Relationships

Question 1

Outline Thibault and Kelley’s minimax principle from social exchange theory

Answer 1

• 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

Question 2

Give 3 examples of costs in a relationship

Answer 2

• Stress
• Abuse
• Loss of time

Question 3

Give 3 examples of rewards in a relationship

Answer 3

• Sex
• Praise
• Companionship

Question 4

Define comparison levels

Answer 4

Judgement of the reward level we believe we deserve in a relationship, determined by previous experiences and social norms

Question 5

What sort of comparison level will people with a low self esteem tend to have?

Answer 5

Low comparison level

Question 6

Define comparison levels for alternatives

Answer 6

• 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

Question 7

When would alternatives become more attractive, according to social exchange theory?

Answer 7

Duck suggests that there are always alternatives around. If the costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards, then alternatives become more attractive

Question 8

Outline the sampling stage of relationships, according to social exchange theory

Answer 8

Involves exploring rewards and costs by experimenting in our relationships (not just romantic ones) and observing others

Question 9

Outline the bargaining stage of relationships, according to social exchange theory

Answer 9

Occurs at start of a relationship where romantic partners negotiate around costs and rewards

Question 10

Outline the commitment stage of relationships, according to social exchange theory

Answer 10

Is where relationships become more stable. Costs reduce, and rewards increase

Question 11

Outline the institutionalisation stage of relationships, according to social exchange theory

Answer 11

Is when partners become settled because the norms of the relationship are established

Question 12

Research supports some concepts of SET. How is this a strength?

Answer 12

• 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

Question 13

Studies into social exchange theory ignore equity. How is this a weakness of social exchange theory?

Answer 13

• 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

Question 14

How is the direction of cause and effect in social exchange theory a weakness?

Answer 14

• 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

Question 15

The concepts of social exchange theory are vague. How is this a weakness of social exchange theory?

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

Discuss inappropriate central assumptions as an evaluation point of social exchange theory

Answer 16

• 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

Question 17

According to Walster, what is equity?

Answer 17

Both partners’ level of profit (rewards minus costs) should be roughly the same

Question 18

According to equity theory, how can underbenefitting and overbenefitting lead to dissatisfaction?

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

According to equity theory, how is fairness of ratios important in a relationship?

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

How does a sense of inequity impact negatively on relationships, according to equity theory?

Answer 20

• 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

Question 21

According to equity theory, how do changes in equity occur during a relationship?

Answer 21

• 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

Question 22

How would partners deal with inequity in a relationship, according to equity theory?

Answer 22

• 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

Question 23

Equity theory has research support. How is this a strength?

Answer 23

• 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

Question 24

According to Berg and McQuinn, the validity of equity theory is in doubt. How is this a weakness?

Answer 24

• 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

Question 25

Equity theory may not be valid in all cultures. How is this a weakness of equity theory?

Answer 25

• 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

Question 26

How are individual differences a weakness of equity theory?

Answer 26

• 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

Question 27

Discuss equity being a cause or an effect as an evaluation point for equity theory?

Answer 27

• 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

Question 28

Sketch Rusbult’s investment model

Answer 28

Question 29

Outline the 3 factors of which commitment results from according to Rusbult’s investment model

Answer 29

1. SATISFACTION - the extent to which partners feel the rewards of the romantic relationship exceed the costs (CL)
2. COMPARISON WITH ALTERNATIVES (CLalt) - a judgement about whether a relationship with a different partner would increase rewards and reduce costs
3. INVESTMENT - the resources associated with a romantic relationship which would be lost if the relationship ended

Question 30

Outline intrinsic and extrinsic investment as part of Rusbult’s investment model

Answer 30

• 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)

Question 31

How is commitment determined by satisfaction + alternatives + investment?

Answer 31

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

Question 32

What is the difference between satisfaction and commitment?

Answer 32

• 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

Question 33

What are the 3 relationship maintenance mechanisms used by committed partners to keep the relationship going, according to Rusbult’s model?

