relationships Flashcards
what is the social exchange theory
romantic partners exchange gains and costs. a committed relationship is when reward exceeds costs and potential alternatives are less attractive than the current relationship
SET rewards, costs and profits
thibault and Kelley (1959) said that behaviour in relationships reflect the economic assumptions of exchange. in a relationship we want to minimise costs and maximise gains. (the minimax principles)
SET rewards and costs are subjective
what one person considers to be significant may be considered less valuable by the another. what is seen as valuable now may not be seen as valuable in the future
SET rewards example
companionship, sex, emotional support
SET costs example
time, stress, energy
SET what is the comparison level? (CL)
one way we measure the profit in a relationship. it is essentially the amount of reward that you believe you deserve to get.
SET (CL) influences
from experiences of previous relationships, social norms (movies) that determine what is widely considered to be reasonable level of reward
SET (CL) self-esteem theory
someone with low self-esteem will have low CL and therefore will be satisfied with gaining just a small profit from a relationship (vise versa)
SET what are comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)
predicts that we will stay in our current relationship only so long as we believe it is more rewarding than alternatives.
SET Duck (1994)
‘the CLalt we adopt will depend on the state of our current relationship. if the costs in our current relationship outweigh the rewards, then alternatives become more attractive.’
SET the four stages of relationship development
sampling stage
bargaining stage
commitment stage
institutionalisation stage
SET AO3 - direction of cause and effect
dissatisfaction sets in when we suspect costs overweigh rewards or that alt is more attractive. Argyle said we only measure costs and rewards / attractiveness and alt if we are dissatisfied in relationship. thus, dissatisfaction comes first: miller found that people who rated themselves to be in a committed relationship spent less time looking at people.
what is the equity theory?
criticises the SET as it fails to consider the need that most people desire equity in relationship.
the role of equity
Walster et al - fairness, level of profits must be roughly the same.
if not then someone over/under benefits, leaving the under benefited unhappy and angry and over benefited feeling guilt and shame
equity and equality
its about the fairness of the ratio rather than the size or number of costs/ rewards.
satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity, rewards are distributed fairly.
two types of consequences of inequity
changes in perceived equity
dealing with inequity
changes in perceived equity
Dissatisfaction is caused when there’s a change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on. may be natural to have more costs at the beginning but as time go on it may not be as satisfying than previously.
dealing with inequity
the more unfair it feels, the harder they will work to restore equity - what was seen as a definite cost is now seen as the norm.
equity theory AO3 research support
Utne, self-report study of 118 recent married couples, finding that couples considered their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than people who saw themselves over/under benefiting. therefore increases validity.
equity theory AO3 individual differences
huseman et al suggests that people are less sensitive to equity than others. people are described as benevolent (prepared to have more costs than gains) and entitled (expect gains to outweigh and wouldn’t feel guilty over it). therefore equity is not necessarily important in romantic relationships and isn’t a universal law of social interaction.
equity theory AO3 can be seen as culture bias
although there a link between equity and satisfaction, a study where couples from a collectivist culture (favour over benefitting) were compared to an individualist culture. (favour equity).
Rusbults investment model (overview)
emphasises importance of commitment depending on three factors:
- satisfaction level
- comparison with alternatives
- investment size
satisfaction and comparison with alternatives (key definitions)
- satisfaction: extent romantic partners feel rewards exceed costs
- comparison w alt: the judgement on partner and if they’d bring more rewards and fewer costs
- satisfying relationship: profitable and each partner is generally satisfied if they’re getting more from it
investment size AO1
- the importance of resources and the resources we will lose if relationship ends
- rusbult et al proposes ‘intrinsic investments and extrinsic investments’
size of investment increases when satisfaction is high, confidently predict the partners will be more committed
intrinsic investments
resources directly put into the relationship e.g., money, possessions
can also be resources less easy to quantify e.g. energy, disclosure
extrinsic investments
any resources that don’t feature in the relationship
e.g. buying stuff together or children
satisfaction vs commitment AO1
- commitment is seen as main psychological factor
- this is important because it tells us why dissatisfied people stay in relationships
- they’re committed because they made an investment that they don’t want to see go to waste
relationship maintenance mechanisms AO1
- commitment expresses itself in everyday maintenance behaviours
- rustbelts model argues that enduring partners don’t retaliate, rather they act to promote the relationship, easily forgiving their transgressions
- cognitive element: unrealistic positive alternatives in their own relationship and negative tempting alternatives for others relationships.
