relationships Flashcards
<div><strong>What is the Model of Breakdown (2007) (7)</strong></div>
“<ol class=""><li>Breakdown - when issues start to occur in the relationship that are a problem for both or one of the individuals and this causes dissatisfaction.</li></ol><ol class=""><li>Intrapsychic processes - When a partner becomes so dissatisfied that they start to focus on the negative aspects of their partner and will often make alternate plans for the future in thoughts.</li></ol><ol class=""><li>Dyadic processes - This is when partners begin to voice their dissatisfaction with the relationship. This is often confrontational and can occur over a longer period. This can result in a decision to a) try to work through the relationship’s issues or b)choose to end the relationship.</li></ol><ol class=""><li>Social processes - Here the breakup becomes public and the social network begins to split while others begin to support or allocate blame to either of the partners. Yet some support may end in the partner’s trying again to save the relationship with the help of an outsider’s perspective. But this can also work the other way.</li></ol><ol class=""><li>Grave-dressing processes - If a relationship reaches this point it will not be fixed as each partner starts to make themselves look good to those around them in order to succeed at having another partner in the future. This can result in bitter feelings between partners as they often paint the other in a bad light in order to recover socially.</li></ol><ol class=""><li>Resurrection processes (added later Duck and Rollie) - Here they reflect on what they have learnt from the relationship and will start to reinvent themselves and make necessary changes to their dating tactics. </li></ol>”
<div><strong>How is it easier to break up with someone than to be broken up with?</strong></div>
“<p class>In this theory, it means that the person who are breaking up with the other (in a case where it is not mutual) has time to mentally prepare for this to happen, without the shock of suddenly being alone. </p><p class>Although this does not apply to emotionally distanced relationships.</p><p class="">However, this is contrasted by Askert (1992) who suggests that the instigator suffers more as the result of guilt. </p>”
<div><strong>What is Duck’s theory of Reasons for Breakdown (1999)?</strong></div>
“<ul class=""><li style="">Lack of Skills - some people lack the interpersonal skills to maintain relationships ei. bad conversational skills and therefore this leads to issues in the relationships.</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Lack of Stimulation - part of SET theory suggests we need stimulation to not become bored and dissatisfied. </li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Maintenance Difficulties - Sometimes external events or stress from other aspects of life can strain a relationship until it breaks down.</li></ul>”
<div><em><strong>How is this theory effective in the application?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>This theory has a positive impact in the application when it is used in the therapy setting to help save relationships or to end them healthily. Duck (1994) looked at the thoughts in the intra-psychic phase and realised that if partners, were asked to think actively about the positive aspects their partner, has then they are more likely to try and improve the relationship than break up. Therefore Duck’s phase model has a valid real-life impact upon the breakdown of relationships. </p><p class="">Although it is important to realise that most couples are past the point of support by the time they choose to get external help - if it can be done before this time it may be successful. </p>”
<div><em><strong>How does Tashiro and Frazier’s (2003) study provide a support?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Tashiro and Frazier (2003) looked at emotional stress and personal growth in relationships and in support of Duck’s model concluded that these are common factors of a breakup. This also has an aspect of face validity to it, we can see it in our own and others’ relationships as a process, not as a single event. Duck’s model also comprehensible looks at the whole group impacted by a breakup, not just the partners. </p>”
<div><em><strong>How is Flemlee’s (1995) fatal attraction hypothesis an issue?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Felmlee suggests that the endearing and cute things at the beginning of the relationship later make the partner who enjoyed this irate they have got too much of what they asked for. This was called the ‘bunny boiler’ effect (from the film Fatal Attraction). Therefore there is another reason for relationship breakdown, the original factor that created this (common in immature relationships). </p>”
<div><em><strong>How are cultural differences an issue here?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>This model does however suffer from issues of cultural differences. Moghaddam et al (1993) point out that there is a difference between individualist and collectivist cultures when it comes to how the relationship breaks down. In an individualist culture, it is often easier to break up than in a collectivist culture where there is much more weight from external factors eg. family, money to stay together. Therefore Duck’s model does not take into account the difference in culture. </p>”
<div><em><strong>How is retrospective recall an issue?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>One methodological issue with the research is that it relies upon self-report methods that means the partners are often looking at their relationship retrospectively. The issue with this is that they may have remembered incorrectly or changed their opinion multiple times on how they feel about the relationship. There is also the possibility of social desirability affecting what they choose to say. Therefore the reliability of Duck’s supporting research is questionable. </p>”
<div><strong>How is self-disclosure different in virtual relationships?</strong></div>
“<p class>In many ways, relationships in person are very similar to those online but there are also other aspects that impact the conversation the partners are having.</p><ul class=""><li style="">Reduced cues theory (Sproull and Keisler 1986) suggest that online conversations are not as effective as it does not have the necessary cues that happen in a normal FtF conversations. This causes de-individuation where it reduces the sens of the individual having a unique identity, which in turn leads to disinhibition. CMC is a more aggressive and direct way to communicate but this also allows for self-disclosure to occur at a faster rate. </li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Walther (1996, 2011) developed the hyperpersonal model which states that online relationships can be way more personal where self-disclosure occurs at a greater rate. But this can also mean they end more quickly because trust doesn’t match the excitement of the relationship (Cooper and Sportolari 1997 - <em>boom and bust theory). </em>This can also mean that people have more time to craft and filter their online image - called selective self-presentation. </li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Relationships are also anonymous Bargh (2002) points out. When people do not know who you are you have more freedom to feel less accountable and act how you wish. </li></ul><p class> </p>”
<div><strong>How is there an absence of gating in virtual relationships?</strong></div>
