Paper 3 - Relationships Flashcards
What is anisogamy
The differences between the Male and female sex cells (gametes)
What is the differences between male and female sex cells
Make cells are very small and mobile and continuously produce from puberty to old age and don’t require a great expenditure of energy to produce. whereas female cells (ova) are larger, static and produced at intervals for a limited number of years and require a huge investment of energy
What are the consequences of anisogamy
There are plenty of fertile males but fewer females and this gives rise to different mating strategies
What is inter-sexual selection
The selection of mates between sexes e.g females selecting males or males selecting females
Why does it pay for a female to be especially choosy in terms of inter-sexual selection
The female makes a greater investment of time, commitment and other resources before, during and after the birth of her offspring so it’s more crucial that females are choosy in terms of a mates reproductive fitness than it is for males.
What kind of Male do females seek in terms of inter-sexual selection
One who will provide healthy offspring but who will support them with resources
What is the runaway process
The preference of both sexes determine which attributes are passed in. For example, if height is a genuine marker of fitness in males, the females who choose the tallest mates will have greater reproductive success. Their innate preference for tallness is passed on to their daughters who choose the tallest men and are more reproductively successful. Over time this leads to taller and taller men being selected. I
What is infra-sexual selection
Competition between individuals of the same sex for mates.
In intra-sexual selection why do males have to complete for mates
Because females are a limited resource and are choosy. The males who compete successfully are able to pass on their genes to the next generation and therefore those traits that led to their success are perpetuated.
What is human reproductive behaviour
This refers to any behaviours which relate to opportunities to reproduce and thereby increase the survival chances of our genes. It includes the evolutionary mechanism underlying our parter preferences, such as mate choice and mate competition
What patterns of human reproductive behaviour does intra-sexual selection pressures lead to
Male aggression.
Male reference for youthful and fertile women.
Male desire to optimise mating chances.
What is Male aggression
Makes who act aggressively may be more likely to succeed in mating as they are more likely to win a competition with another Male
Why do male prefer youthful and fertile women
Such characteristics are a better guarantee of reproductive success. Therefore the genes of those males with such innate preferences are more likely to be represented in the next generation, making this a successful reproduction strategy
How do males desire to optimise mating chances
By fertilising as many females as possible also ensures the passage of such preference genes to the next generation.
What is sexual selection
An evolutionary explanation of partner preference. Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring
4 strengths of sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour
support for relationship between intra-sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour. BUSS surveyed over 10,000 adults in 33 countries asking about partner preferences. Found that female respondents placed greater value on resource-related characteristics than males did e.g ambition whereas Male value reproductive capacity e.g youth. This supports sex differences due to anisogamy and partner preferences derived from sexual selection theory. And the findings can be applied across many cultures.
Further support for the relationship between inter-sexual selection and HRB. CLARK and HATFIELD sent students onto campus to approach other students with this question: ‘I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’. No female students agreed but 75% of males did. Supports the suggestion that female choosiness is a reality and males have evolved a different strategy to ensure their reproductive success.
Support from waist-hip ratio research. SINGH measured WHR preferences of males for females. This findings were that any hip and waist size can be attractive as long as the ratio of one to the other is 0.7. This is higher to signify that the female is fertile but not currently pregnant. This shows that evolutionary factors are reflected in patterns of human reproductive behaviour through partner preferences.
Support for the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour. In Lonely hearts advertisements that asked for men and women to describe the qualities they desired in a potential partner, while cataloging what they had to offer. It was found that women more than men tended to offer physical attractiveness and indicators of youth (flirty, curvy, sexy) and sought resources. men offered resources more than woman (successful, mature, ambitious) and sought relative youth and physical attractiveness. These finding support the evolutionary suggests that women will seek resources whilst men are more focused on signs of reproductive fitness.
Limitation of sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour
Ignores social and cultural influences. Partner preferences have impacted over time by changing social norms and cultural practices and have occurred too rapidly to be explained in evolutionary terms. CHANG report than some preferences have changed and others have remained the same over 25 years in China. This suggests that both evolutionary and cultural influences must be taken into account when explaining human reproductive behaviour.
What are the three factors affecting attraction
Self disclosure
Physical attractiveness
Filter theory
What is self-disclosure
Revealing personal information about yourself. Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops. These self-disclosures about ones deepest thoughts and feeling can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately
Who came up with the social penetration theory
ALTMAN and TAYLOR
What is the social penetration theory
Theory of how relationships develop through the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else and of giving away your deepest thoughts and feelings. The process of increasingly disclosure allows a partner to ‘penetrate’ into the other persons life which leads to an increasing understanding of the other partner and development in relationships.