investment model explains abusive relationships AO3
rusbult and Marta studied ‘battered’ women at a shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported making greatest investments and had fewest attractive alternatives
investment model recognises that a victim of IPV doesn’t have to be satisfied with a relationship to stay in it
meta-analysis supports model AO3
Agnew et al
meta-analysis
52 studies (11K ppts from 5 diff countries)
all 3 factors predicted committed relationships
findings true for both genders, all cultures, homo and hetero couples
model oversimplified investments AO3
goodfriend and agnew
more to invest than resources
early stages may not have more investments (may not live together)
ppl motivated to commit to cherished future plans
Duck’s phase model of breakdown - summary
‘the ending of a relationship is not one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through distinct phases’
each phase is marked by one or both partners reaching a ‘threshold’: the point their perception of relationship changes
Phase 1 (ducks model)
intra-psychic phase
threshold - ‘cant stand this anymore’
cognitive processing occurs, dissatisfied partner thinks on their dissatisfaction
tell a trusted friend
weigh up pros and cons, evaluate these against alts
Phase 2 (ducks model)
dyadic phase
threshold ‘I’m justified with withdrawing’
interpersonal processes between partners, no longer avoid talking about it
confrontations occur, characterised by anxiety, hostility and lack of equity
two outcomes - desire to repair, determination to break up
Phase 3 (ducks model)
social phase
threshold ‘I mean it’
wider processes (social networks, publicity)
partners seek support (choosing sides)
friends reassure, support other judge, blame
may help repair or reveal secrets
at this point, no return
Phase 4 (ducks model)
grave-dressing phase
threshold ‘its inevitable’
phase of aftermath
partners creates stories
maintaining a positive reputation, showing them in a bad light
gossip important - each partner retains ‘social credit’ blaming each other
‘time to get a new life’
Duck phase model AO3
methodological issues
most research is retrospective - puts give experiences some time after relationship has ended. recall may not be accurate or reliable. early stages of breakdown tend to be distorted; impossible to study. researchers reluctant to be involved early if they make things worse. thus ignores this early part of process
Ducks phase model AO3
description rather than explanation
Flemlee’s fatal attraction hypothesis ‘the causes of breakdown can be found in the attractive qualities that brought partners together’ - relationship is threatened by partners getting too much of what they’re looking for
sense of humour may turn into he can’t take anything seriously
Ducks phase model AO3
cultural bias
based on western cultures (USA)
Moghaddam et al ‘relationships in individualist cultures - generally voluntary and frequently come to an end. collectivist
collectivist cultures - obligatory, less easy to end’
lacks generalisability
Ducks phase model AO3
real-life applications
helps identify and understand stages, suggests various ways of reversing it. recognises that different repair strategies.
Duck ‘intra-psychic phases encourage to focus on brooding positive aspects of partner
dyadic phase - communication improvements and wider social skills’
Virtual relationships
AO1
computer-meditated-communication CMC
methods formed and maintained in relationships
social networking sits (SNSs) eg twitter, instagram
self-disclosure AO1 (VR)
sharing personal info eg dreams, thoughts, fears
strengthen relationship, build trust
more SD - anonymity, less embarrassment, time to think about what to say
less SD - worry of blackmailing, trolling, catfishing
crucial feature to FTF (face to face)
tow major self-disclosure theories (VR)
reduced cues theory
hyper-personal model
reduced cues theory (VR)
CMC relationships lack many cues, thus less effective than FTF eg nonverbal cues (physical appearance)
CMC lacks cues to our emotional state (facial expressions, tone of voice)
VR more likely to involve blunt and aggressive communication
hyper-personal model (VR)
Walther - ‘VR more personal, involve greater self-disclosure because its established earlier and more intense/intimate.
Cooper at al - also end quickly, high excitement level of interaction isn’t matched by level of trust, AKA ‘boom-and-bust phenomenon of VR’
selective self-representation - sender of msg more time to manipulate their online image (more control)
anonymity - when yk ppl don’t know ur identity, more likely to self-disclose about yourself to a stranger
absence of gating (VR)
McKenna and Bargh: ‘a gate is any obstacle forming a relationship’
FTF interactions are gating in : physical attractiveness, stammer, social anxiety
absence of gating: benefits and drawbacks(VR)
most gates are absent: VR can develop to the point where self-disclosure is more frequent and therefor, relationships develops quicker
a benefit: individual is free to be more like themselves although there’s a scope for ppl to create untrue identities (catfishing), deceiving ppl
VR AO3:
lack of research for reduced cue theory
theory is wrong to suggest that there’s nonverbal cues entirely missing from CMC as they’re different, rather than absent. research: people online use other cues like style and timing of their msgs eg taking time to reply to a social network status update is often interpreted as more intimate act than immediate and use of acrostics (LOL) emotions and emojis for facial expressions/ tone of voice
VR AO3:
research supporting hyper-personal model
model predicts that ppl are motivated to self-disclosure in CMC in ways which are sometimes ‘hyperhonest’ and ‘hyper dishonest’ eg questions asked online tend to be direct which is different to FTF convos (small talk). thus support assumptions of model as the way we self-disclose in CMC relationships is designed to present oursleves in exaggeratedly positive light which aids relationships formation.
VR AO3:
support for absence of gating
McKenna and Bargh looked at CMC used by lonely and socially anxious people, finding themselves expressing true self more than FTF interactions. of romantic relationships initially formed online, 70% survived more than two years. this is a higher proportion than relationships formed FTF (offline world)
