relationship

Question 1

Social Exchange Theory

Answer 1

Based on economic theory
Sees relationships as a market place where people seek the best deal
Therefore relationships are seen in terms of trading & exchanging commodities
Best deal = max profit

Question 2

profit

Answer 2

Profit= rewards – costs

For the most satisfying & enduring relationships we will seek the highest rewards & the lowest costs

Question 3

Rewards

Answer 3

Rewards and costs are subjective
You might consider receiving a compliment from your partner a prized reward whereas your partner could take it or leave it
The value of rewards and costs can change over the course of a relationship
Rewards could be emotional support, sex or companionship

Question 4

Costs

Answer 4

Costs could be effort, financial cost or missed opportunities
For a relationship to form & continue both partners should be in profit

Question 5

Comparison level (CL)

Answer 5

Standard is based on your previous experiences in relationships.
Or it could be based on social norms which are influenced by media.
Our CL can change over time as we experience different relationships
If we believe our current profit is greater than our CL the relationship is maintained.
If profit is less than CL then we will be dissatisfied in the relationship which consequently may breakdown.

Question 6

Comparison level for alternatives (CL alt)

Answer 6

The profit for potential alternative relationships is also calculated. We may ask ourselves if we can do better with someone else! So we will weigh up a potential increase in rewards from a different partner against costs of leaving our current partner. A new relationship can take the place of a current one if its profit level is higher

Question 7

Predictions

Answer 7

The relationship will maintain if:
Rewards are high, costs are low
Profit is high compared to CL
Profit for alternatives (CL alt) is low.

The relationship will breakdown if:
Rewards are low, costs are high
Profit is low compared to CL
Profit for alternatives (CL alt) is higher.

Question 8

AO3 evidence to support CL alt

Answer 8

Sprecher (2001) conducted a longitudinal study of 101 dating couples at a US university. They found that the presence of alternatives was the biggest predictor of relationship satisfaction in both males & females. There was a strong negative correlation between presence of alternatives & satisfaction of the relationship. In other words, if there are lots of possible alternatives for you, you will be less happy in your relationship. They concluded that having a high comparison for alternatives means you are more likely to breakdown your relationship.

Question 9

criticism of Sprecher’s study

Answer 9

The findings from Sprecher’s study could be explained by the fact that people are more likely to notice alternatives when they are unhappy. Therefore there is a problem with cause & effect. The theory claims that high presence of alternatives leads to low satisfaction but could it be that low satisfaction makes you look for more alternatives?

Question 10

AO3 evidence to support criticism of C & E

Answer 10

Additionally, Miller (1997) found that people who rated themselves as being in a committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people. This suggests that people who are already unhappy & thinking about ending their relationship are more likely to look for alternatives, which contradicts the theory.

Question 11

AO3: Methodological issues of supporting research

Answer 11

One common procedure used in supporting studies involves two strangers in a game playing situation. Ps must distribute rewards and costs and then assess liking of each other. These two players know nothing about each other and their ‘relationship’ consists solely of the game.

Question 12

what does equity mean?

Answer 12

The term equity means fairness.

Question 13

How does equity relate to relationships?

Answer 13

What matters most within a relationship in terms of equity is that both partners level of profit (rewards-costs) is roughly the same.
This is not the same as equality where levels of costs and rewards have to be exactly the same i.e. equal for each partner.

Question 14

How do you think an over-benefitted & under-benefitted partner would feel?

Answer 14

It is the under-benefitted partner who is likely to feel the greatest dissatisfaction in the form of anger, hostility, resentment and humiliation. The over-benefitted partner will likely feel guilt, discomfort and shame. Thus satisfaction in the relationship is about perceived fairness.

Question 15

Summary of Equity Theory

Answer 15

A relationship will maintain if both partners perceive it to be equitable (fair). A relationship will breakdown if one of the partners perceives it to be inequitable (unfair).

Question 16

Research support for Equity Theory

Answer 16

Stafford and Canary (2006). Asked over 200 married couples to complete measures of equity and relationship satisfaction. Findings revealed satisfaction highest for spouses who perceived their relationships to be equitable, followed by over-benefited partners and lowest satisfaction for under-benefited partners. These findings are consistent with predictions from equity theory.