What does social penetration theory suggest
That when a partner reveals personal information they display trust and that development of the relationship requires the other partner to reveal sensitive information.
According to social penetration theory, what does a recognition that a partner is willing to reveal sensitive information about themselves indicate
That the relationship has reached a certain developmental stage
What are key according to social penetration theory
Both breadth and depth of self-disclosure
At the start of a relationship, how is self disclosure limited in both breadth and depth
At the start, much is revealed but the breadth is narrow and the content is superficial as we try to avoid off-limit supjects
What happens as relationships develop according to self disclosure theory
We become more likely to reveal more intimate information including painful memories, secret etc
Who suggested that in addition to a broadening and deepening sense of self-disclosure, there must be reciprocity
REIS and SHAVER
What is reciprocity
Mutual or two way exchange
What will successful relationships involve according to REIS and SHAVER
Disclosure which is received sensitively by a partner and also leads to further disclosure from the other partner
Two strengths of social penetration theory
SPENCER and HENDRICKS found strong correlations between measures of satisfaction and self disclosure in heterosexual couples, supporting social penetration theory. Men and woman who used self disclosure and those who believed their partners also disclosed were more satisfied and committed. Supports the concept of self disclosure being a key component of committed relationships.
Real life application. HASS and STAFFORD found that 57% of gay men and wonen in their study said that open and honest self disclosure was a main way they maintained and depended their committed relationships. Highlights importance of self disclosure but also suggests the theory has applications in supporting people who are experiencing relationship problems.
Two limitations of social penetration theory
Does not apply to all cultures. TANG concluded that men and women in the US self disclosure significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than those in China. Both levels of self disclosure are linked to relationship satisfaction in those cultures but never the less the pattern of self-disclosure is different. Social penetration theory is therefore a limited explanation of romantic relationships which are not necessarily generalisable.
Fact that self disclosure is implicated in the breakdown of relationships as well as attraction. Sometimes break down of relationships is characterised by a reduction in self disclosure, however this is not always the case. DUCKS phase model of the breakdown of relationships recognised that many couples will discuss the state of their relationships with each other in intimate detail (I.e self disclose) yet this may not be sufficient to save the relationship. Suggested that increased self disclosure may not always lead to positive developments in a relationship
Who found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more physically attractive
Shackelford and Larsen
What is physical attractiveness
An important factor in the formation of romantic relationships. The term usually applies specifically to how appealing we find a persons face. There is general agreement within and across cultures about what is considered physically attractive. There exists an assumption that we seek to form relationships with the most attractive person available.
What is an honest signal
One that can’t easily be faked
Why is symmetry thought to be an honest signal of genetic fitness
Because being symmetrical requires robust genes
What is a person who selects a symmetrical partner likely to produce
Offspring with robust genes who survive to reproduce themselves
What are neotenous features
Baby-like features e.g widely separated eyes and small nose (baby face hypothesis)
What is the baby face hypothesis
Neotenous features are thought to trigger protective and caring instincts. Therefore explanations based on physical attractiveness are evolutionary ones - we have evolved a liking for physical attractiveness because it is a signal of high quality.
What did McNULTY et al find
That the initial attractiveness continued to be an important feature of the relationship after marriage, for at least several years
What is the halo effect
The term used to describe how one distinguishing feature e.g physical attractiveness, tends to have a disproportionate, positive influence on our judgments of a persons other attributes e.g their personality
What did DION find
That physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared with unattractive people. It is suggested that certain characteristics, in this case physical attractiveness, have a disproportionate effect on judgments of other characteristics
What is the matching hypothesis
WALSTERs theory.
The belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner but, instead, are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (i.e facial) attractiveness. This implies that we take into account our own attractiveness ‘value’ to others when seeking romantic partners
How is choosing a partner essentially a compromise
Whilst evolutionary theories suggest we should seek the most attractive mates we have to also balance the potential for being rejected because the partner we aim for is ‘out of our league’ in terms of attractiveness
2 strengths of physical attractiveness
Research support for halo effect. PALMER and PETERSON found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This has obvious implications for the political process, suggesting that politicians might be elected merely because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters. Suggest the halo effect can be observed in real life situations.
Consistently of what is considered attractive across cultures. CUNNINGHAM found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males. The consistency across cultures suggests that physical attractiveness is culturally independent and may have evolutionary roots.
2 limitations of physical attractiveness
Seems not everyone considers physical attractiveness is important. People who score high on the MACHO scale (designed to measure sexist attitudes) were more influenced by the by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgment of likeability based on a photograph and some basic biographical data. Low scorers were less sensitive to this influence. Seems there are individual differences in the importance placed upon physical attractiveness.