Answer 33

1. Promoting the relationship (accomodation)
2. Putting their partner’s interests first (willingness to sacrifice)
3. Forgiving them for any serious transgressions (forgiveness)

Question 34

There is research support from Le and Agnew’s meta-analysis for Rusbult’s model. How is this a strength of Rusbult’s model?

Answer 34

• 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

Question 35

Correlation does not equate to causation. How is this a weakness of Rusbult’s model?

Answer 35

• 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

Question 36

Rusbult’s model can explain why people stay in abusive relationships. How is this a strength of Rusbult’s model?

Answer 36

• 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

Question 37

The model oversimplifies investment. How is this a weakness of Rusbult’s model?

Answer 37

• 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

Question 38

Discuss perception vs reality as an evaluation point of Rusbult’s model

Answer 38

• 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

Question 39

What did Duck argue through his phase model?

Answer 39

• 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

Question 40

Outline the intrapsychic phase of relationship breakdown and its threshold

Answer 40

• 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

Question 41

Outline the dyadic phase of relationship breakdown and its threshold

Answer 41

• 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

Question 42

Outline the social phase of relationship breakdown and its threshold

Answer 42

• 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

Question 43

Outline the grave dressing phase of relationship breakdown and its threshold

Answer 43

• 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”

Question 44

What is the aim of Couple’s Coping Enhancement Training?

Answer 44

Sensitise couples to issues of respect within their relationship and improve communication and problem solving skills

Question 45

Duck’s phase model has application to real world relationship breakdown. How is this a strength of Duck’s phase model?

Answer 45

• 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

Question 46

Duck’s phase model’s application to reverse relationship breakdown is culture bound. How is this a weakness of Duck’s phase model?

Answer 46

• 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

Question 47

Duck’s phase model is incomplete. How is this a weakness of Duck’s phase model?

Answer 47

• 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

Question 48

The early phases of Duck’s phase model are less well-explained. How is this a weakness of Duck’s phase model?

Answer 48

• 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

Question 49

Duck’s phase model raises ethical issues. How is this a weakness of Duck’s phase model?

Answer 49

• 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

Question 50

Discuss whether Duck’s phase model provides a description rather than an explanation

Answer 50

• 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

Question 51

Define self-disclosure in relationships

Answer 51

Self-disclosure refers to revealing personal information about yourself, and it increases as a relationship develops

Question 52

Outline Sproull and Kiesler’s reduced cues theory

Answer 52

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

Question 53

According to Sproull and Kriesler, a lack of cues about emotional state leads to deindividuation. What is the consequence of this?

Answer 53

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

Question 54

What does the hyperpersonal model suggest?

Answer 54

Since self-disclosure happens more quickly in virtual relationships, relationships also develop more quickly

Question 55

What are the two components of the hyperpersonal model?

Answer 55

1. Sender has control (selective self-presentation) and may be hyperhonest and/or hyperdisonest
2. Receiver’s feedback may reinforce sender’s selective self-presentation

Question 56

Describe the “strangers on a train” effect of anonymity in a virtual relationship

Answer 56

• Anonymity is an important factor in virtual relationships
• “Strangers on a train” - people may disclose a lot in anonymous situations

Question 57

According to McKenna and Bargh, what are gates and do they help or hinder relationships?

Answer 57

McKenna and Bargh argue that “gates” (e.g. facial disfigurements or a stammer) may be obstacles to a FtF relationship

Question 58

What is the benefit of absence of gating?

Answer 58

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

Question 59

What is the drawback of absence of gating?

Answer 59

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

Question 60

There is a lack of support for reduced cues theory. How is this a weakness of virtual relationships?

Answer 60

• 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)

Question 61

There is a lack of research support for the hyperpersonal model. How is this a weakness of virtual relationships?

Answer 61

• 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

Question 62

Whitty and Johnson found that conversations in virtual relationships are direct and hyperhonest. How is this a strength of virtual relationships?

Answer 62

• 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

Question 63

There is support for absence of gating in virtual relationships. How is this a strength of virtual relationships?

Answer 63

• 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