Theories Of Romantic Relationships Flashcards
Outline the social exchange theory
behaviour in rships reflects economic theories - proposes rships involve the exchange of resources.
Rship is based on BENEFITS (rewards) that someone perceives they will gain vs the cost involved
Indvs attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs
MINI MAX STRATEGY
Calculate the outcome using cost benefits analysis OUTCOME = REWARDS - COSTS
Once rship starts costing more than benefitting, rship will fail and break down - no longer in profit
What are the two ways to measure profit (social exchange theory)
Comparison level - comparison of current rship, using past rships as a guide and early stages of rship (may also look at others’ rships)
comparison level for alternatives - other potential rships are looked at (past partner or considering other rship). if judged to offer more benefits = end rship
2 extra stages in which relationship develop (social exchange theory)
sampling stage - rewards and costs are assessed in a number of rships
commitment stage - rewards and costs become predictable as the rship enters new stages
positive EV of social exchange theory
evidence - RUSBULT AND ZZEMBRODT longitudinal study with 30 students in heterosexual rship complete questionnaire every 17 days for 7 months.
students weighed up costs and rewards - increases in rewards led to satisfaction but costs had little impact - significance of rewards.
evidence - HATFIELD found that partners underbenefitting in a rship felt angry and deprived whereas those overbenefitting felt guilty and uncomfortable = an equilibrium is required for rships to be effective.
negative EV for social exchange theory
cost of rships may not be important in all stages - RUSBULT costs arent considered during rship formation, only later when rships becomes important + beginning to break down (little concern fro paying for meals) = theory best suited for explaining maintenance and breakdown of rship
CULTURALLY BIASED - applies to western individualistic culture - other cultures, costs and benefits perceived in different manner (favour security more) = difficult to apply to other cultures.
not culturally relative?
explain the equity theory and give two ways rships can be saved
for a rship to work - both partners feel that the rship is fair
economic model - both partners’ profits are the same (fairness not equality)
indvs become dissatisfied when they feel they are suffering from inequity
if over-benefitting and under benefiting - receive more than they put in (leads to guilt, comfort and shame) or receiving more than they put in (anger, resentment, humiliation)
partners will recognise disparity and have chance to save rship
distribution - tradeoffs and compensations are negotiated to acheive fairness in a rship
realignment - restarting equity
positive EV equity theory
evidence - DAITON studied 219 indvs in romantic rships - found that those who perceived inequity had low satisfaction in rship BUT most were motivate to return to an equitable state = equity has major influence.
CROSS CULTURAL support - YUM researched cultural differences in 6 different cultures (US, japan, china, SK czech R) results:
- equitable couples performed most maintenance strategies (effort to keep equitable)
- most maintenance strategies were over benefiters.
= equity could be seen as a general nomothetic law (important in all cultures)
negative EV equity theory
not take into account INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES - not all partners are concerned about reaching equity - HUSEMAN - some people are less sensitive to equity than others and these were separated into 2 different types of people:
benevolents - those prepared to contribute more to the rship than they put in
entitleds - believe they deserve to over benefit and accept without feeling distressed / guilty.
THEORETICAL PROBLEMS -
(CAUSE ADN EFFECT)
inequity and dissatisfaction are certainly linked but could just be correlational. CLARK - most people dont think in terms of equity and rewards, if they do the rship is in trouble
= dissatisfaction causes equity and not the effect of equity.
draw the investment model of commitment
-satisfaction (Positive)
-alternatives (Negative)
-investments (positive)
–> commitment level ->
stay or leave decision
what three factors did Rusbult suggest commitment depends on?
satisfaction level - to what degree you partner meets your needs (sexual and emotional), cost benefit analysis applied, perhaps MINIMAX strategy utilised - benefit > costs = satisf.
(positive rship with commitment)
comparison - does the rship stand up to other possible alternatives (past/present). commitment to rship is stronger if needs are adequately met + low levels of perceived alternatives are available.
investment size - how much resources the rship has . longer it continues, the more the partners have invested (emotional care, kids) = stronger commitment.
intrinsic = things directly seen put in (money and time)
extrinsic = things that grew out of rship (shared kids, houses)
positive EV investment model of commitment
evidence - LIN AND RUSBULT found females generally reported higher satisfaction levels, poorer scores for alternative rships, greater investmenet and stronger commitment overall - supports there are GENDER DIFFERENCES but also back up research theories on evolutionary aspects.
importance of commitment as an indicator of rhip stability - meta analysis (LE) nearly 38,000 pts in 37 studies over 33 year period that predicted staying or leaving behaviour in marital rships - commitment/ lack of it is a strong predictor
negative EV for investment model of commitment
theoritical issues - future investments is important (GOODFRIED AND ANDREW) - rship could include planned investment, some rships persist due to faith in future plans (savings, kids, travelling) = seen as strong predictors
what are the thre major types of rship breakdown
pre existing doom - doomed from the beginning
mechanical failure - partners who are compatible slowly grow apart over long period of time
sudden death - cheating/ huge argument
what 5 minor reasons Duck proposed which contribute to rship dissolution
predisposing personal factors (bad habits)
predicting factors s(love rivals )
lack of skills (sexually inexperienced)
lack of motivation (inequity)
lack of maintenance (spending much time apart)
explain intrapsychic phase of DUCK’s model and which stage is it
first stage
INTRAPSYCHIC - personal focus on partner’s behaviours and assessing their faults - sense they are under benefiting
considering the costs of withdrawals and positive aspects of alternative rships - nothing is said to the partner (private dilemma) and signs of dissatisfaction picked up through non verbal communications.
explain the dyadic phase of duck’s model and state which stage it is
second phase
confront partner + discuss their feelings and future with an avoidance of dilemma.
feelings of guilt/ anger surface at this point and may also be reciprocated.
rship may be saved if partners re evaluate their feelings and goals
consider forces that bind them (kids)
both assess the costs of withdrawing
what is the social phase in DUCK’s model and which stage is it
third stage
initially go public with the potential breakup and seek support of third parties (blame placing stories)
involve denigration of partner and alliance building in wake of potential social network effect (friends take sides - have power to speed up or slow down breakup)
hard to deny there’s an issues BUT STILL ABLE TO SAVE BREAKUP
explain the grave dressing phase of duck’s model and which stage is it
FINAL STAGE
after rhsip collapsed formulate stories about how it ended - done retrospectively
people may offer strategic reinterpretations of events/ qualities of their partner.
offer public distribution of our own version
indvs portray themselves as trustworthy + loyal - key attributes to find a new partner
positive EV of duck’s model of rship break down
evidence - TASHIRO + FRAZIER survey 92 students - found number of personal growth factors that led from breakdowns to help in future (gained wisdom)
= supports final stage about recovery and personal growth
practical application - help prevent rship breakdown (couple’s therapy)
key advice tailor made for idvs - if some as clearly in intrapsychic stage they are encouraged to SPEAK TO PARTNER
someone in dyadic stage encouraged to speak to partner in NON CONFRONTATIONAL WAY
= restore possible break ups
negative EV ducks model of rship breakdown
starts at the point were dissatisfaction has occurred and missing crucial consideration - no reasons why dissatisfaction happens which has massive influence on breakup.
(big personal difference between them which lead to infidelity)
= doesnt give complete picture - incomplete
theoretical problem - occasions where whole phases missed out - some breakups go from intrapsychic to social, missing out entire phase (dyadic) in non confrontational manner
= lacks accuracy in how rships break down