Limitation of hypothesis is not research into online dating has not supported its assumptions. TAYLOR found that online daters sought dates with potential partners that were more attractive than themselves and did not seem to be a factors in their own level of attractiveness. This was research done on actual dating choices (meeting someone online is becoming increasingly popular) yet it does not support the matching hypothesis. It may be that the matching hypothesis no longer explains preferences regarding physical attractiveness in a useful way.
Who created the filter theory
KERCKHOFF and DAVIS
What is the filter theory
An explanation of relationship formation. It states that a series of different factors progressively limits the range of available romantic partners to a much smaller pool of desirables. The filters include social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity
What is a field of availables
In filter theory, the pool of potential partners who are accessible to us
What is a field of desirables
In filter theory, the pool of potential partners who are attractive to us
What is social demography
Demographics are features that describe populations; social demographics include geographical location and social class. Such factors filter out a large number of available partners as you are likely to meet and have more meaningful encounters with people who are physically close and share other features to yourself
What is similarity in attitudes
We find partners who share our basic values attractive in the earlier stages of a relationship, so we tend to discount available individuals who differ markedly from us in their attitudes
What is complementarity
Similarity becomes less important as a relationship develops, and is replaced by a need for your partner to balance your traits with opposite ones of their own
What is the first stage of the filter theory
Social demography such as proximity, social class and/or education. Anyone who is too different (too far away, too middle class) will not go to a potential partner and reach the next stage of filtering
What is homogamy
Refers to the likelihood that we will most likely form a relationship with someone who shares many social and cultural similarities
What is the second level of filter theory
Similarity in attitudes - sharing beliefs and values. In the early stages of a relationship agreeing on basic values encourages better communication and promotes self-disclosure
When did KERCKHOFF and DAVIS find the similarity in attitudes was important to the development of romantic relationships
For couples who had been together less than 18 months
What did BYRNE
Found that similarity in attitudes causes attraction and describes it as the ‘law of attraction’, stressing its importance. Where such similarity does not exist it is found that often the relationship fades away after only a few dates
What is the third level of filter theory
Complementarity - focus on whether or not partners meet each other’s needs. It is thought to give romantic partners a feeling of togetherness and ‘making a whole’
Example of complementarity
One partner may enjoy making the other laugh, and in turn this partner enjoys being made to laugh.
Partners will feel like they are meeting each other’s needs if one likes nurturing and the other enjoys being looked after
Strength of filter theory
Research support. WINCH found that similarities of personality, interests and attitudes between partners are typical of the earliest stages of a relationship but that complementarity of needs is more important in longer lasting relationships. This supports at least two of the filters proposed in filter theory and also suggests that the filters may determine the development of the relationship. This means that the validity of the theory has been supported in surveys of actual relationships.
3 limitations of filter theory
Questions about the direction of effect between attraction and similarity. ANDERSON found that cohabiting partners experienced emotional convergence, suggesting that they actually become more similar over time that they are together. This evidence suggests that similarities are the effect of having a relationship rather than the cause as suggested by filter theory.
Lacks temporal validity. As the dating world has changed and moved increasingly online, social demography has taken on less importance. For example, the likelihood of dating someone outside our culture has increased. This is not predicted by the initial level of filtering in the model, showing it lacks temporal validity. These social changes in the dating world bring into question the validity of filter theory as a factor in attraction.
Complementarity may not become more important than similarity. ANDERSON found that similarity does increase over time but complementarity is not a feature in all such relationships. There is an attitude alignment effect in longer term relationships where romantic partners bring their attitudes into line with each other’s, suggesting that similarity is an effect of initial attraction and not the cause. Suggests that complementarity filter may not be reached in the case of all relationships and therefore the validity of filter theory is questioned.
What is emotional convergence
The idea that romantic partners became more similar in their emotional responses over time
What has the increase in use of social media required psychologists to do
Look at differences between the relationships formed and maintained online and those formed and maintained face-to-face (FtF)
What is crucial in FtF relationships and is being looked at in CMC relationships
Self disclosure
What is CMC
Computer-mediated communication.
Any human communication that occurs through the use of two or more electronic devices, for example computers or mobile phones.
What are the two theories of virtual relationships in social media
Reduced cues theory
Hyper-personal model
What is reduced cues theory
Suggests CMC relationships are less effective because they lack many of the nonverbal cues we rely on in FtF interactions, such as our physical appearance and an indication of our emotions. It leads to reduced self-disclosure
Who created the reduced cues theory
SPROULL and KIESELER
What leads to de-individuation according to reduced cues theory
Emotional state is normally indicated by tone of voice and facial expressions. The lack of such cues reduces individual identity and leads to de-individuation
What is de-individuation
A psychological stage in which an individual loses their personal identity and takes on the identity of the social group when, for example, in crowd or wearing a uniform. The result may be to free the individual from the constraints of social norms.
