- Gottman (1992) found evidence that supports - found that individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently report a lack of positive behaviour exchanges with their partner, and an excess of negative exchanges - in successful marriages where happy, the ratio of positive to negative exchanges is 5:1but in unsuccessful marriages the ratio is 1:1 - study supports SET as it shows how rewards and costs are an important part of rs = application to couples who are having relationship problems = integrated couples therapy by Jacobson (2000) helps partners to break negative patterns of behaviours and to decrease negative exchanges, whilst increasing positive exchanges = SET is successful in helping couples to reconcile = it teaches couples how to maximise rewards and decrease costs in order for the rs to be more satisfying for both partners

- Argyle disagrees with the idea that people spend a great deal of time monitoring their relationship in terms of rewards and costs - Argyle states that people only monitor rewards and costs once the relationship becomes dissatisfying - Duck agrees with Argyle and states that we only look at comparison levels in a relationship when we are dissatisfied - not when we are happy and the relationship is successful = research by Littlejohn (1989) found that it is very difficult to define what is a reward and what is a cost in a relationship = this might differ from one person to another = e.g. a “cost” could be viewed as a reward to another person like having a child = SET needs to carefully examine how individuals view and think about rewards and costs - Blau would argue that human beings are selfish to think of relationship maintenance in terms of rewards and costs - SET rooted in the Behaviourist approach whereby the focus of relationship maintenance is about rewards and operant conditioning - but some relationships have little rewards but many costs e.g. violent relationships, but they still continue - so the cognitive approach might be able to explain the social exchange theory more accurately

- individuals try to maximise rewards and positive experiences in a relationship - whilst also trying to minimize the costs - aim is to try and make a profit

- Utne et al. (1984) used self-report scales to measure equity and satisfaction in recently married couples - 118 participants were aged between 16 and 45, and had been together for 2 years or more before marrying - study found that partners who rated their relationships as more equitable were also more satisfied with them = Stafford and Canary (2006), also found similar trends = study of over 200 married couples completed questionnaires on relationship equity and satisfaction = participants were asked questions about the ways they maintained their relationships = found partners who perceived their relationships as fair and balanced, followed by spouses who over-benefitted from the relationships, experienced the most satisfaction = those who under-benefitted showed lowest levels of satisfaction - supporting evidence from animal studies as well - Brosnan and de Waal (2003), in their study of capuchin monkeys - found that they if monkeys were denied their reward (a bunch of grapes) for playing a game whilst their partners received grapes they became very angry - suggests that the importance of equity in relationships has ancient origins

- Berg and McQuinn (1986), conducted longitudinal study on 38 dating couples - didn’t find any increase in equity over time - discovered that a high level of self-disclosure and perceived equity in the beginning of the rs was strong predictor that a couple would stay in - low equity in the beginning was a reliable predictor of a break-up - it seems that perceived fairness is either present or not in relationships from the start, and does not develop with time, contrary to the prediction of Equity Theory - contradict the idea that equity increases over time, after the initiation of a romantic relationship = there may be a cause and effect = some suggest that dissatisfaction may be the cause, not the consequence, of perceived inequity = Van Yperen and Buunk (1990) studied married couples and found that dissatisfaction in inequitable relationships increased with time, not the other way around = also some important individual differences in perception of equity = are people who are less sensitive to inequity and are prepared to give more in the relationships = others believe they deserve to over-benefit from relationships and don’t feel too guilty about this - important gender differences in perception of relationship fairness that Equity Theory ignores - Sprecher (1992) found that women tend to be more disturbed when under-benefitting from relationships, and feel more guilt when over-benefitting - DeMaris et al. (1998) suggest that women are more focused on relationships, and so are more sensitive to injustices - results indicate clear gender differences between males and females and highlight the importance of conducting research into males and females separately, to avoid gender bias - but this may result in an alpha bias and exaggerate differences between males and females that do not actually exist

Relationships: Theories of Romantic Relationships (L5-8) Flashcards by Bushra Bari

What is the social exchange theory?