Question 17

Equity theory is beta gender biased.

Answer 17

However, equity theory is beta gender biased as differences between genders are ignored. It has been found that females are more concerned with inequity than males. One study which supports this criticism investigated whether marital inequity is associated with later marital disruption. In a sample of 1500 couples it was found that if females sense being under-benefited, the risk of divorce increases. However, the findings were not the same for men. Therefore, Equity theory is more applicable to females than males.

Question 18

individual differences AO3.

Answer 18

A criticism is that Equity theory ignores individual differences in relationships. Research suggests not all partners are concerned about achieving equity in a relationship. Some partners are known as benevolents as they are prepared to contribute more to a relationship than they received. Some partners are known as entitleds who believe they deserve to be over benefitted and they do this without feeling guilty. This shows the equity theory is not universal as it does not apply to everybody.

Question 19

Are there any other types of relationships (other than romantic relationships) in which equity would be an important factor?

Answer 19

It has been assumed Equity theory is applicable to all types of relationships. However, a criticism of the theory is that we should distinguish between different types of relationships. Research shows equity is very important in work/friendship relationships but not as important in romantic relationships. They have questioned the link between equity and satisfaction of romantic relationships. This means the theory may lack validity as it may not be an accurate explanation of romantic relationships.

Question 20

Introduction to Duck’s Phase Model

Answer 20

Duck argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one off event, but a series of phases which take a long time to go through. Each phase is marked by a threshold where one or both of the partners reaches a point that tips them into the next stage.

Question 21

stage 1: The Intrapsychic Phase

Answer 21

Intrapsychic Threshold: I can’t stand it anymore. One of the partners becomes increasingly dissatisfied with the relationship. They spend time thinking about the situation, dwelling on their unhappiness. They may talk to a close friend but don’t yet discuss concerns with their partner. They may show their dissatisfaction by socially withdrawing from their partner. If dissatisfaction is sufficiently great there is progression to the next stage.

Question 22

Stage 2: The Dyadic Stage

Answer 22

Dyadic Threshold: I’d be justified in withdrawing. The dissatisfied partner will talk to their partner expressing their dissatisfaction. This may involve complaining about lack of equity, resentment over roles & a rethinking of the commitment to the relationship. Partners will either begin to dissolve the relationship or attempt to repair it. If dissatisfaction is not resolved there is progression to the next stage.

Question 23

Stage 3: The Social Phase

Answer 23

Social Phase Threshold: I mean it.
If attempts at negotiation are unsuccessful the intention to break up is made public. Both partners will confide to friends & family, some may take sides whilst others will try to help the couple get back together. If a relationship cannot be saved will move onto the final stage.

Question 24

Stage 4: The Grave-dressing Phase

Answer 24

Grave Dressing Threshold: It’s now inevitable.
Ex-partners begin organising their new lives. They will both publicise their own accounts of the breakdown. They will want to present an image of themselves that defends their reputation. They will want to convince a new partner that they are a reasonable bet & also maintain their own self esteem.

Question 25

This model can be used in relationship counselling. What advice would you give to a couple in the intrapsychic, dyadic & grave-dressing phase?

Answer 25

Can help in relationship counselling. This is because the model not only identifies the stages of breakdown, but also suggests ways of reversing it. Different strategies can be used at each stage to try to save the relationship eg: in intrapsychic phase can advise couples to focus on the positive, in the dyadic phase couples can focus on improving their communication, & in grave dressing phase can minimise the damage of the split

Question 26

Do all relationships end in this way? How else might relationships dissolve?

Answer 26

Model is too rigid as not all relationships break down in this way; some leave a relationship & say little, others end in a fit of rage. Some are more active in trying to save the relationship or speed up its end. Duck himself said the model was too simplistic & later added some additions: Progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable. It is also possible to return to an earlier phase at any time. These changes account for the fact that breakdown is more complex than first suggested.

Question 27

What might be a 5th phase to the model?

Answer 27

Duck also added in a 5th phase. This is called The Resurrection Phase. This is when ex-partners focus on future relationships using the experience gained from their past relationship.

Question 28

In what ways might the social phase be different for teenagers & older adults?