How does disinhibition follow from de-individuation according to reduced cues theory
People are freer from the constraints of social norms. This leads to blunt and even aggressive communication
What is disinhibition
Normal social constraints against certain behaviours can be weakened by environmental triggers. These behaviours then appear temporarily socially acceptable and therefore more likely
What is a social norm
Something that is standard, usual or typical of a group
What follows after disinhibition in the reduced cues theory
Reluctance to self-disclose
Who suggested the hyperpersonal model
WALTHER
What is the hyperpersonal model
Suggests that early self-disclosure means that CMC relationships develop quickly. Such relationships can become more intended and intimate. However, CMC relationships can also end more quickly because of high excitement level of the intervention but low levels of trust
How does the hyperpersonal model propose self disclosure is different in CMC compared to FtF relationships
The sender of the message can be selective about what and how they present when self-disclosing. This, along with the feeling of anonymity, means that people may feel less accountable for their behaviour and disclose more than they would to their nearest non-online partners
Who argued that a huge advantage of CMC is the absence of gating
McKENNA and BARGH
What is the absence of gating
FtF relationships often fail to form because of obstacles e.g facial disfigurements, stammers, unattractiveness etc. These barriers or ‘gates’ are absent in CMC allowing virtual relationships to begin and develop in a way that they perhaps couldn’t in the offline world, and the gates become less of an issue
What are the benefits of absence of gating
Without the obstacles of FtF communication people are free to create different online identities that they could never manage FtF and, as such, overcome the barriers e.g an introvert whose shyness prevents them from forming relationships FtF can become more extravert online. However there is also scope for people to create an untrue persona.
2 strengths of virtual relationships in social media
Strength of the hyperpersonal model is its supporting research. WHITTY and JOINSON found supporting evidence for both hyperhonest and hyperdishonest opine disclosures. For example, questions asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate. This is quite different from FtF conversations, which are often hedged around with ‘small talk’. Responses are likewise direct and to the point. This is consistently with the prediction of the hyperpersonal model that these are distinctive types of disclosure in CMC.
Support for absence of gating. MCKENNA AND BARGH found that lonely and socially anxious people were able to express their ‘true selves’ more in CMC than in FtF situations. Of the romantic relationships that initially formed online, 70% survived more than two years. Higher than for relationships formed in the offline world. This suggest that CMC can be helpful to support people who are socially anxious to build confidence in forming relationships. This supports absence of gating.
3 limitations of virtual relationships in social media
Limitation of the reduced cues theory is lack of research support. TIDWELL assert that the cues in CMCs are simply different from those in FtF ones. Their research suggests that there are plenty of cues in CMCs but they are just not the nonverbal ones that we recognise in FtF communication. Emoticons and acrostics are considered effective substitutes in CMC for the lack of the usual nonverbal cues, So the proposal of reduced cues appears unfounded. This suggests that there may be no differences in self disclosure between CMC and FtF relationships, which does not support reduced cues Theory.
Explanations of virtual relationships is that they do not discriminate between types of CMC. From online e-commerce forms through Facebook to online dating, the level of self disclosure varies considerably. People disclose more in areas that they consider more private e.g Facebook statuses that will only be seen by ‘friends’ than in webforms that are collecting data. This means that the validity of theories that consider all CMC in the same way, will be limited.
Explanations fail to recognise the multimodal nature of CMCs. Theories need to incorporate the fact that relationships are usually conducted both online and offline. The interaction online will influence the interaction in the FtF relationship, including the level and speed of self disclosure. As such they have to be considered together and not separately. This suggest that current theories may underestimate the complexity of virtual relationships.
Who created The Celebrity Attitude Scale
MALTBY
What did MALTBY do
Created the Celebrity Attitude Scale to identity three levels of parasocial relationship.
What are the levels of parasocial relationships
A three step description of one sided relationships in terms of increasing strength from entertainment-social to intense-personal to borderline pathological
What is the first level in MALTBYs theory of parasocial relationships
Entertainment-social level - leads intense level of Celebrity worship. Celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction
What is the second levels of MALTBYs theory of parasocial relationships
Intense-personal level - intermediate level which reflects a greater personal involvement in a parasocial relationship with a celebrity
What is the third level of MALTBYs theory of parasocial relationships
Borderline pathological level - the strongest level of celebrity worship, featuring uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours
Who created the absorption-addiction model
McCUCHEON
What is the absorption-addiction model
It explains parasocial relationship as total absorption in a celebrity’s life, plus an addictive striving for a stronger involvement. The parasocial relationships can make up for deficiencies in people’s lives, for example a lack of fulfilment and provide an escape from mundane lives.