proposed by Thibault and Kelley (1959)
theory of how relationships form and develop
assumes partners act out of self-interest in exchanging rewards and costs
satisfying and committed relationship maintained when rewards>costs and potential alternatives are less attractive than the current relationship
based on the economic assumptions of exchange, minimise losses and maximise gains
judge our satisfaction with a relationship in terms of the profit it yields, defined as the rewards minus the cost
rewards and costs are very subjective depending on the outlook of the individual this
means that a significant reward for one person might be seen as less valuable by another person
the value of rewards and costs may change over the course of the relationship
rewards include beneficial things such as companionship, sex and emotional support
romantic relationship is not always, ‘a bed of roses’ and can involve negative emotions too
= Blau (1964) who spoke in the economic language said relationships can be ‘expensive’ so costs include time, stress, energy and compromise etc.
= further mentioned how a
relationship incurs another cost – opportunity
= your investment of time and energy in your current
relationship means using resources that you cannot invest elsewhere

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What are the 2 ways in which profit is measured in a relationship, SET?

Comparison level, CL
- amount of reward that you believe you deserve to get
- develops out of our experiences of our previous relationships which feed into expectations current
- is also influenced by social norms within a culture what
is widely considered to be a reasonable level of reward
- experience with relationships allows us to change our CL
- consider that a relationship is worth pursuing if the CL is high
- is based on self-esteem
- someone with a low self-esteem will be satisfied with gaining a very small profit (or even a loss) from a relationship whereas someone with a higher self- esteem will believe they are worth a lot more
Comparison level for alternative, CLalt
- second measure of profit providing a wider context for our current relationship
- could we gain more profit from another relationship with less costs and more rewards? (or even being alone)
- ‘could I do better?’ or ‘is the grass greener elsewhere?’
- SET predicts that we will stay in our current relationship so long as we believe that it is more rewarding than alternatives

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What are the stages in which relationships develop, SET?

Sampling stage
- explore the rewards and costs of social exchange
- through experimenting in our own and observing others, can be same for friendships
Bargaining stage
- marks the beginning of rs when romantic partners start to exchange rewards and costs
- will negotiate and identify what is most profitable
Commitment stage
- as time goes, sources of costs and rewards become more predictable
- rs becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs fall
Institutionalisation stage
- partners now settled down as rewards and costs in rs are firmly established

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

SET +ve:

Gottman (1992) found evidence that supports
found that individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently report a lack of positive behaviour exchanges with their partner, and an excess of negative exchanges
in successful marriages where happy, the ratio of positive to negative exchanges is 5:1but in unsuccessful marriages the ratio is 1:1
study supports SET as it shows how rewards and costs are an important part of rs
= application to couples who are having relationship problems
= integrated couples therapy by Jacobson (2000) helps partners to break negative patterns of behaviours and to decrease negative exchanges, whilst increasing positive exchanges
= SET is successful in helping couples to reconcile
= it teaches couples how to maximise rewards and decrease costs in order for the rs to be more satisfying for both partners

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

SET -ve:

Argyle disagrees with the idea that people spend a great deal of time monitoring their relationship in terms of rewards and costs
Argyle states that people only monitor rewards and costs once the relationship becomes dissatisfying
Duck agrees with Argyle and states that we only look at comparison levels in a relationship when we are dissatisfied
not when we are happy and the relationship is successful
= research by Littlejohn (1989) found that it is very difficult to define what is a reward and what is a cost in a relationship
= this might differ from one person to another
= e.g. a “cost” could be viewed as a reward to another person like having a child
= SET needs to carefully examine how individuals view and think about rewards and costs
Blau would argue that human beings are selfish to think of relationship maintenance
in terms of rewards and costs
SET rooted in the Behaviourist approach whereby the focus of relationship maintenance is about rewards and operant conditioning
but some relationships have little rewards but many costs e.g. violent relationships, but they still continue
so the cognitive approach might be able to explain the social exchange theory more accurately

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is the equity theory?

economic theory of how relationships develop
acknowledges the impact of rewards and costs on relationship satisfaction
criticises social exchange theory for ignoring the central role of equity
is about whether the distribution of rewards and costs in the relationship is fair
proposes formula of fairness in relationships: one partner’s
benefits minus their costs, should equal another partner’s benefits minus their costs

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What happens if a relationship is seen as unfair?