Answer 28

Romantic relationships are seen to be more unstable for teenagers & young adults. Relationships are often seen as ‘training grounds’ for future long term commitments. As a result, individuals may receive sympathy after a break up but there would be fewer attempts to help the couple get back together. After all ‘there are plenty more fish in the sea!’! For older people in long term relationships there are often lower expectations about being able to find a replacement. The consequences of a breakup will also be more significant. Therefore the social phase will involve more obvious attempts by others to help rescue the relationship.

Question 29

Rusbult’s investment model

Answer 29

Developed as a way of understanding why people persist in some romantic relationships but not others. Emphasises the central importance of commitment in relationships. Rusbult devised the model to address the limitations of Social exchange theory. Rusbult (2011) argued commitment depends on three factors. This is an extension of the SET so two of these factors are very similar:
Satisfaction level,
Comparison with alternatives,
Investment size.

Question 30

Rusbult’s investment model - Satisfaction

Answer 30

Satisfaction is based on the concept of comparison level (CL). A satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards and costs. A relationship is seen as profitable if it has many rewards and few costs. People will also be satisfied if they are getting more out of the relationship than they expect based on previous experience and social norms.

Question 31

Rusbult’s investment model - CLalt

Answer 31

As with SET, people will compare their current relationship with potential alternatives. They may ask themselves ‘could my needs be better met outside my current relationship?’. Alternatives could be relationships with other people or no romantic relationship at all.

Question 32

What do you think investment size refers to?

Answer 32

Rusbult realised that the CL and CLalt are not enough to explain commitment. If they were enough to explain commitment, more relationships would end as soon as the costs outweighed the benefits or as soon as more attractive alternatives presented themselves. Therefore, she introduced a third factor influencing commitment.
Investment
This refers to a measure of the resources attached to a relationship
In other words, what would be lost if the relationship were to end.

Question 33

Intrinsic investments

Answer 33

Resources we put directly into a relationship. They can be tangible (money and possessions). Or intangible (resources that are harder to quantify e.g. energy or effort).

Question 34

Extrinsic investments

Answer 34

Resources that did not previously feature in the relationship but are now associated with it. Tangible would be resources bought together like a car. Intangible would be mutual friends or shared memories.

Question 35

Methodological issues.

Answer 35

It is difficult to measure commitment level and the variables that lead to commitment in a relationship. So Rusbult developed the ‘Investment model scale’ to overcome this problem. The scale was found to be high in both reliability and validity and suitable for a range of populations. However, a potential problem is that the scale relied on self-report measures.
Why might social desirability bias be a problem in this type of questionnaire?
Sensitive questions in which Ps may want to present their relationship in the best light – they may not want to admit to any problems they are having.

Question 36

Supporting evidence for the investment model comes from a study that used a meta-analysis.

Answer 36

Data from 52 studies was analysed which included 11000 participants from five countries to discover key variables in relationship maintenance. They found that satisfaction, CLalt, and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationships in which commitment was highest were the most stable and lasted longest. Findings applied to both males and females, across all cultures and for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples. The meta-analysis therefore provided evidence from a large & representative sample which supports the role of commitment in the Investment model.

Question 37

A strength of Investment Model is that it is able to explain why someone remains in an abusive relationship.

Answer 37

It may seem surprising that an individual experiencing violence would remain committed to the relationship as they experience low satisfaction. However, Rusbult studied ‘abused’ women at a shelter
and findings showed that those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported having the greatest investments and the fewest attractive alternatives. Therefore, the investment model recognises that satisfaction is not the only important factor in maintain a relationship.

Question 38

One weakness of the model is that it oversimplifies the idea of investment.

Answer 38

This is because there is more to investment than the resources you have already put into a relationship.
Rusbult’s original model was extended by including the investment romantic partners make in their future plans eg plans to buy a house or have a baby. This shows the original model fails to recognise the true complexity of investment & how future plans influence commitment.

Question 39

Virtual relationships in social media

Answer 39

Computer mediated communication (CMC) encompasses a wide variety of electronic communication methods through which relationships can be formed. 25% of relationships now start online.

