Relationships Flashcards
Rewards and punishments
Need/reward
All to do with operant conditioning, if that person brings positive stimuli (attractive, money, love) then we the behaviour of being with them is reinforced. As we avoid the negative stimuli we get into relationships with people that we associate with positive reinforcement.
Attraction through association
Reward/ need
Classical conditioning, sometimes people are associated with a positive event and this makes us like them. If we meet someone in a bad mood then we won’t be as attracted to them if we meet them in a good mood. We associate them with positive feelings so we are attracted to them, the balance of positive and negative feelings is vital in relationships.
Griffith and guay
1969, Found supporting evidence for operant condition, when people were asked to make a creative piece they were evaluated. When asked if they like the experimenter those who had been positively evaluated rated him more highly.
Mundane realism (need/reward)
The research took place in labs so it lacks mundane realism.
Aaron (evolutionary)
2005, He found that our reward system that is based around romantic love is an evolved mechanism so that our ancestors placed all of their courting energy on one individual which Increased their success. Also love as first sight speeds the process up.
Aaron (brain)
2005, Found that participants who measured highly on self report questionnaires on romantic love had higher levels of brain activity. In early relationships where the interest is high the ventral tegmental area is stimulated and more dopamine is released.
Sheldon
2011, Found a positive correlation between fb use and both positive/negative relationship satisfaction levels. Those who were connected only went online because their sociability drove their satisfaction with reaching out to others. Those who weren’t connected went on fb because they weren’t satisfied with relationships in real life.
Cate et al
1982, Asked 337 individuals to asses their current relationship in terms of reward level and satisfaction and found that the reward level was the most important determinant.
Lott
1994, Cultural bias, she found that other/ non western cultures are more concerned about the collective rather than receiving reinforcements.
Similarity theory general points
Byrne, clore, smeaton; 1986
We get into relationships with people who are similar to us, we do this by first getting rid of everyone who is dissimilar then we pick out from those who are left the one that is most like us.
Personality in the similarity theory
Berschied and reiss 1998,
We get with people who are similar to ourselves because it creates less conflict when we agree with everything.
Capris and herberner
1990, yes there is the idea of opposites attracting but they found that in terms of long term relationships and marriage
Similar couples last the longest
Attitude in the similarity theory
There will be a time when a couple argues but they go through attitude alignment where either one or both members changes their ideas in order for the relationship to grow and development - people don’t like to do this so we tend to pick people with similar personalities to ourselves.
Rosenbaum
1986, found that dissimilarity was more important that similarity. The dissimilar repulsion hypothesis has been tested in many countries and shows that when couples get together they may seem really similar but as they get to know each other they soon realise they aren’t similar at all and they end up being unattractive to each other.
Yoshida
1972, she found that a lot of the research for the similarity theory is all to do with personality and beliefs whereas there are loads of other (and more important) qualities like money and self concept that are ignored.
Condon and crank
1988, we get with similar people because it lowers the risk of rejection because they will actually be able to stand us. Plus it means that someone will always validate our beliefs and that is reinforcement.
Social exchange theory, profits and loss
1959, idea that every social behaviour is an exchange that can either leave us in profit of loss. We always want to be in profit so in terms of relationships we need to calculate how much we will gain from it. Costs include time, money, love and rewards include love, sex, companionship etc. Commitment is based on how much profit we will get from this relationship.
Social exchange theory, comparison level
1959, the comparison level is what we create as a result of previous experiences in relationships. It’s what we expect from this potential relationship and we compare the two, if the profit from a potential relationship exceeds out comparison level then we will go for it but if we feel like we will be at a loss when comparing it to our cl then we won’t bother.
Social exchange theory, comparison level for alternatives.
When we are in a relationship we may meet someone who we would like to be with. The comparison level is then used against our current relationship whereby we see whether the profit of the new relationship will overcome the cost of ending the current relationship, if the profit succeeds the cost then we will start the new relationship.
Reward/ need satisfaction theory
General points
Byrne and clore, 1970
We are attracted to people because they bring satisfaction and gratification, positives include sex companionship ect and negatives include effort and arguing. We avoid the negatives and focus on the positives and tend to find our unmet needs in someone. Mutual attraction occurs when each person fits the others unmet needs.