they are going to be dissatisfied with it regardless of whether they are over-benefitting or under-benefitting
a person who gets more benefits out of relationships than they put in will feel guilt and shame
those who think they put a lot in but get very little back will be angry and resentful
longer this feeling of unfairness (lack of equity) goes on, the more likely a couple is to break up

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

How can dealing with equity change over time?

equity doesn’t mean equality
is not about the number of rewards and costs
rather about the balance between them
if a person puts a lot into a relationship and receives a lot, it will feel fair to them
perception of equity changes over time
e.g. it is perfectly normal for many people to put in more than they receive at the beginning of a relationship, but if it carries on like that for too long, it will lead to dissatisfaction.
a partner’s way of dealing with inequity also changes with time
what seemed unfair in the
beginning may become a norm as relationships progress
or the partner who gives more may start working even harder on the relationship until the balance is restored

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What are the 4 principles equity is based on?

1, profit
2, distribution
3, dissatisfaction
4, realignment

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is profit, ET?

individuals try to maximise rewards and positive experiences in a relationship
whilst also trying to minimize the costs
aim is to try and make a profit

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is distribution, ET?

negotiation needed in rs to ensure that fairness occurs in terms of rewards and costs distributed
e.g. negotiate chores or negotiate favours done for each other, so that the relationship will be successful
compensations might occur
e.g. one person does all of housework, but the other does all of the cooking and washing up, so it might be seen as fair

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is dissatisfaction, ET?

if the relationship is unfair or inequitable
produces stress and dissatisfaction especially
for the disadvantaged person

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is realignment, ET?

disadvantaged person will try to restore equity in the relationship so it can continue and be successful

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

ET +ve:

Utne et al. (1984) used self-report scales to measure equity and satisfaction in recently married couples
118 participants were aged between 16 and 45, and had been together for 2 years or more before marrying
study found that partners who rated their relationships as more equitable were also
more satisfied with them
= Stafford and Canary (2006), also found similar trends
= study of over 200 married couples completed questionnaires on relationship equity and satisfaction
= participants were asked questions about the ways they maintained their relationships
= found partners who perceived their relationships as fair and balanced, followed by spouses who over-benefitted from the relationships, experienced the most satisfaction
= those who under-benefitted
showed lowest levels of satisfaction
supporting evidence from animal studies as well
Brosnan and de Waal
(2003), in their study of capuchin monkeys
found that they if monkeys were denied their reward (a
bunch of grapes) for playing a game whilst their partners received grapes they became very angry
suggests that the importance of equity in relationships has ancient origins

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

ET -ve:

Berg and McQuinn (1986), conducted longitudinal study on 38 dating couples
didn’t find any increase in equity over time
discovered that a high level of self-disclosure and perceived equity in the beginning
of the rs was strong predictor that a couple would stay in
low equity in the beginning was a reliable predictor of a break-up
it seems that perceived fairness is either present or not in relationships from the start, and does not develop with time, contrary to the prediction of Equity Theory
contradict the idea that equity increases over time, after the initiation of a romantic relationship
= there may be a cause and effect
= some suggest that dissatisfaction may be the cause, not the consequence, of perceived inequity
= Van Yperen and Buunk (1990) studied married couples and found that dissatisfaction in inequitable relationships increased with time, not the
other way around
= also some important individual differences in perception of equity
= are people who are less sensitive to inequity and are prepared to give more in the
relationships
= others believe they deserve to over-benefit from relationships and don’t feel too guilty about this
important gender differences in perception of relationship fairness that Equity Theory
ignores
Sprecher (1992) found that women tend to be more disturbed when under-benefitting from relationships, and feel more guilt when over-benefitting
DeMaris et al. (1998) suggest that women are more focused on relationships, and so are more sensitive to
injustices
results indicate clear gender differences between males and females and highlight the importance of conducting research into males and females separately, to avoid gender bias
but this may result in an alpha bias and exaggerate differences between males and
females that do not actually exist

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Rusbult’s investment model?

model examines a range of factors which have an effect of the amount of commitment that people put into their relationship
and whether the relationship is likely to continue or not
involves satisfaction levels, comparison/quality of alt and investment size
higher commitment levels if high satisfaction, low comparison and high investment size

