Relationships Flashcards
what are the theories of maintenance
- Social Exchange Theory
- Equity
- Investment Model
- Dissolution
SED summary of A01
- (A01) =
- CBA
- MinMax
- Play off matrices
- sampling / bargaining / commitment/ institutionalisation
SED summary of A02
- Rusbult : (US Quest. 267 pps) = + likely to end relationship if there is a better alternative.
- Rusbult and Martz: appl. to abusive relationships – fear of leaving/ losing benefits (money security)
- Hatfield: under benefitted people = angry – over benefitted = uncomfortable.
SED Eval
Good
- context / application / flexible / evidence
Bad
- Moghaddam ‘Cultural Bias’ / sample bias / oversimplification / reductionist
Equity theory summary of A01
- econ + cog
- ratio of input : outcome - conscious of
- dissolution is inequity perceived as permanent
Equity theory summary of A02
Yperen and Buunk: (Q-259 pps) == 1 yr equity = 65% // too benefited vice versa = dissatisfied. (25% men over ben / 25% women under ben)
Hatfield (newlyweds): those who found relationship equitable – happier // both under and over benefitted were unsatisfied.
Equity Theory Eval
Good
- accounts for cog processes - flexible - broad
- evidence
Bad
- gendered difference (Prins: women more likely to consider an affair than men if relationship is not perceived to be equitable)
- Cultural bias
contradicted - Cate et al - commitment = satisfaction
Investment Model A01
commitment = investment into the relationship
hindered by comparison to alternatives
intrinsic = put in
extrinsic = take out
Investment model A02
Rusbult = long Q – looking at (satisfaction – comp for alt investment) 7-month US students – keep diaries.
++ satisfaction when ++ investment prior meaning ++ committed.
Le and Agnew: MA (52 studies / 60 samples / 11,000+ pps) == highest correlation = satisfaction and commitment == no gendered difference.
Investment model Eval
Good
more externally valid - applicable to real life (broad)
Le + Agnew limit cultural bias
Bad
short term focus / gendered diff / correlational / oversimplification
Dissolution summary of A01
- intra-psychic
- dyadic
- social - interventional teams
- grave -dressing
- resurrection - self disclose
(THRESHOLDS)
Dissolution summary of A02
Felmlee: 27% of sample pps attracted to features that are later hated
Gray and Silver: (Quest. 45 divorced couples 10yr marriage avg.) men / women equally form narrative to look favourable.
Lee: 112 breakups – detailed interviews == exposure and negotiation in Lee’s model = most intense == those from straight to dissatisfaction and termination == less intimate.
Dissolution Eval
Good
- practical appl. - counselling
- recognises psych processes
Bad
- Lees model (Dissatisfaction – Exposure – Negotiation – Resolution – Termination)
- Determinism
PSR - explanations A01
- attachment
- Giles / Maltby levels (ES / IP / BP)
- Absorption addiction
PSR Levels A02
Schiappa: (MA) ++ corel. PSR = more media consumption / PSR + if celeb is attractive and similar to individual.
PSR Absorption - Addiction A02
Huran: + correlation between unclear boundary perception and PSR levels
Maltby: Eysenck Personality Q ( ES = sociable / IP = neuroticism / BP = psychoticism)
PSR attachment (A02)
Cole and Leets: (115 Q) + likely to develop PSR if insecure resistant // - if avoidant. PSR is a manifestation of need for intimacy.
Cohen: pps (381 Q) show same neg response to loss of PSR in comp to real relationship. Most negative if resistant.
PSR Eval
Good
- Generalisable
Bad
- Oversimp = cog (Fuji cog flex) / social / Evol (duck)
- correlational
- A/A model not an explanation
- Reduc. = not all PSR = same
Virtual Relationships A01
- Self Disclosure = anonymity / no verbal cues / deindividuation
- Absence of gating
Virtual Relationships SD A02
Gergen: SD higher in a darker room compared to a bright room.
Rubin: Temporary environment stranger interaction – confederates = reciprocal SD with intimate info due to lack of consequence fear.
Virtual Relationships AG A02
Yurchisin: 11 interviews = people balance real and ‘better’ versions of themselves online to appear more attractive.
Baker and Oswald: Facebook helps shy people – Q – 207 students == ++ correlation between shyness / Facebook use and perceived friendship quality
Virtual Relationships Eval
Good
- Emp supp. =Tamir / mitchell more activity - pref when talk about self (reward pathways)
- Practical appl. help lonelys
Bad
- not falsifiable
- culture
- methodology - relies on self report / correlation
- oversimp - many contexts ftf / cmc
