relationships Flashcards
Murstein
The Matching Hypothesis
Relationships form on the basis of similarity.
From this 3 hypothesis can be generated;
Couples will be of similar attractiveness.
Those of higher attractiveness will have higher expectations of attractiveness in their partner
The happiest enduring relationships will be between those well-matched.
We make realistic choices of what they want and what they can get.
Murstein perceived attractiveness as a major determinant of courtship desirability because it is an accessible way for each partner to rate the other as a possible mate.
2 studies in support of The Matching Hypothesis
Murstein (1972)
Method: ‘steady’ or ‘engaged’ pictures of couples were compared with pictures of fake couples, and their attractiveness rated.
Findings: Real couples were consistently judged to have similar levels of physical attractiveness.
Evaluation: This is easy to manipulate by picking couples that would suit the hypothesis for each condition.
Silverman (1971)
Method: Couples observed in natural setting (bars, social events ect.) They were observed by 2 males and 2 females. The observer rated the partner of the opposite sex on their attractiveness.
Findings: Extremely high similarity between the attractiveness within the couples. The more similar the partner’s’ attractiveness the happier they appeared, reflected through intimacy.
Evaluation: This study is in support of The Matching Hypothesis.
Ecologically valid as it is in a naturalistic setting.
Only observed over a short period of time which reduces the validity.
Attractiveness is subjective therefore it is hard to measure.
IDA for The Matching Hypothesis
Culturally biased: developed in the USA, an individualistic culture where you are free to select your partner.
Gender bias: Ignores gender differences (Takeuchi found that men value attractiveness the most whereas women can look past attractiveness and seek other attributes i.e. finance, personality)
Kerckhoff & David
The Filter Model
Relationships develop through three ‘filters’ that help us discard unsuitable individuals. The filters help us to narrow down people from ‘the field of availables’ to the ‘field of desirables’.
Filters from The Filter Model
- Social Demographic (social class, education, religion)
- Attitudes & Values (i.e, political, hobbies, families)
- Complimentary of Emotional Needs (opposites tend to attract, i.e. pessimist and optimist)
Research support for The Filter Model
Sprecher (1998)
Findings: This supports filters 1 & 2. Couples who were similar in terms of attractiveness, social background and interests were more likely to develop long term relationships.
Winch (1958)
Findings: This supports filter 3. Happy marriages are often based on the partners ability to fulfill the needs of the other. For example; women who displayed nurturing characteristics were often with men that needed to be nurtured.
Evaluation of support for The Filter Model
All used questionnaires which rely on self report. Findings can be impacted by social desirability which impacts validity. Also the data is retrospective so some details may be forgotten.
IDA for Filter Model
Cultural bias: Only applicable to western cultures where there is greater choice in relationships. Not generalisable to practices such as arranged marriages. (Bias lies in filters 2+3)
Filters are based on Western ideas of a successful relationships. For example filters 2 & 3 do not apply to arranged marriages.
Homans
Social Exchange Theory
we consider the actual and potential past, present and future rewards and costs before deciding whether or not to stay in a relationship. He said decisions are essentially economic. Satiation is an important principle in this theory, if a partner is supplying something in short supply we appreciate it more.
SET states that relationships involve the exchange of resources. A relationship develops depending on how mutually beneficial the relationship feels. (how rewarding)
Rewards associated with relationships is anything that makes us feel positive.
Thibaur & Kelly
we try to minimise costs and maximise benefits. A relationship is maintained when benefits outweigh costs.
People’s feelings about relationships depend on a number of factors:
- How they perceive rewards
- How they perceive costs
- What they feel they deserve in a relationship
- Perceptions about chances of being a better relationship elsewhere (comparison of alternatives)
costs and rewards in relationships
To maintain a relationship the balance between costs and benefits must remain favourable to each party. Costs must be kept down and rewards as high as possible.
Research Evidence for Social Exchange Theory:
Rusbult: Using a questionnaire she found people’s satisfaction, alternatives and investments were all indicators of how committed they were to their current relationships and whether it lasted (in heterosexual college students).
Evaluating Rusbult (2)
- These results were repeated in married couples, homosexual couples and in other cultures. Therefore this has population validity. However, this was based on short-term relationships which questions that validity of the research, the findings may not be applicable to long-term relationships.
- Clark & Mills: They found that there are 2 types of relationship; Communal- concern for others’ needs and welfare with no expectation of being repaid. Exchange - benefits are given in exchange/response to benefits being repaid.
IDA social exchange theory (2)
- Cultural bias: Cannot generalise these findings across cultures. Western and non-Western relationships are dominated by different concerns and features. i.e. exchange, profit and loss are all features of a capitalist society.
- Subjective: The idea of costs and rewards is subjective thus hard to measure. This makes the theory difficult for empirical investigation.
Equity Theory
(Walster et al): development of SET. Couples observe what they and their partner put into a relationship. If equal then more likely to be satisfied thus maintaining the relationship. If they feel over/under benefited they are less likely to be happy.
Equality can be restored by reducing/increasing inputs.
Research Evidence for Equity Theory
Hatfield et al:
500 college students asked to judge how equitable their relationships were.
After 3 months the least equitable relationships were more likely to have ended.
IDA for equity theory
Cultural differences:
Aumer-Ryan and Hatfield: Men and women from University of Hawaii (UH) (individualistic culture) and University of the West Indies (UWI) (collectivist culture) given questionnaires on importance of equity. Both countries considered equity to be very important. UH sample was most satisfied when the relationship was equitable. UWI were most satisfied when they were over benefitting.
Shows in both collectivist and individualistic cultures equity is important. But satisfaction varies depending on how benefited they are in the relationship.
Cultural bias: Can only apply to western relationships with high mobility. It only reflects characteristics of individualist societies where members are concerned with their own success - profit and loss in relationships.
Rollie and Duck
- Breakdown - one partner becomes increasingly dissatisfied.
- Intrapsychic - social withdrawal and resentment. Focus on partners faults and sense of being under-benefitted leads to consideration of possible alternatives.
- Dyadic - talking about issues in a constructive way, attempting to save the relationship i.e. making agreements. Highlighting reasons to maintain or terminate relationship.
- Social - breakup made public, breakup is inevitable. Others offer advice and support.
- Grave-dressing - create an account of how it came about and ‘died’. Ex-partners must begin to organise post-relationship lives.
- Resurrection - preparation for relationships afterwards. Defining what they want and what to avoid in the future.
Research Evidence for Rollie and Duck’s model:
Duck (2001): This supports the ‘grave-dressing’ process as it shows a number of formats of a breakup ‘story’ being formed.
Tashiro and Fraizer: Identified ‘grave-dressing’ and ‘resurrection’ in real life breakups as individuals reported clearer ideas of desired future relationships/partners.
methodological evaluation of studies looking at breakdown of relationship
Breakdowns tend to be studied in retrospect which means that the events may not be accurately reported.