What are satisfaction levels, RIM?

the positive or negative emotional experiences that a person in a relationship feels
satisfaction influenced by extent to which their partner fulfills and gratifies their individual needs in the relationship
e.g. domestic/sexual needs
satisfaction levels can be compared against previous relationships
e.g. if someone feels more satisfied in their present relationship than they did in previous ones, then this is a positive outcome

What is comparison/quality of alt, RIM?

person might think about whether their important needs might be fulfilled better outside of the relationship
if there is an attractive alternative to the current relationship, the individual might leave the current relationship and not invest in it
if there are no good quality alternatives, the person might stay in their present relationship because there are no better options
alternative option could even be that the person wants to be single, as this might seem a better alternative than being in a poor quality relationship

What is investment size, RIM?

contributes to the stability of the relationship
is a measure of the importance and extent of the resources that are attached to the relationship
they could be lost if the relationship were to end, examples include mutual friends, home etc
partners invest in their relationship and create a strong foundation for the future and this could be costly to break
investment size is a powerful psychological force which motivates people to continue with their relationship, especially if they have put in a great deal of time and effort into the relationship

What are the types of investment, RIM?

intrinsic: direct investment such as money, energy or emotion
extrinsic: investment that was not present at the start of the rs but has developed over time, like children and shared memories

What is commitment level, RIM?

refers to the whether the relationship will persist and continue
if commitment is high and both partners are happy, the relationship should continue and survive
commitment should involve equity (a fair input from both partners)
there would be high losses if someone was to leave the relationship with the following traits, this would be very risky

What research was carried out on the investment model?

Le and Agnew conducted meta analysis on 52 studies between 1970-1990
explored different factors of the investment model
had 11,000 p form 5 different countries: UK, USA, Israel, Taiwan and Netherlands
findings showed that all 3 factors associated with commitment
sat+com significantly correlated with strongest correlation of +0.68
qual+com was lowest correlation with -0.48
inv+com has +0.46
those with high commitment likely to stay in rs, those will low likely to leave

RIM, +ve:

Van Lange (1997) supports Rusbult’s investment model when examining all of the key factors involved in the model
studied students from Taiwan and from the Netherlands
found evidence that high commitment levels in a rs were related to high satisfaction, low quality of alternatives and high investment size
= investment model is very useful because it can help explain the behaviour of infidelity which might occur if a person’s current relationship has low satisfaction and there is a high quality of alternative
= both these factors would lessen the commitment levels and the present relationship is likely to end and not continue
= Rusbult’s model can also explain why some people might stay in abusive relationships
= the satisfaction is low and the victim should really leave the relationship
= they might stay in the abusive relationship because there are a low quality of alternatives and the investment in the present relationship is too high, e.g. they have children
strength of being applied to explain the factor of commitment in a variety of different relationships
Rusbult administered Investment Model Scale questionnaires to participants in homosexual relationships
found that all factors of the investment model were found to be important when looking at commitment

RIM -ve:

very difficult to measure the factors of commitment, satisfaction, investment and quality of alternatives
Rusbult responded to this criticism and constructed an investment model scale which could measure each of the key variables in a reliable and valid way
research that Rusbult conducted using these scales involved self-reports
this then created further problems of social desirability bias
e.g. if pps were using the scale in terms of satisfaction, in order to look good, they may have pretended to be more satisfied than they were to show that they know how to maintain a relationship
= does not take into account gender differences that might exist when looking at relationships
= Lin found that females tend to report higher satisfaction, poorer quality of alternatives, greater investment and stronger commitment in relationships compared to males
= so gender differences do exist

What is Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown?

- relationship breakdown or termination occurs when one or both people in the rs feel that it is not working - so want the relationship to end - process of breakdown might begin when one partner becomes increasingly dissatisfied with the way the relationship has been conducted - they might think, “I cannot stand this anymore.” - there are 4 phases of relationship breakdown: intrapsychic, dyadic, social, grave dressing

What is the intrapsychic stage, DPM?

