Relationships - Maintaining Romantic Relationships and Breakdown Flashcards
The 3 maintenance of romantic relationships theories
1) Social Exchange Theory - Kelley
2) Walster’s Equity Theory
3) Rusbults Investment Model
Social Exchange Theory
Interactions and feelings are expensive as they take time and energy. For a relationship to be maintained individuals must feel that they are getting more out than they put in. degree of attraction reflects their views on the profits of the relationship.
A person assesses their rewards on two levels
1) Comparison. What are the rewards compared to the costs
2) Alternatives. What are the profits of this relationship compared to others that I might get involved in?
There were four stages proposed by Kelley and Thibaut:
1) Sampling - Rewards and costs are assessed in terms of their number
2) Bargaining - Relationships are costed out and profits and losses are identified
3) Commitment - Relationship is maintained by further predictable rewards
4) Institutionalisation - Interactions established and couples ‘settle’
Research support for Social Exchange Theory
Hatfield - those who feel under benefitted are angry and deprived, those who feel over benefitted feel guilty and uncomfortable
Mills - different kinds of intimate relationships where SET cannot be applied
Rusbult - SET can only be applied to the maintenance of relationships
Rusbult - women in abusive relationships return as they have no better alternatives
Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory
+ Research suggests people are not innately selfish but we assess other people in terms of how rewarding they are for us
+ SET progressed in equity theory suggesting changes with paradigms
- People are capable of being unselfish and so theory is simplistic
- Theory does not define true love of unlimited giving, only false love
- Methodologies have been criticised for being too artificial
Research is concentrated on short term maintenance and not long term relationships
Equity Theory
Individuals are motivated to achieve fairness in relationships. When it is deemed that one does more than the other it is inequitable (unfair). The identification of inequity in a relationship presents a chance for the relationship to be changed and so maintained further.
Walster based equity on four principles:
1) Profit - Rewards are maximised and costs minimised
2) Distribution - Trade offs are negotiated so the relationship is fair
3) Dissatisfaction - The greater the inequity the greater the dissatisfaction
4) Realignment - If rebalance is possible maintenance will continue
Research support for Equity Theory
Argyle - people do not think in terms of costs and rewards unless they are already dissatisfied
Murstein - conscious thoughts of fairness inhibit the compatibility in relationships, especially married couples
Dainton - from 219 participants, those who had perceived inequity rated their relationship lower but were motivated to return to a previous point of equity
Yum - cultural variations were limited in research on equity in other countries
Evaluation of Equity Theory
- Portrays peoples as selfish
- Simplistic view of relationships. Interdependence theory is a better view
- Equity in terms of emotional input is unquantifiable
- Research suggests equity is more important to females
- Societal views are seen cross culturally, eg: US prefer equity and EU prefer equality
Investment model of commitment
Rusbult determined three factors which are positively linked to commitment:
1) Satisfaction level. Positive vs negative effects in relationships. Satisfaction is based on the degree to which each individual partner’s needs are met.
2) Comparison with alternative. What is the perceived desirability of the best alternative to the relationship. If needs are better met elsewhere the alternative may be considered
3) Investment size. How much and how important are the resources which have been put into the relationship and would these be lost if the relationship broke down.
There are also two variables which can be linked to investment
1) Equity. Would ending the relationship stop the distress inequity causes
2) Social support. If others approve of the relationship this is a positive influence which increases the commitment
Research support for investment model
Rusbult - females score higher in satisfactions but lower in alternatives. They suggest there is more investment and stronger overall commitments then males
Rusbult - questionnaires (IMS) showed positive correlation between commitment and satisfaction
Rusbult - IMS given to homosexual relationships also supported all aspects of the theory
Van Lange - research in Netherlands and Taiwan show cross cultural validity
Evaluation of the investment model of relationship maintenance
+ A better predictor of long term relationships than other theories
+ Explains why people stay in abusive relationships when prospects of alternatives or support are low
+ Explains infidelity when satisfactions levels are low
- Research is reliant on self report measures which can show bias and idealised answers
Duck’s phased model of relationship breakdown - why do relationships breakdown?
Reasons for a relationship breakdown -
- Pre-existing doom - incompatibility
- Mechanical failure - growing apart
- Sudden death - infidelity, traumatic incident
Factors contributing to dissolution:
- personal factors
- precipitating factors
- lack of skills
- lack of motivation
- lack of maintenance
Dissolution normally occurs with one partner initiating the process:
- The private reasons for a breakdown in a relationship are normally different to the ones given socially
- Hatfield - the individual who experiences initial dissatisfaction experiences resentment and withdrawal
Duck’s phased model - Phase 1
Intrapsychic:
- Threshold - ‘I am done with this’
- Behaviours - focus on partner’s behaviour, adequacy in performance, costs of withdrawal and they either repress or express this
Evidence -
- Kassin - women stress the unhappiness and incompatibility for break ups whereas men blame lack of sex. Women like to remain friends but men prefer a clean break up.
- Argyle - women identify a lack of emotional support as reasons for dissolution wherese men cite lack of fun.
Duck’s phased model - Phase 2
Dyadic:
- Threshold - ‘I am justified’
- Behaviours - Confrontation or avoidance, Negotiation and relationship talks, Repair or reconciliation and Joint assessment of withdrawal
Evidence -
- Tashiro - when people who brought about dissolution review the relationship rather than own actions they see the breakup in a more positive light
Duck’s phased model - Phase 3
Social:
- Threshold - ‘I mean it’
- Behaviours - Negotiate post dissolution, Initiate social network, Create public accounts, Face up to implied social networking effects
Evidence -
- Akert - the person who starts the process of the breakup suffers fewer negative consequences than their partner.
- Dickson - the older the couple upon breakup the more serious and distressing the social group find it. Therefore they put more effort into trying to reconcile the pair.
Duck’s phased model - Phase 4
Grave dressing:
- Threshold - ‘This is inevitable’
- Behaviours - Getting over it activities, Retrospective post mortem, Public distribution of own version
Evidence -
- Tashiro - a survey of students about previous relationships showed a number of personal growth factors which helped in future relationships. Things such as feeling stronger, emotionally better off and more independent were noted. Participants also mentioned feeling an increased sense of wisdom which helped in future relationships and that relationships with friends had strengthened.