What does the absorption-addiction model suggest may trigger higher levels of parasocial relationships
Stressful life events such as bereavement
What are the two components of the absorption-addiction model
Absorption: seeking fulfilment in Celebrity worship motivates the individual to focus much of their attention on the celebrity to become absorbed in the celebrity’s existence and identity with them.
Addiction: like a psychological addiction, the individual needs to increase their ‘dose’ of involvement to continue to feel satisfied. This may lead to more extreme behaviours and delusional thinking.
How does BOWLBYs attachment theory link to parasocial relationships
BOWLBYs attachment theory suggests that early difficulties in attachment may lead to difficulties in forming successful relationships later in life. Such difficulties may lead to a preference for forming parasocial relationships to replace those within ones own social circle because parasocial relationships do not require the same social skills.
What is BOWLBYs attachment theory
An explanation of how an emotional bond forms between two people that endured over time. Leads to certain behaviours such as clinginess and proximity-seeking. Serves the function of protecting an infant
What two attachment types did AINSWORTHS identify with unhealthy emotional development
Insecure resistant
Insecure avoidant
Which attachment type is likely to form parasocial relationships
Insecure resistant because they want to have their unfulfilled needs met in a relationship where there is no real threat of rejection, break up and disappointment
Which attachment type is the least likely to form parasocial relationships, or relationships in general
Insecure avoidant because they prefer to avoid the pain and rejection of relationships altogether
2 strengths of parasocial relationships
Research support for absorption-addiction model. MALTBY found a link between celebrity worship and body image with female adolescents reporting an intense personal relationship with a female celebrity who’s body shape they admired. These females tended to have poor body image which can be a precursor to the development of eating disorders. Also linked entertainment social level with extroverted personality traits, the intense personal with neurotic traits and borderline pathological which psychotic traits. Both studies support the model because they show a correlation between the level of celebrity worship and different psychological functioning.
Strength of attachment explanations is cross-cultural support. SCHMID and KLIMMT around a similar levels of parasocial attachment to Harry Potter in an individualist culture (Germany) and a collectivist culture (Mexico). It would seem this tendency is not culturally specific. Suggests that the need to form parasocial relationships may be universal and innate, and may be an adaptive behaviours.
3 limitations of parasocial relationships
Limitation of the attachment theory link is that support is poor. MCCUTCHEON found that insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships with celebrities than secure attachments. This is the key assumption of this explanation and failure to find support for it raises crucial questions about the validity. Limitation of using attachment theory to explain parasocial relationships because it shows it has little predictive strengths.
Methodological issues which limit the validity of research into parasocial relationships. Most research studies on parasocial relationships use self report to collect data. These are affected by forms of bias, such as social desirability bias. Also, most studies use correlational analysis and whilst strong correlations are found between celebrity worship and body image, for example, causation cannot be established. Means there is no evidence to show that parasocial relationships are caused by specific experiences, this limits validity.
Absorption-addiction model is descriptive rather than explanatory. Describes the characteristics of people who are involved with celebrities at different levels of intensity but does not explain why the different forms develop. Does not help us prevent the more dangerous and disturbing forms. So the model is limited in its explanatory power and application for supporting people whose celebrity worship has become problematic.
