The formation, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships Flashcards
What is the reward/need satisfaction model? (Byrne and Clore)
People form relationships because they find them rewarding. Rewards can be direct or indirect. People reward us directly (operant conditioning) by meeting our for friendship, love and sex etc. Argyle suggests that if we meet someone when we are sad and they help us to escape by offering comfort and support, this gives us negative reinforcement. This increases our liking for them and the chances of us forming a relationship with them.
People may reward us indirectly insofar as they are associated with pleasant circumstances (classical conditioning). Individuals are associated with reinforcement (because they provide it) so we are more likely to like them and enter in to a relationship with them. If we meet someone when we are in a good mood, we may associate that person with our good mood and want to form a relationship.
Describe some research evidence supporting the reward/need satisfaction model
May and Hamilton - Asked their female participants to rate photographs of attractive and unattractive males under three experimental conditions:
- whilst listening to rock music (positive affect)
- listening to avant-garde music (negative affect)
- or in silence
They found assessments of physical attractiveness were influenced by the music, with photographs in the rock music condition being rated as more attractive than photos viewed whilst listening to avant-garde music. This suggests that the association of photos with the pleasant or unpleasant music due to classical conditioning was the reason for this difference.
Evaluate/AID the reward/need satisfaction model
Equity theory suggests people are often more concerned about equity and fairness in rewards in relationships rather than just the desire to maximise their own rewards. So it may be that the reward/need satisfaction model presents an unrealistically selfish view of human behaviour. this certainly seems to be true in relation to some collectivist cultures where kinship bonds are very influential and are not dependent on reinforcement. Therefore the reward/need satisfaction model of relationships may be culture biased, in that it minimises important differences between cultures. Similarly, there are important gender differences that are insufficiently recognized by the theory - women tend to be more socialised to be more attentive to the needs of others rather than their own needs. However, it could be argued that meeting the needs of others is in itself is reinforcing.
What is the matching hypothesis? (Walster et al)
This suggests that people form relationships with other people to whom they are similar. this includes two specific hypotheses;
1. the more socially desirable a person is (in terms of physical attractiveness, social standing, intelligence, etc) the more desirable they would expect a dating or marriage partner to be.
2. Couples who are matched (both partners equally desirable) are more likely to have happy enduring relationships.
individuals looking for a partner will be influenced by the desirability of the potential match (what they want) and the probability of the other person saying yes (what they think they can get). Murstein suggests that physical attraction is the major determinant of formation of relationships because it is an accessible way for each partner to rate the other at the very outset.
Describe some research evidence for the matching hypothesis
Walster et al - tested the matching hypothesis in the computer dance study. 752 graduates in an American university were invited to a dance. They believed they had been matched with their dates using a computer programme, but actually they were randomly assigned. Results from follow up questionnaires showed that liking for their dates was not influenced by intelligence or personality or how similar they were to each other in any way. Physical attractiveness of the partner was the most important factor (more even than the fear of rejection) in satisfaction with the date, and intention to request a second date. This provides evidence against the matching hypothesis.
however, walster repeated the study but this time allowing participants to meet their date before the night of the dance itself. This second study did show evidence for the matching hypothesis, with the more similar couples (in terms of physical attractiveness) more satisfied with their dates. Similarly, more recent research has found a stronger matching effect among more committed couples than for less committed couples, suggesting that the matching hypothesis may be more relevant in long term relationships.
Evaluate/AID the matching hypothesis
the matching hypothesis has become associated with the matching in terms of physical attractiveness alone. However, more recent studies have indicated individuals can sometimes compensate for their lack of attractiveness by offering other desirable traits e.g. an older wealthy man may pair up with a younger attractive woman. This is called ‘complex matching’. There are gender differences in complex matching as men value physical attractiveness in women far more than women value physical attractiveness in men. This gender difference means that it is easier for men to compensate for unattractiveness by providing other benefits (such as wealth or humour) than it is for women to do so. Therefore the theory of complex matching may be gender biased in that it minimises the differences between genders and may apply differently to males seeking a partner than to females.
Matching hypothesis is also oversimplified in that it sees the two individuals concerned as independent agents rather than in the context of their family and friends. Sometimes relationship formation is determined not by the individuals themselves but by third parties, for example, whether or not friendship groups are compatible could play an important role in the formation of relationship. In arranged marriages, families may consider themselves better to judge compatibility in the long run than their children who may be swayed by emotions or hormones, so there may be an issue with culture bias in this explanation of the formation of relationships. however, it is likely that in these cases complex matching is applied by families arranging the match, as negotiations often take into account factors such as economic status as well as appearance and social standing. Therefore matching hypothesis may after all be relevant cross culturally in a slightly modified form.
What is social exchange theory? (SET) (Thibaut and Kelley)
Social behaviour is viewed as a series of exchanges between individuals. Each person tries to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs. The exchange part of the process is that when individuals receive rewards from others, they feel obliged to reciprocate (give back). Rewards might include company, security and sexual favours. Costs might include physical or psychological abuse and loss of other opportunities. The rewards of the relationship need to outweigh the costs of a relationship in order for that relationship to be maintained. If the costs outweigh the rewards, then social exchange theory predicts that the relationship will breakdown.
