researchers names 2 Flashcards
Clark and Mills
SET fail to distinguish bw exchange rel and communal rel
Argyle
we only weigh up cost and benefits or consider attractiveness of alts when we are dissatisfied in a rel
Utne
supp 4 ET
recently married couples
meas equity w/ 2 self report scales
couples who considered rel equitable more sta than those who saw themselves as underben/over ben
Aumer-Ryan
cultural differences in link bw equity and sat
indiv- sat when equitable
coll- sat when overben
Huseman
individual differences
some ppl less sensitive to rquity than others
benevolents- prep to contrib more than get out
entitleds- no guit when overben, feel deserved
Berg and McQuinn
equity dx increase in their longitudinal study on dating couples
SD sig more imp v in whether rel end/cont
Le and Agnew
supp 4 rubsult inv model
meta analysis, 52 studies, 11000 pts from 5 countries
sat , comp2 alt, inv size all predicted rel commitment
greatest commitment, most stable
men and women, all cultures, homosexual couple too
Goodfriend and agnew
inv model oversimplifies investment
more inv than what you already put in
little inv in beginning
future plans
Flemee
description rather than explanation
fatal attraction hypothesis, causes of breakdown can be found attractive qualities that brought the partners together
funny->not taking anything seriously
Moghaddam
cultural bias
indiv rel more voluntary
coll- ml 2b obligatory, less easy end, arranged
Walther and Tidwell
lack of supp 4 reduced cues theory
different cues in online interaction
Whitty and Joinson
supp 4 hyperpersonal model
Qs asked in online discussion- v.direct, probing, intimate
Sprecher and Hendrick
heterosexual dating couples, strong correlation bw sat and SD
Laurencea
dairy entries
Hass and Stafford
57% homosexuals said open and honest SD main way maintained and deepened committed rel
