friends in social. Can be used helped couples contemplating breakup.
CP: Cult bias. Based on indivi. ending rel voluntary choice. Not Carry stigma. Collect. - marriage may be arranged by family. Diff end so not follow Ducks model which is culturally bias.

4) How they breakdown, but not why - establishing universal principles behaviour true for all (nomothetic). Break-up affected by indivi. diff, cultural norms + values so more detailed idiographic approach may reveal more + experiences giving psycho. better overview.

Question 17

(AO1) Outline the theory proposed on virtual relationships.

Answer 17

• ‘Stranger on the train’ (share info as never see)
• Sproull + kiesler (1986) suggest vurtiulal rels are less effective due to the nonverbal cues. In FtF rels we rely upon these cues. Lacks of cues about emotional state leads to de-indivudalisation. Ppl then feel freer from constraints (disinhibition) which leads to blunt/aggressive communication and reluctance of self-disclosure
• What is gate? = argued ‘gates’ (e.g. facial disfugerments or a stammer) may be obstacles to FtF rels. Absence of gates in brutal rels so such rels more likely to ‘get off the ground’ than FtF rels and self-dsiclures become deeper. Without gates people are free to be more like their ‘true selves’ in virtual rels. However, they can also create untrue identities to decisive people. They can change gender or age, a shy person can be extravert.

Question 18

(AO1) Self-disclosure in virtual relationships?

Answer 18

• occurs much faster rate as result of anonymity: people hold of in real-life of fear of ridicule + rejection
• Online more direct
• Hyper-personal model (Walther) = suggests that, since self-disclosure happens more quickly in virtual rels, rels also develop more quickly. 1. Sender has control (selective self-presentation) and be hyperhionest/hyperidsohonest
  2. Recievers feedback may reinforce senders selective presentation.

Question 19

(AO3) For virtual relationships theory?

Answer 19

1) support - bloggers ppts via advert. 154 met criteria for study 18+. Content analysis on 5 blogs recently posted. Inter-rater reliability establish. by correlating results. Younger bloggers engage deeper + more reaavlining self-disclosures than older + also female. More info = more disclosed. Support.
CP: only bloggers, low generalisability. + susceptive to bias volunteer.

2) Research into virtual relationships is based on the experiences of mainly Western, technologically developed cultures. Internet technology is not readily available in some countries, so the conclusions about the development and effects of virtual communication on romantic relationships cannot be applied to them. In addition, attitudes to self-disclosure are different in different cultures. For example,
Nakanishi (1986) found that, in contrast to American culture, women in Japan preferred lower levels of self-disclosure in close relationships. This demonstrates that the level of self-disclosure depends on cultural norms and may affect the communication styles online. This lowers the validity of research into virtual relationships, limiting the range of relationships it explains.

3) There are also important gender differences in virtual relationships. McKenna et al. (2002) found that women tended to rate their relationships formed online as more intimate and valued self-disclosure, especially in terms of emotion, in comparison to men. Men, on the other hand, preferred activities- based disclosure (such as common interests in motorsports) and rated their online relationships as less close than face-to-face ones. This suggests that research into online relationships may show alpha-bias, as it assumes that males’ and females’ experiences on virtual relationships are different. However, it could be that male and female experiences of virtual relationships are similar and there are methodological issues with the research in this area that exaggerate the differences (e.g. the choice of interview/questionnaires as a research tool).
4) Cues - online rels use diff cues timing etc. taking tie may be more intimate than immediate which may be insulting. ancromyms can also be used like facial expressions. Reduced validity theory.