When deciding whether to maintain or break up the relationship, there are also two levels of comparison to consider;
- the comparison between costs/rewards of the current relationship and what we have been used to in the past
- the comparison between costs/rewards and what we feel we could have in an alternative relationship.
However, people may not be quite as influenced by maximising their own rewards in relationships as social exchange theory initially suggests. Research has shown that for most people, profit is less important then fairness in relationships. This led to the modification of the social exchange theory in to the equity theory. In this version of the theory individuals are trying to maximise equality and minimise inequality in the relationship. People trying to maintain the relationship will negotiate the distribution of costs and rewards to achieve fairness. Unfair relationships will produce dissatisfaction which could lead to the breakdown of a relationship.
Evaluate/AID SET
There may be important individual differences which are not accounted for by SET, meaning that it is an oversimplification. Researchers have identified two styles of couples; exchange couples may well engage in this kind of ‘score keeping’ predicted by the theory, but communal couples are more relaxed about equity and tend to believe that rewards and costs will eventually balance out. These communal couples may be more typical of collectivist cultures where there is greater emphasis on the needs of groups than of individuals. Therefore SET may show culture bias in that it reflects the dominant values of individualism and capitalism in western society, but may apply less to relationships in collectivist cultures.
The social exchange theory presents a view of human behaviour that is socially sensitive as it suggests that we are all fundamentally governed by self interest. Many would argue that it does not take sufficient account of higher human emotions such as love, and the altruistic desire to make others happy. Social exchange theorists may argue that making others happy is itself rewarding and so this is an important reward of many relationships. However, this is a circular argument and means that the theory is therefore difficult to test empirically, being unfalsifiable, and so does not fit easily into psychology as a scientific discipline.
What is the investment model? (Rusbult)
the theory is a development of SET and has three main strands, only the last of which really differs from SET above.
- Satisfaction - as with social exchange theory, satisfaction is partly a product of the outcomes of a relationship (the rewards minus the costs)
- Comparison level - also part of SET - the costs and benefits are compared to a personal standard of what is acceptable, based on previous experience. If outcomes surpass the comparison level then the individual is satisfied in the relationship. If not, they are dissatisfied. There is also comparison for alternatives - if there is a more attractive alternative (being alone or being with someone else) then a person may be drawn to ending the current relationship. If no such alternative exists a person may persevere with the relationship.
- Investment - investment is anything a person puts in to a relationship that will be lost if they leave it e.g. times, emotional energy, shared friends or material possessions.
Rusbult predicted that a relationship will be maintained if the rewards outweigh the costs and if there has been significant investment in the relationship, and if it compares well to previous relationships or if there are few attractive alternatives available. Equally, an individual might maintain a relationship even when the costs outweigh the rewards, because they have invested heavily in the relationship. A relationship is most likely to breakdown when there has been little investment and if the costs outweigh the rewards, or there are better alternatives available.
Discuss some research evidence for the investment model and evaluate it relating to the model
Rusbult - tested this theory by asking college students in heterosexual relationships to complete questionnaires over a seven month period. Satisfaction, comparison and investment each contributed to commitment or relationship breakdown. High satisfaction and investment seem to be important in committed relationships. The existence of an attractive alternative appears to feature large in deciding to end a relationship.
This study seems to show good support for the importance of investment in maintaining relationships. However, we must remember that the data were collected by questionnaires which may have been affected by social desirability or demand characteristics. Generally relationships do not end in an entirely un-expected way, and it is possible that participants who suspected their relationship was in decline, minimised their assessment of how much they had already invested in it. Similarly, we are more likely to notice desirable alternatives when we are less secure in a current relationship. Therefore this study may show more about the way people assess investment and available alternatives at different points in a relationship, than it does about the value of the investment model in explaining maintenance or breakdown of relationships.
The importance of investment in relationship maintenance or breakdown is supported by a meta-analysis by Le and Agnew - which studied males and females from different cultures in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. This showed that the investment model is relevant not only to western heterosexual relationships (culture bias and heterosexual bias), which has been a criticism of much research. There does tend to be a publication bias in mainly publishing studies that show positive results, and others are less likely to be published. This means that the overall results from meta-analyses may not really be indicative of relationships in real life.
Further evaluate/AID the investment model
There are important practical applications of this research. Rusbult has carried out further studies on abused women in refuges, which showed that high investment is a significant factor in preventing women from leaving their abusive partners earlier. It may be possible to educate women (and perhaps men) about the dangers of high investment early in relationships which could make it easier to leave abusive partners. this is an important benefit of this research in promoting understanding of an extremely serious social issue.
Furthermore ethics are involved. Carrying out research in sensitive area raises particular issues of vulnerability, privacy and confidentiality. For example, a woman in an abusive relationship may fear recrimination from her abuser should he discover her participation in the research. Ultimately, the researcher faces a choice of pursuing valuable information or terminating their involvement with a participant to prevent any further harm from befalling them.