Rusblut and Martz
1995, women stay in abusive relationships because the rewards (having a house, money and being able to see their children) is more than the costs (being homeless, having no money etc)
Simpson
1990, comparison level
One way of ruling of any potential threats to the relationship is to make everyone other than your girlfriend seem ugly. They asked people to rate members of the opposite sex and those who had girlfriends/boyfriends rated them the lowest (so the alternative was not as profitable as their current partner)
Duck and Sants
1983, they criticised the social exchange theory because it focuses too much on the individuals perspective and ignores social perspective such as communication and interpret shared events.
Moghaddam
1998, suggests that economic theories only apply to western cultures and even then it’s more students. This is because they are only interested in short term relationships therefore they are concerned with what they will get out of it.
Equity theory; inequity and distress
Walster 1978,
Extension of the social exchange theory, where they individual is not concerned with their gain but in gaining equity with their partner. It’s an equation where neither person can be over or under benefited, if they are under-benefited then they will feel under appreciated whereas if they are over-benefited then they will feel guilty which will lead to frustration.
Equity theory; ratios of inputs and outputs
Walster 1979,
Important to realise that equity does not mean equality and that for each person the costs and rewards are totally different. Some people are happy to put loads in and get nothing back and some people want to put nothing in and get loads back, Thai is fine as long as they are balanced with the other person and both people see this as equitable.
Clark and mills
1979, suggested that to see relationships as a equation is completely wrong. They saw that this was the case for exchange relationships (acquaintances and business partners) but communal relationships (between family, lovers etc) were more to do with the individual trying to make the other person happy.
Demaris
2007, they looked at martial disruption and whether it was connected to inequity. He looked at 1500 couples through the marital and home survey and found that the only inequity that had an effect was when women felt under benefited, this disruption eventually ended in divorce.
Ragsdale and Brandau-brown
2007, claimed that this was an insufficient theory because it didn’t take into account the behaviour or communication between couples.
Seil and weltman
1991, found gender differences. When the male was earning more both the man and woman accepted that the male was the breadwinner and had the superior job however when the female earned more neither accepted that the female was superior.
Reasons for relationship breakdown DUCK
1999,
Lack of skills- relationships don’t work because some lack interpersonal skills, they are poor communicators they never show interest and they don’t provide the other person with any mental stimulation or rewards.
Lack of stimulation- set shows that we need rewards in order to see a relationship as worthwhile and without the stimulation we can become bored (boredom is a really common reason for breaking up)
Maintenance- when people move (especially uni) then it becomes too difficult and the relationship breaks down
Boekhout
1999, extramarital affairs are one of the main reasons, they seem to be because of perceived lack of stimulation and/or skills. He asked undergraduate students to rate each reason and found that males tend to say lack of stimulation whereas women tend to use lack of skills.
Rohfling
1995, maintenance is not much of a problem anymore. He found that 90% of students experience long distance friendships and 70% have long distance relationships. Because society is such a mobile thing now and travel is so easy this isn’t a problem anymore.
Gender differences for DUCK relationship breakdown
Women tend to say unhappiness and incompatibility whereas men tend to say lack of sex and stimulation.
Model of breakdown
Duck and Rollie
2006,
Breakdown- dissatisfaction, kept to themselves, link to inequity
Intrapsychic processes- again kept to themselves but they start to write it down, keep track in other ways
Dyadic processes- now they confront their partner, may be able to save it at this stage
Social processes- now everyone knows, they offer advice and support and even extra info to try and help put it back together
Grave dressing- relationship is gone so they try and make themselves out to be nice for new partners, all to do with creating a story and making the other one look bad
Resurrection- now try and put things behind them and get into a new relationship
Ethical issues with research into relationship breakdown
May cause psychological stress, may have issues of privacy and for those who have been abused it may cause them to be in harms way again.
Real world application, breakdown
Through talking to couple who is going through problems (communication is key) a therapist can quickly see which stage they are in and recommend appropriate interventions.
Tashiro and Frazier
2003, asked uni students who had recently been in a breakup what they thought, they reported emotional stress but also personal growth. Grave dressing and resurrection meant that they could move on.
