Relationships Flashcards
Outline Thibault and Kelley’s minimax principle from social exchange theory
- Relationships could be explained in terms of economics
- Satisfaction judged in terms of profit (perceived value of costs minus the value of rewards)
- Partners motivated to minimise costs and maximise rewards
- Profitable relationships continue, unprofitable ones fail
Give 3 examples of costs in a relationship
- Stress
- Abuse
- Loss of time
Give 3 examples of rewards in a relationship
- Sex
- Praise
- Companionship
Define comparison levels
Judgement of the reward level we believe we deserve in a relationship, determined by previous experiences and social norms
What sort of comparison level will people with a low self esteem tend to have?
Low comparison level
Define comparison levels for alternatives
- We consider whether we might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in a different relationship (or none)
- We stay in a relationship, despite available alternatives, when we consider it is more rewarding than the alternative. If relationship = satisfying, alternatives not noticed
When would alternatives become more attractive, according to social exchange theory?
Duck suggests that there are always alternatives around. If the costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards, then alternatives become more attractive
Outline the sampling stage of relationships, according to social exchange theory
Involves exploring rewards and costs by experimenting in our relationships (not just romantic ones) and observing others
Outline the bargaining stage of relationships, according to social exchange theory
Occurs at start of a relationship where romantic partners negotiate around costs and rewards
Outline the commitment stage of relationships, according to social exchange theory
Is where relationships become more stable. Costs reduce, and rewards increase
Outline the institutionalisation stage of relationships, according to social exchange theory
Is when partners become settled because the norms of the relationship are established
Research supports some concepts of SET. How is this a strength?
- Kurdek interviewed homo- and heterosexual couples, committed partners perceived they had most rewards and fewer costs and also viewed alternatives as unattractive
- The study also showed that the main SET concepts predicting commitment are independent of each other (so they individually have an effect)
- The findings confirmed predictions of SET, supporting the validity of the theory in gay and lesbian couples, as well as straight couples
Studies into social exchange theory ignore equity. How is this a weakness of social exchange theory?
- What matters in a romantic relationship is not the balance of rewards and costs, but the partners’ perceptions that this is fair.
- Therefore, SET is an inadequate explanation because it cannot account for a significant proportion of research findings that confirm the importance of equity
How is the direction of cause and effect in social exchange theory a weakness?
- SET claims that we become dissatisfied after we perceive costs outweigh rewards or alternatives seem more attractive
- HOWEVER, Argyle argues dissatisfaction comes first, then we start to perceive costs and alternatives - committed partners do not even notice alternatives
- Therefore, considering costs / alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse - a direction not predicted by SET
The concepts of social exchange theory are vague. How is this a weakness of social exchange theory?
- Unlike in research, real-world rewards / costs are subjective and hard to define and quantify because they vary, e.g. “having your partner’s loyalty” is not rewarding for everyone
- Also comparison levels are problematic - it’s unclear what the CL and CLalt need to be before individuals feel dissatisfied
- This means SET is difficult to test in a valid way
Discuss inappropriate central assumptions as an evaluation point of social exchange theory
- SET assumes that all relationships are based on costs and rewards, profit and loss, constant monitoring of satisfaction
- HOWEVER, Clark and Mills argue that romantic relationships are not exchange-based but communal-based. Partners do not “keep score” (would question trust and commitment if they did)
- This suggests that quite a few relationships might not be exchange-based, e.g. those where trust is a fundamental component
According to Walster, what is equity?
Both partners’ level of profit (rewards minus costs) should be roughly the same
According to equity theory, how can underbenefitting and overbenefitting lead to dissatisfaction?
- The underbenefitted partner is likely to be the least satisfied and their feelings may be evident in anger and resentment
- The overbenefitted partner may feel less dissatisfied but is still likely to feel discomfort and shame
According to equity theory, how is fairness of ratios important in a relationship?
- It’s not the size or amount of the rewards and costs that matters - it’s the ratio of the two to each other
- For example, if one partner is disabled, they may not be able to do certain chores but compensate in other areas, so both partners still feel a sense of fairness
How does a sense of inequity impact negatively on relationships, according to equity theory?
- The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction - equity theory predicts a strong positive correlation between the two
- This applies to both the overbenefitted and underbenefitted partner
According to equity theory, how do changes in equity occur during a relationship?