“<p class>A gate is anything that might get in the way of the relationship continuing initially. For example, being anxious or unattractive will not have such a large impact on CMC (McKenna and Bargh 1999). Therefore this not being a focus means that self-disclosure is even more important and this also creates room for a ‘second life’ where you can completely change your identity. </p>”
<div><em><strong>How is there a lack of research support for reduced cues theory?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>However it is not actually the case that non-verbal cues are not present in CMC relationships, there is a different way of this being expressed. Walther and Tidwell (1995) saw that there was still the presence of timing and style. For exampling taking the time to reply to a message caringly but not taking too long as well. Therefore these nuances in communication prove these CMC relationships have just as many alternative cues. </p>”
<div><em><strong>What is the research support for the hyperpersonal model?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Whitty and Joinson (2009) looked at the ‘hyperhonest’ and the ‘hyperdishonest’ ways people in CMC relationships communicate online. There are more intimate, direct questions asked in the evidence collected by these researchers than the more common ‘small talk’ that takes place in FtF relationships. Therefore this supports the central idea of the theory - that CMC relationships have a different disclosure rate that presents partners in a positive light. </p>”
<div><em><strong>How are there different types of CMC?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Self-disclosure does not always come in one form in CMC depending on the format you were using. For example, those using online dating sights will end up dating in person and so their actions online still have an impact on their ‘real’ life. Or you can also compare the level of disclosure in a questionnaire to a status on Facebook (Paine et al 2006). Therefore this aspect of CMC communication has been neglected and this means there may be other missing aspects in this theory. </p>”
<div><em><strong>How can relationships also be multimodal?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Walther (2011) pointed out that relationships do not just take place either online or face to face and therefore must be examined as a whole. This is also more necessary in the modern day where relationships that occur online affect our actions in real life. Therefore none of the approaches takes an interactional approach to both of these types of relationships. </p>”
<div><em><strong>What is the support for the absence of gating?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Mckenna and Bargh (2000) looked at those who were socially anxious and found that when they took part in CMC relationships they were able to be more easily their ‘true selves’ than in a FtF relationship. This also lasted long term with 70% surviving more than 2 years which is a major difference to relationship success in the real world. Therefore online relationships have a positive impact on the lives of anxious people and the impact of, for example, reduction of cues theory, is not a large enough effect to limit the success of the relationship. </p><p class> </p>”
<div><em><strong>How is there a failure to replicate?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Levinger (1974) pointed out that many replications of this have failed to show the same findings. He concludes that this is due to social change that occurs in between the replications as well as the issue with defining the depth of a relationship - you cannot always assume that those who have been together longer are the ones with a more committed relationship. For example, Kerkchoff and Davis chose that the cut off point was after 18 months. Therefore this limited the application as it may not be an accurate representation of a real-world relationship.</p>”
<div><em><strong>This was developed in an individualist and western culture...</strong></em></div>
“<p class>This theory suffers from cultural bias as most of the studies that it is based upon took place in western, individualist societies where there are different norms for relationships in comparatively collective and non-western cultures. Therefore this theory is limited by its inability to be applied to anything other than the pre-observed demographic of the studies. </p>”
<div><strong>What is Thibault and Kelley’s (1959) theory of Social Exchange?</strong></div>
“<p class>They saw that how relationships worked reflected that of economic assumptions about exchange. We must minimise losses and maximise gains and so in a relationship, we will judge the satisfaction of the relationship by what we have gained, the profit (or the rewards minus the costs). However in comparison to money a relationship’s elements can be more subjective and personal. Peter Blau (1964) described how relationships can be ‘expensive’ as it takes energy, time etc to maintain a healthy relationship. This is known as an opportunity cost in economics, if you invest your resources to get an outcome they cannot go elsewhere.</p>”
<div><strong>What is the Comparison Level?</strong></div>
“<p class>Simply this is the amount of the reward you deserve to get and this develops out of experiences in past relationships as well as social norms (acts the same as a schema or collecting data). The higher your CL level the more worth pursuing a relationship is. Therefore if you have lower self-esteem you will have a lower CL level and be willing to make a smaller profit or even a loss.</p>”
<div><strong>What is the Comparison Level for Alternatives?</strong></div>
“<p class>This is whether we believe we will get a bigger reward or fewer costs from another relationship (or from being on our own). SET says that in an exclusive relationship individuals are only going to stay with their current partner as long as the rewards/costs ratio is worth it. Duck (1994) says that we base our CLalt on the relationship we are currently in, and will often not notice anyone else if we are in a satisfying relationship.</p>”
<div><strong>What are the stages of relationship development? (4)</strong></div>
“<ol class=""><li>Sampling stage - We explore the rewards and costs of the potential relationship by having romantic and platonic relationships, developing our CL as we go.</li></ol><ol class=""><li>Bargaining Stage - This is the beginning of the relationship where the partner way up the costs vs the rewards.</li></ol><ol class=""><li>The Commitment Stage - We are able to predict the levels of costs and rewards as the relationship progresses. It will become more stable as rewards increase. </li></ol><ol class=""><li>Institutionalisation Stage - When the rewards and costs settle a long term relationship is established.</li></ol>”
<div><em><strong>What are the inappropriate assumptions underlying SET?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>There are issues with the economic metaphor, as explored by Clark and Mills (2011) who say that this is the case with exchange relationships, eg. coworkers as it is in communal relationships, eg. relationships where nobody is keeping a tally. Romantic relationships return rewards for rewards and costs for costs and if this tallying were to take part at the start of a relationship it may not be beneficial as each partner would be guessing the commitment level the other wants. Therefore this is not really applicable to most relationships and is an insufficient explanation. </p>”