What are the four theories of romantic relationships
Social exchange theory
Equity theory
Rusbults investment model
Ducks phase model
What proposed the social exchange theory
THIBAULT and KELLEY
What is the social exchange theory
It assumes that romantic partners act out of self interest in exchanging rewards and costs - satisfaction is judged in economic terms. A satisfying and committed relationship is maintained when rewards exceed costs and potential alternatives are less attractive than the current relationship
What is the minimax principle
The assumption that we will aim to minimise losses and maximise gains in any relationship. Relationships where there is judged to be a profit are the most likely to continue and conversely those where profit is low is likely to end
Example of costs in the social exchange theory
Loss of time or stress and opportunity costs
Examples of rewards in the SET
Sex, praise or companionship
What are opportunity costs
Your investment of time and energy in your current relationship means using resources that you cannot invest elsewhere
What is one way in which relationship profit can be measured in the SET
Comparison level (CL)
What is the comparison level
A judgement about the cost and benefits of a current relationship based on the costs and benefits of past relationships and social norms
What are social norms in relation to the CL
Reflections of relationships in the media and over time we learn more about what we should expect
Why may some people have low CLs
If they have low self esteem or an abusive past
What is the second measure of profit in SET
CLalt
What is the CLalt
Comparison level for alternatives. A judgement that partners make concerning whether a relationship with a different partner would bring more rewards and fewer costs (assuming that we select only one partner)
What does the social exchange theory say we will remain in a relationship despite the availability of alternatives
When we consider it is more rewarding than the alternatives
What did DUCK suggest in the SET
There are always alternatives around but if we are in a satisfying relationship we may not even notice them. However, when costs of our current relationship are running high and the rewards low then we look to the alternatives
What stages does the SET suggest relationships go through
Sampling stage
Bargaining stage
Commitment stage
Institutionalisation stage
What is the sampling stage in the SET
We explore the rewards and costs of relationships by both experimenting in our own relationships and observing those of others
What is the bargaining stage in SET
Occurs at the start of a relationship where romantic partners begin to negotiate around costs and rewards
What is the commitment stage in SET
Where relationships become more stable and costs reduce and rewards increase
What is the institutionalisation stage in SET
When partners become settled and the norms of the relationship are established
5 limitations of social exchange theory
Assumes all relationships are based on economic exchanges. CLARK and MILLS argue some relationships are exchange based (work colleagues) but communal relationships (romance) are marked by the giving and receiving of rewards without calculating profit, such tallying might be viewed with distaste. Therefore, it’s not a suitable explanation for the course of all types of relationships.
Questions about the direction of effect between dissatisfaction and lack of profit. SET proposes we become dissatisfied when costs outweigh rewards or alternatives are more atrractive. MILLER Found THAT people in committed relationships were less likely to look at pictures of attractive people. Assumes that SET assumes the wrong direction of cause and effect. Rather than lack of profit leading to dissatisfaction it could be we only start considering profit after we become dissatisfied.
Does not consider equity. SET focuses on comparison levels, ignoring the fact that many romantic partners desire fairness or equity. HATFIELD found that couples who considered their relationships equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as overbenefitting or underbenefitting. This evidence suggests that SET is a limited explanation of relationships, only accounting for a proportion of the research findings.
Deals in concepts that are hard to quantify. In studies, rewards and costs have been operationalised superficially e.g money but in reality psychological rewards and costs are difficult to define and are subjectively judged. It is unclear what the values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship and that is a key issue if we are to understand relationship breakdown. The inability to accurately quantity the concepts of SET make it very difficult to provide valid support.
Support is often from experiments using artificial tasks and conditions. Research is often based on game-playing scenarios in which rewards and costs are distributed. The two partners are together only for the study. More realistic studies which have used real partners are less supportive of SET. Support for SET is weakened by the lack of validity of the studies and the fact more realistic studies fail to support its assertion.
Who created the equity theory
WALSTER
How is the SET and equity theory different
SET suggests that partners seek equality, a balance between costs and benefits whereas equity theory suggests that equity is more important which means that both partners level of profit should be roughly the same
What is the equity theory
An economic theory of how relationships develop. As such, it acknowledges the impact of rewards and costs on relationship satisfaction, but criticised social exchange theory for ignoring the central role of equity - the perception that partners have that the distribution of rewards and costs in the relationship is fair
When can a lack of equity occur
Where one partner overbenefits and the other underbenefits from the relationship which can lead to dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Underbenefitted partner is likely to be the least satisfied and their feelings may be evident in anger and resentment whereas the overbenefitting may be satisfied but is still likely to feel discomfort and shame.
What is overbenefitting
In equity theory where the perceived ratio of costs to rewards is perceived as low and unfair leading to dissatisfaction
What is underbenefitting
In equity theory where the perceived ratio of costs to rewards is perceived as high and unfair leading to dissatisfaction
According to equity theory, what are satisfying relationships thought to involve
Negotiations to achieve and maintain equity. Often the negotiations involve trade-offs to achieve a sense of fairness, not maximisation of profits
What does equity theory predict a strong correlation between
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction
What is inequity
A state of imbalance and unfairness
When are changes in equity likely to occur
During a relationship - at the start it may feel perfectly natural to contribute more than you receive however if this continues as the relationship develops, the satisfaction with the relationship may fall
How can the underbenefitted partner address inequity
They will work hard to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe it is possible to do so and that the relationship is salvageable. The greater the inequity the more work that is required to restore a sense of fairness
Addressing inequity (according to the equity theory) can be cognitive as opposed to behavioural, give an example
The partner will revise their perceptions of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable to them, even if nothing actually changes
How can actual abuse become accepted as a norm according to equity theory
If the perception of rewards and costs are revised e.g reframing ‘cruelty’ as a form of rough treatment for your own good
Strength of equity theory
Research support. UTNE surveyed 118 recently married couples, measuring equity with two self report scales. Findings were that couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as overbenefitting or underbenefitting. Seems that profit is not the key issue in judging relationships, rather it is equity. Research supports the central predictions of the equity theory supporting its validity.