- 1st stage - characterized by the dissatisfied person privately thinking about their relationship - dissatisfied partner focuses on their partner’s faults and the fact that they are “under-benefitting” - they will re-evaluate their relationship - they might feel very depressed and then withdraw from social interactions with their partner and others - they do not say anything to their partner at this stage, but they might feel that they are better off leaving the rs

What is the dyadic phase, DPM?

- 2nd stage - involves a private discussion - partners communicate with each other about their problems or the perceived inequities - they might think carefully about investments they have in the relationships e.g. house, children, joint possessions etc - could be reconciliation if the other partner accepts the validity of the dissatisfied partner’s views and promises to change their behaviour or make agreements to sort out issues - marital therapy might be useful at this point if the process becomes difficult - pr the person might believe that, “I would be justified in withdrawing from the relationship” and the breakdown process might continue

What is the social phase, DPM?

- if there is a break up, it is made public to friends and family - means that people become informed and the problem is harder to deny or ignore - advice and support are given from people outside the relationship and alliances are made - this can involve criticizing former partners e.g. “I never really liked him anyway” and scape-goating, “It was all her fault.” - younger adults might experience breakdown very frequently in this period of their life - as they are striving to meet their ideal partner and are testing the market - older couples experience breakdown less frequently, and some might be resigned to not finding a new partner in the future if the relationship breaks down

What is the grave dressing phase, DPM?

- as the relationship dies and breaks down, there is the need to mourn and justify our actions - we need to create an account of what the relationship was like and why it broke down - ex partners begin their post relationship lives and begin to publicise accounts of how the relationship broke down, making sure their social credit remains high - stories might be told about betrayal, or how they both struggled to make it work - different versions of the relationship are given to different people - partners might reinterpret their point of view of their ex partners e.g. “they were rebellious” become “they were irresponsible.”

DPM +ve:

- model devised in 1982 so is old model and may lack temporal validity - but improvements made to the model as time has passed - Duck teamed up with a psychologist called Rollie in 2006 and introduced a fifth phase to this model called, “The Resurrection stage.” - is where the person engages in personal growth and gets prepared for new romantic relationships that they can start - Frazier (2003) studied 92 undergraduates who had just broken up with their partner - found that they did experience emotional distress but there was evidence of personal growth which links to the fifth stage of the new model (resurrection) - this model of breakdown is a good model as includes how a person can ‘get over’ their relationship and prepare for a new one so is not all ‘gloom and doom’ = research support from the Social exchange theory by Kelley = Kelley would state that if a relationship has high costs and minimal rewards then the relationship is not worth continuing, but instead would probably breakdown and end = Duck’s model of breakdown can be analysed from the perspective of rewards and costs which links to the social exchange theory

DPM -ve:

- Akert found that the role that people had in deciding if the relationship should breakdown, was the most important prediction of the breakdown experience - Akert found that those who did not initiate the end of the relationship were the most miserable, lonely, depressed and angry in the weeks after the relationship ended - those who initiate the break down were the least stressed and least upset, but did feel guilty - Duck’s model does not take into consideration the role that people played in the relationship breakdown, and according to Akert, this is important = ignores gender differences that exist when analysing the breakdown of relationships = Kassin (1996) found research evidence to suggest that females emphasise unhappiness, lack of emotional support and incompatibility as reasons for relationship breakdown = whereas males state lack of sex/fun = females often wish to stay friends with an ex-partner, but males would rather have a clean break and not stay friends = Duck’s model needs to acknowledge that there are gender differences that must be considered when looking at his breakdown phase model - many ethical issues that need to be considered - relationship breakdown is a socially sensitive topic and there are many ethical issues that might arise from research - e.g. psychological harm might be an issue when people are recalling why their relationship broke down and the impact of this - invasion of privacy is also an issue that Duck would have to address when investigating relationship breakdown, as he must be careful not to ask too many probing questions that could cause upset - all results gained from participants should ensure confidentiality and anonymity in order to protect participants = could be viewed as reductionist and not very accurate = is reducing the complex phenomenon of relationship breakdown into 4 simple stages that must follow a specific order = irl it would seem unlikely that relationship breakdown can be compartmentalized or reduced into 4 basic stages = relationship breakdown is very unpredictable, and it could be the case that breakdown does not happen in this chronological order