- At the start of a relationship, it may feel perfectly natural to contribute more than you receive
- If that situation carries on as the relationship develops (one person continues to put more in and get less out), then dissatisfaction will set in
How would partners deal with inequity in a relationship, according to equity theory?
- The underbenefitted partner is motivated to make the relationship more equitable if they believe the relationship is salvageable. The greater the inequity, the harder it is to restore equity
- The change could be cognitive rather than behavioural. A dissatisfied partner might revise their perceptions of rewards and costs so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing changes. What was once perceived as a cost (e.g. abuse) can become accepted as the norm, for the relationship
Equity theory has research support. How is this a strength?
- Utne et al. conducted a survey with recently-married couples who had been together more than 2 years before marrying
- Those who thought their relationship was equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over- or underbenefitting
- This study supports the central predictions of equity theory that equity is a major concern of couples and is linked with satisfaction
According to Berg and McQuinn, the validity of equity theory is in doubt. How is this a weakness?
- Berg and McQuinn found that equity did not distinguish between relationships which ended and those that continued - other variables, (e.g. self-disclosure) were more important
- This means the validity of the theory is in doubt because the predictions of the theory are not supported by research
Equity theory may not be valid in all cultures. How is this a weakness of equity theory?
- Aumer-Ryan et al. found that couples in an individualist culture (US) were most satisfied when their relationship was equitable
- HOWEVER, partners in a collectivist culture (Jamaica) were most satisfied when overbenefitting (both men and women, so not explained by gender differences)
- This suggests that the theory is limited because it only applies to some cultures
How are individual differences a weakness of equity theory?
- Huseman et al. suggest that not all partners are concerned about equity. Benevolents are happy to contribute more than they get (underbenefit)
- Entitled believe they deserve to overbenefit and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty
- This shows that a desire for equity varies from one person to another and is not a universal feature of romantic relationships
Discuss equity being a cause or an effect as an evaluation point for equity theory?
- Some research shows inequity may cause dissatisfaction (e.g. Utne et al.)
- Other research shows dissatisfaction causes inequity. Dissatisfaction leads to noticing inequities, then more dissatisfaction - “cycle of misery” (Grote and Clark)
- Therefore, inequity may be a cause and effect of dissatisfaction - equity theory is just a partial explanation of this process
Sketch Rusbult’s investment model
Outline the 3 factors of which commitment results from according to Rusbult’s investment model
- SATISFACTION - the extent to which partners feel the rewards of the romantic relationship exceed the costs (CL)
- COMPARISON WITH ALTERNATIVES (CLalt) - a judgement about whether a relationship with a different partner would increase rewards and reduce costs
- INVESTMENT - the resources associated with a romantic relationship which would be lost if the relationship ended
Outline intrinsic and extrinsic investment as part of Rusbult’s investment model
- INTRINSIC - any resources put directly into the relationship (e.g. money, energy and self-disclosures)
- EXTRINSIC - investments that previously did not feature in the relationship (i.e. were external to it) which are now closely associated with it (e.g. a jointly-purchased house, children, shared memories)
How is commitment determined by satisfaction + alternatives + investment?
High levels of satisfaction (more rewards with fewer costs) + the alternatives are less attractive + the sizes of the investment are increasing = partners will be committed to the relationship
What is the difference between satisfaction and commitment?
- Commitment is the main factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, satisfaction contributes to commitment
- This explains why, for example, a dissatisfied partner stays in a relationship when their level of investment is high. They will be willing to work hard to repair problems in the relationship, so their investment is not wasted
What are the 3 relationship maintenance mechanisms used by committed partners to keep the relationship going, according to Rusbult’s model?
- Promoting the relationship (accomodation)
- Putting their partner’s interests first (willingness to sacrifice)
- Forgiving them for any serious transgressions (forgiveness)
There is research support from Le and Agnew’s meta-analysis for Rusbult’s model. How is this a strength of Rusbult’s model?
- Le and Agnew’s review found that satisfaction, CLalt and investment size all predicted commitment - commitment linked with greater stability and longevity
- The outcomes were true for both men and women, across all cultures and for homosexual and heterosexual relationships
- This suggests that the model’s claim that these factors are universally important in relationships is valid
Correlation does not equate to causation. How is this a weakness of Rusbult’s model?