4 limitations of equity theory
May not be valid in all cultures. Study found that couples in an individualist culture considered their relationship to be more satisfying when they were equitable, whereas partners in collectivist cultures were more satisfied when they were overbenefitting. True of both men and women, suggesting it is a consistent social rather than gender based difference. Therefore, theory should be considered limited in its scope in accounting for all romantic relationships.
Individual differences. Some partners are benevolents who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than what they get out of it (underbenefitting) others are entitleds who believe they deserve to be overbenefitted and accept it without feeling distressed and guilty. Shows that, far from being a universal characteristic, a desire for equity is subject to individual differences.
May not apply to all relationships. CLARK and MILLS suggest that we should distinguish between different types of relationship, for example romantic ones and business ones. Studies strongly support the view that equity plays a central role in casual friendships, business/work relationships and acquaintanceships but the evidence that equity is important in romantic relationships is more limited. In terms of romantic relationships, it seems there is limited support for equity theory and it may be better at explaining other forms of relationships.
Satisfying relationships don’t become more equitable over time. BERG found that equity did not increase in their longitudinal study of dating couples, as equity theory would predict. Furthermore, the study did not distinguish between those relationships which ended and those which continued. In addition other variables, such as self disclosure appeared to be more important. This is a strong criticism because it was based on real couples studied over time.
What are benevolents
Related to equity theory, it is argued that some people are happy to contribute more to a relationship compared to what they get out of it
What are entitleds
Related to equity theory, it is argued that some people are happy to receive more from a relationship than they put into it
What is Rusbults investment model
Development or social exchange theory that suggests commitment depends on satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and investment size
What is commitment
A romantic partners intention or desire to continue a relationship, reflecting a belief that the relationships has a viable long-term future
What is investment
The resources associated with a romantic relationship which the partner would lose if the relationship were to end
What is a satisfying relationship according to Rusbults investment model
One where the partners are getting more out of the relationship than they expect, given social norms and their previous experiences
What does the investment model suggest that commitment to a relationship is based on
Investment
Satisfaction level
Comparison with alternatives
What is satisfaction level
The extent to which romantic partners feel the rewards of the relationship exceed the costs
What does the overall commitment in the investment model determine
The repair strategies that a partner is willing to employ
What are 5 relationship maintenance mechanisms according to the investment model
Accommodation. Willingness to sacrifice. Forgiveness. Positive illusions. Ridiculing alternatives.
What are the two types of investment
Intrinsic investment
Extrinsic investment
What is intrinsic investment
Any resources that we put directly into the relationship, including tangible items like money or intangibles like energy or self disclosure
What is extrinsic investment
Resources that previously did not feature in the relationship, but are now closely associated with it. These include tangible items like children and intangibles like memories
As high levels of satisfaction increases, what is needed for the relationship to continue according to the investment model
The investments need to increase
In the investment model, when can we confidently predict that someone will be committed to the relationship
If the partner experiences high levels of satisfaction (more rewards with few costs), alternatives are less attractive, and the sizes of investment are increasing.
What does the investment model focus on as the determining factor in whether a relationship continues
Commitment rather than satisfaction alone
How does the investment model explains why a dissatisfied partner stays in a relationship
By pointing to the level of investment that they have made. They will be willing to work hard to repair problems in the relationship so their investment is not wasted
Why do partners use maintenance behaviours
To keep the relationship going
What is accommodation
Promoting the relationships
What is willingness to sacrifice
Putting their partners interests first
What is forgiveness
Forgiving them for any serious transgressions
What is positive illusions
A partner may be unrealistically positive about their partner
What is derogation of alternatives
A partner may be negative about tempting alternatives/ other peoples relationships
3 strengths of Rusbults investment model
Research support. LE and AGNEW reviewed 52 studies including 11,000 participants from 5 countries. Found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted commitment. Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted longest. The support is strong given that the results were true for men and women in either hetero or homo relationship. Suggests that the claim that the 3 factors are universally important in relationships is valid.
Explain why people may stay in abusive relationships. RUSBULT found that women who reported making the greatest investment and had the fewest alternatives were most likely to return to partners who abused them. Satisfaction has not been able to explain this but commitment can. Strengths because it explains the superficially inexplicable behaviour of staying in an abusive relationship.