Question 40

Self disclosure

Answer 40

Self disclosure: revealing personal information about yourself. There are two contrasting theories as to how self-disclosure influences the virtual world: Reduced cues theory, Absence of gating.

Question 41

Reduced cues theory

Answer 41

There are a reduced amount of non-verbal cues (e.g. facial expression, tone of voice, body language) online. This leads to less self-disclosure.

Question 42

The theory argues there are a lack of emotional cues in CMC. How can you criticise this? What can make us aware of people’s emotional states in CMC?

Answer 42

A criticism of the reduced cues theory is that some researcher’s argue that the theory is wrong to argue that nonverbal cues are entirely missing from CMC. Non-verbal cues are not missing; they are just different. Researchers argue that people use other cues such as timing and style of their message. For example, too much time before replying may be a snub, and not enough time indicates they have not given enough thought to their response! In addition, the use of acrostics such as LOL and emojis also help to convey the tone of the message. Thus showing that the theory ignores the importance of such non-verbal cues in communication.

Question 43

Predict what you think they found about the activation of brain areas that are associated with pleasure
AO3 – contradictory evidence for reduced cues.

Answer 43

However, a criticism of reduced cues theory is that Tamir & Mitchell (2012) have found contradictory evidence which suggests that self-disclosure may be high on social media. They found increased MRI activity in 2 brain regions that are associated with reward. These areas were strongly activated when people were talking about themselves and less so when they were talking about someone else. Ps experienced a greater sensation of pleasure when sharing their thoughts than when they were told their thoughts would be kept private. These findings suggest that self-disclosure is rewarding and therefore there is human tendency to share our personal experiences with others online.

Question 44

Absence of gating

Answer 44

In face to face relationships there are often ‘gates’ to relationship formation. Due to things that people might find off-putting. (e.g. they don’t like the way they look, they are shy etc.) These gates don’t exist in the virtual world, leading to more self-disclosure. Argues absence of barriers aids relationship formation, because we reveal more online due to the absence of barriers. FtF relationships have many potential ‘gates’ like physical unattractiveness, a stammer, shyness etc. It is argued that the absence of gating is a huge advantage to CMC relationships. Absence of gating works by refocusing attention on self-disclosure and away from superficial and distracting features. Online, people are more interested in what someone is telling them than what they look/sound like. This means in CMC relationships self-disclosure is deeper and more frequent. So relationships can form quickly.

Question 45

Why would shy people benefit from online dating?

AO3 support for the absence of gating

Answer 45

Baker and Oswald (2010) argue virtual relationships are particularly helpful for shy people. To support this they surveyed 207 male and female students about their shyness, facebook usage and quality of friendships. For students who score high in shyness, greater use of Facebook was associated with higher perceptions of friendship quality. Thus, Facebook and other social media sites help people to form relationships without the barriers they face in real life.

Question 46

Why would shy people benefit from online dating?

- absence of gating

Answer 46

McKenna and Bargh (2000) looked at CMC use by lonely and socially anxious people, found shy people were able to express their ‘true selves’ more than in FtF situations (So they used more self-disclosure online). Of the romantic relationships that formed online 70% survived more than two years which is a higher proportion than relationships in the real world. Supporting that the absence of gating is useful in relationship formation.

Question 47

Do you think that the amount of self-disclosure a person gives is dependent on the type of CMC? (E.g. Facebook vs. online dating).

Answer 47

A problem with both theories is that they address CMC as a single construct. Many argue that the effect of self-disclosure will depend on the type of CMC. On social network sites like Facebook people tend to have relationships in the outside world and therefore people will disclose more. However on internet dating sites self-disclosure is reduced because both parties anticipate future meetings. This expectation doesn’t exist on online gaming sites and chartrooms where people are less inhibited so people will self-disclose more. Researchers therefore argue that any theory that sees CMC as a single construct cannot be completely valid explanation.

Question 48

In what way could the two theories be gender biased?

Answer 48

One of the main issues surrounding research into virtual relationships is that it hasn’t considered the difference between males and females. For example, evolutionary theory would state: females would be concerned with making themselves seem more attractive and youthful to attract a mate, whereas males might want to appear like they have more resources. This would seem to suggest that there may be a beta gender bias in this area of research as neither theory suggests that there are gender differences in how CMC is used.