- Research studies show strong correlations between factors
- But it does not follow that these factors cause commitment (e.g. perhaps commitment comes before investment)
- Therefore, it’s not clear that the model has identified the causes of commitment rather than factors that are associated with it
Rusbult’s model can explain why people stay in abusive relationships. How is this a strength of Rusbult’s model?
- Rusbult and Martz studied abused women staying at a shelter. Those reporting the greatest investment and fewest alternatives were the most likely to return to abusive partners
- The women in this study were dissatisfied with their relationships, but returned to their partners because they were committed to them
- Therefore, the model shows that satisfaction on it own cannot explain why people stay in relationships - commitment and investment are also factors
The model oversimplifies investment. How is this a weakness of Rusbult’s model?
- Goodfriend and Agnew argue that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship
- Early in a relationship partners make very few actual investments but they do invest in future plans - these motivate partners to commit
- This means the original model is a limited explanation as it fails to consider the true complexity of investment
Discuss perception vs reality as an evaluation point of Rusbult’s model
- The investment model is supported by studies using self-report methods such as questionnaires - these are affected by subjective biases and beliefs
- HOWEVER, what may matter more is a person’s perception about how much investment they have made or how attractive their alternatives are
- Therefore, the use of self-report measures is appropriate because they asses partners’ subjective perceptions about relationships, which are the most important influences on commitment
What did Duck argue through his phase model?
- Duck proposed 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 4 distinct phases
Outline the intrapsychic phase of relationship breakdown and its threshold
- Threshold - “I can’t do this anymore”, indicating a determination that something has to change
- A partner becomes dissatisfied with the relationship in its current form. They then worry about the reasons for this and this will usually focus on their partner’s shortcomings
- The dissatisfied partner tends to keep this to themselves but may share their thoughts with a trusted friend, weighing up the pros and cons of continuing
Outline the dyadic phase of relationship breakdown and its threshold
- Threshold - “I would be justified in withdrawing”
- Once a partner concludes that they are justified in ending the relationship, they have to discuss this with their partner. Dissatisfactions about equity, commitment, etc. are aired
- Ironically, self-disclosures may be more frequent as partners feel they can reveal true feelings
Outline the social phase of relationship breakdown and its threshold
- Threshold - the dissatisfied partner concludes, “I mean it”
- Once a partner wants to end the relationship, they will seek support particularly from joint friends
- These friends may choose a side, but other may try and prevent the breakup by acting as a go-between
- Once the news is public though, this is usually the point of no return
Outline the grave dressing phase of relationship breakdown and its threshold
- Threshold - “it’s now inevitable”
- Once the end becomes inevitable, then a suitable story of the relationship and its end is prepared for wider consumption
- This is likely to include an attempt to ensure that the storyteller will be judged most favourably
- This creation of a personal story in addition to the public one is necessary so the partner can “move on”
- Final threshold - “time to get a new life”
What is the aim of Couple’s Coping Enhancement Training?
Sensitise couples to issues of respect within their relationship and improve communication and problem solving skills
Duck’s phase model has application to real world relationship breakdown. How is this a strength of Duck’s phase model?
- The model suggests that some repair strategies (e.g. couples’ coping enhancement training) might be more effective at one stage of relationship breakdown than another
- For example, in the intrapsychic stage, partners could worry more positively about each other. Improving communication skills is beneficial in the dyadic phase
- Cina et al. compared 50 couples (average length of relationship was 12 years) who received CCET with a control group who didn’t. Results showed that the CCET group reported much higher marital quality after training
- This suggests that the model can provide supportive insights to help people through difficult times in their lives
Duck’s phase model’s application to reverse relationship breakdown is culture bound. How is this a weakness of Duck’s phase model?
- Moghaddam et al. argue the model is based on breakdown in individualist cultures where relationships are mostly voluntary and often end
- Relationships in collectivist cultures are often “obligatory” and less easy to end - the whole concept of romantic relationship differs between cultures
- Therefore, the model’s application to reverse breakdown can only be applied in some cultures
Duck’s phase model is incomplete. How is this a weakness of Duck’s phase model?
- Rollie and Duck added a resurrection phase in which ex partners apply to future relationships what they have learned from the recent past
- Also, partners may return to earlier phases at any point and processes are more important than linear movement through phases
- Tashiro and Frazier surveyed undergraduates who had recently broken up with a partner. They typically reported that they experienced personal growth as well as emotional distress. These students reported that breaking up with their partner had given them new insights into themselves and a clearer idea about future partners (supporting the resurrection stage)
- This means the original model does not take account of the complexity of breakdown and its dynamic nature
The early phases of Duck’s phase model are less well-explained. How is this a weakness of Duck’s phase model?