Evidence is based on self-report techniques. This is the most appropriate way of researching the topic since the model is based on subjective judgments about investment size and alternatives. This is a good approach because what matters is the partners subjective perceptions of their investments. Strength because it is a more valid test of the model.
2 limitations of Rusbults investment model
Use of correlations. Strong correlations have been established between the factors within the model. However, no matter how strong a correlation between two variables might be, it does not follow that one causes the other. As such we cannot conclude from this which factors, if any, might cause commitment.
Oversimplifies investment. GOODFRIEND and AGNEW Archie that in the early stages of a relationship, few investments have been made and the model needs to take into account investment in future plans. Investment in future plans motivate partners to commit so that the plans can become reality. This means that the original model is a limited explanation as it fails to consider the true complexity of investment.
What did DUCK propose
A phase model of relationship breakdown. He argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through four distinct phases
What is DUCKS phase model breakdown
An explanation of the stages people go through when their romantic relationship is not working. Once one partner is dissatisfied, there are four phases in the process, each with a different focus: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave-dressing
What are each of the four phases in DUCKS phase model characterised by
A partner reaching a threshold where their perception of the relationship changes. At this point a person may decide the relationship isn’t so bad and then the process of breakdown stops or they cross the threshold and move to the next stage in the process of breakdown
What is the threshold in the intra-psychic phase
I can’t stand this anymore, this indicates a determination that something has to change
What is the intra-psychic phase
The first phase where the focus is on the cognitive processes occurring within the individual . Once a partner cannot carry on with the relationship in its current form they will start to brood on the reasons for their dissatisfaction, centring mostly on their partners shortcomings. Partner tends to keep thoughts private but may share with a trusted friend to weigh up pros and cons of the relationship.
What is the threshold of the dyadic phase
I would be justified in withdrawing. Once a partner reaches the conclusion that they would be justified to end the relationship they can no longer avoid discussing this with their partner
What is the dyadic phase
The second phase where the focus is on interpersonal processes between the two partners. Dissatisfaction about equity, commitment etc are wired and the phase may vary in length and in intensity of hostility and anxiety
What is the threshold of the social phase
The dissatisfied partner concluding ‘I mean it’
What is the social phase
Third phase where the focus is on wider processes involving the couples social networks. They seek support and try to forge pacts amongst friends, these friends may be encouraged to choose a side as they join in the evaluation of the other partner and the relationship. Some friends may try to prevent the break up by acting as a go-between but once the news is public, this is usually the point of no return
What is the threshold for the grave dressing phase
It’s now inevitable
What is the grave dressing phase
Fourth and final phase where the focus is on the aftermath of the breakdown. A suitable story of the relationship and its end is prepared for wider consumption, this will almost certainly include an attempt to ensure the storyteller will be judged more favourably than the ex-partner. This creation of a personal story in addition to the public one is necessary so the partner can ‘move on’
Strength of ducks phase model
It’s application to helping people to reverse the process. The model implies that particular repair strategies might be more effective at particular stages than others. For example, partners in the first stage could be encouraged to brood more positively. It would be less helpful to encourage this is people have already reached the social phase. Suggest that the model can lead to supportive suggestions that may help people through this very difficult time in their lives.
4 limitations of ducks phase model
Incomplete. ROLLIE and DUCK felt it necessary to add a fifth phase, the resurrection phase where ex-partners begin to use what they have learned from the last relationship to prepare for a future one. Additionally the refined version clarifies the point that movement through the stages is not linear and inevitable and partners may return to an earlier phase. This suggests that the first model is therefore only a partial explanation of the process of relationship breakdown.
Supporting evidence is based on retrospective data. Interviews about the breakdown process tend to take place after, rather than during the process, meaning that the information collected may not be accurate and reliable after time has passed. It is almost impossible to study the process in the earlier stages without potentially interfering with the ongoing process. Means the model is based on limited information about the start of the breakdown process and so is incomplete as a description.
Focuses on how rather than why the breakdown of relationships occurs. FLEMLEE suggests a fatal attraction hypothesis to explain breakdown. The concept states that the attribute that a partner found attractive at the start of a relationship can become too much. For example, someone who was attracted to a funny partner may then decide to end the relationship because the other person won’t take life seriously. Highlights the fact that Ducks model only tells us what happens and not why.
Underlying research is based on relationships in individualist cultures. Individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end, in contrast relationships in collectivist cultures are more likely to be obligatory and less easy to end as they implicate the wider family. The whole concept of a relationship differs between cultures and therefore the process of a relationship breakdown is likely to differ. This is a limited explanation because it means that the model can only be applied to some cultures and types of relationship.