- Research participants recall relationship breakdown retrospectively, so report may not be accurate (especially recalling the early phases)
- The intrapsychic phase happens “longer ago” and partners may spend a long time in it, so recall of what happened could be especially distorted
- Therefore, the model does not explain the early part of the breakdown process as well as later phases
Duck’s phase model raises ethical issues. How is this a weakness of Duck’s phase model?
- Carrying out research into the breakdown of relationships raises certain ethical issues
- For example, a woman in an abusive relationship may fear recrimination from her abuser should he discover her participation in the research
- As such, her privacy and confidentiality should be safeguarded
Discuss whether Duck’s phase model provides a description rather than an explanation
- Duck’s model describes the what in the various phases with no consideration of causal factors
- HOWEVER, Felmlee’s fatal attraction hypothesis explains why - qualities that were attractive eventually produce dissatisfaction
- Therefore, Duck’s model might be improved by adding some of Felmlee’s approach
Define self-disclosure in relationships
Self-disclosure refers to revealing personal information about yourself, and it increases as a relationship develops
Outline Sproull and Kiesler’s reduced cues theory
Reduced cues theory (Sproull and Kiesler) suggests that virtual relationships are less effective due to the lack of non-verbal cues (e.g. physical appearance, emotional responses). In FtF relationships, we rely on these cues
According to Sproull and Kriesler, a lack of cues about emotional state leads to deindividuation. What is the consequence of this?
People then feel freer from the constraints of social norms (disinhibition) and this leads to blunt and even aggressive communication and a reluctance to self-disclose
What does the hyperpersonal model suggest?
Since self-disclosure happens more quickly in virtual relationships, relationships also develop more quickly
What are the two components of the hyperpersonal model?
- Sender has control (selective self-presentation) and may be hyperhonest and/or hyperdisonest
- Receiver’s feedback may reinforce sender’s selective self-presentation
Describe the “strangers on a train” effect of anonymity in a virtual relationship
- Anonymity is an important factor in virtual relationships
- “Strangers on a train” - people may disclose a lot in anonymous situations
According to McKenna and Bargh, what are gates and do they help or hinder relationships?
McKenna and Bargh argue that “gates” (e.g. facial disfigurements or a stammer) may be obstacles to a FtF relationship
What is the benefit of absence of gating?
Gates are absent in virtual relationships - so such relationships are more likely to “get off the ground” than FtF relationships and self-disclosures become deeper
What is the drawback of absence of gating?
Without gates, people are free to be more like their “true selves” in virtual relationships. HOWEVER, they can also create untrue identities to deceive people - they can change gender or age (i.e. a “second life”) - a shy person can be an extrovert
There is a lack of support for reduced cues theory. How is this a weakness of virtual relationships?
- Online cues are not absent but different from FtF, e.g. taking time to respond on social media is more intimate than an immediate reply
- Acronyms (e.g. lol), emoticons and emojis are effective substitutes for FtF non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, according to Walther and Tidwell
- This is hard for reduced cues theory to explain because it suggests virtual relationships can be as personal as FtF (i.e. no differences)
There is a lack of research support for the hyperpersonal model. How is this a weakness of virtual relationships?
- Ruppel et al.’s meta analysis compared the frequency, breadth and depth of self-disclosures in FtF and virtual relationships
- In self-report studies, self-disclosure was greater in FtF relationships on all 3 measures. In experimental studies, there were no significant differences
- This challenges the model’s view that greater intimacy in virtual relationships should lead to greater self-disclosure than FtF
Whitty and Johnson found that conversations in virtual relationships are direct and hyperhonest. How is this a strength of virtual relationships?
- Self-presentation online can also be hyperdishonest, e.g. inventing qualities for dating profiles
- This supports the model’s predictions about hyperhonest and hyperdishonest self-disclosures and shows there are differences between FtF and virtual relationships
There is support for absence of gating in virtual relationships. How is this a strength of virtual relationships?
- McKenna and Bargh studied online communication by shy and socially anxious people
- In this group, 71% of the romantic relationships initially formed online survived more than 2 years, compared to 49% formed offline
- This suggests that shy people do benefit online presumably because the gating that obstructs FtF relationships is absent online
