Theories of romantic relationships: Flashcards
social exchange theory, equity theory and Rusbult’s investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment. Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases.
what are theories of romantic relationships?
social exchange theory
equity theory
Rusbult’s investment model
Duck’s phase model
what is social exchange theory?
Thibault and Kelley suggest an economic theory of romantic relationships
involves a cost-benefit analysis as individuals will want to maximise rewards/profits and minimise cost/losses when starting or maintaining a relationship - similar to businesses
this is called the min-max principle as people look for mutually beneficial arrangements that result in stable and successful relationships
what are the rewards of a relationship?
self-esteem, entertainment, gaining financial security, friendship, sex
we are more attracted to people that offer this
what are the costs of a relationship?
giving up time, emotional instability, stress, losing financial stability, opportunity cost
we are less attracted to people that cause this
what is comparison level?
the estimation of how rewarding a relationship should be
we decide this by comparing our current relationship to previous relationships, other people’s relationship or relationships seen in media
acceptable CL changes over time and depends on self-worth
what is comparison of alternatives?
people look at other potential partners or no partner at all and consider if that would result in a higher profit
if higher profit can be found with an alternative, the original relationship with end
research evidence for social exchange theory
Rusbult used a longitudinal questionnaire study with 17 male and 17 female participants in heterosexual relationships with people outside the study
questions included costs, rewards, investment and comparisons with alternatives
findings indicated that cost benefit applied less to the start of a relationship but were considered more as relationship developed
comparison with alternatives decreased over time as satisfaction and commitment increased
suggests people consider whether to end relationship by assessing alternative options and overall profit
+: Spreecher conducted a study of 101 dating couples - found as the availability of alternative partners increased level of commitment and satisfaction decreased - suggesting that people are more satisfied when there are no alternatives or that satisfied people will not look for alternatives
-: low validity as it is difficult to rate a relationship - considering reward and cost is an unconscious process
what is equity theory?
development of SET but includes equality
suggests that people are more satisfied if they feel the balance of rewards and costs between partners is similar or they believe they are getting what they deserve
this means that both partners profits - loss = same
e.g. one partner may put a lot into a relationship but get a lot out while the other gets less out but puts less in
what are over-benefits?
if one partner gets more overall profit they will feel personal shame and pity towards the other partner and may feel guilty
what are under-benefits?
if one partner gets more overall costs they will feel resentful and become angry towards the other partner
what is the impact of time on the equity theory?
over time, what is considered unfair may change
early in the relationship, attraction may be seen as more important than equity
the longer the relationship, the less likely you are to keep score of profits and costs
research evidence for equity theory
Utne used a self-report method on newly married couples who had been together for more than 2 years
questionnaire recorded their perceived level of equality and measured stability and distress of relationship
found that partners who felt they were treated with more equity thought the relationship was more stable and were happier in it
found no sex differences when it comes to equality
suggests feelings of equality are important for stable relationships - supports equity theory
-: research is correlational - lack of equality ≠ dissatisfied relationship - could be that dissatisfaction results in partner perceiving their relationship is not equal
evaluations of SET and equity theory
- assumes people are logical in calculating relationship decisions - cannot explain illogical relationships like abusive relationships with little affection
+ describes a range of individual differences in relationships as rewards and costs differ depending on the person
+ explains that attractiveness becomes less important over time - seems to be true - SET too simplistic - doesn’t consider role of equality within a relationships and assumes that as long as both partners are in profit the relationship will continue - if one person puts more in than the other they are likely to become dissatisfied
- culturally biased - satisfaction levels are less important in collectivist cultures e.g. arranged marriages - avoiding shame is more important that satisfaction
what is the investment model?
Rusbult developed SET
suggests that when deciding to continue a relationship, ore things need to be considered than just satisfaction
commitment = satisfaction - alternatives + investment
what is investment size?
investments are rewards or costs that cannot be easily recovered in a break up or may be difficult to divide
these can be intrinsic or extrinsic
e.g. shared friendships are rewarding
finances would be costly
what are intrinsic investments?
resources put directly into the relationship e.g. emotional work, time spent and self-disclosure, children
what are extrinsic investments?
resources that used to be outside a relationship but have become strongly connected
e.g. mutual friends, memories, possessions like a house, activities and events that become associated
how can commitment be increased?
commitment is increased by the amount of investment as the person feels locked into the connection, ending the relationship would mean sacrificing the resources
research evidence for investment model
Rusbult used a longitudinal questionnaire study with 17 male and 17 female participants in heterosexual relationships with people outside the study
questions included costs, rewards, investment and comparisons with alternatives
findings indicated as relationships development, investment size increased which resulted in greater commitment and a reduction in quality of alternatives
suggests that commitment is linked to investment size which influences stay/leave decisions
-: low validity as it is difficult to rate a relationship - considering reward and cost is an unconscious process
+: study used Rusbult’s investment model to measure commitment, investment, alternatives and satisfaction on women who had suffered intimate partner violence - findings supported investment model as higher commitment was linked to women with the most investments - findings may not generalise to women not in abusive relationships
evaluations for investment model
+ investment cost applies to multiple cultures but have different considerations of what counts as an investment - supported by meta-analysis across 5 countries
- correlational method cannot establish cause and effect - could be that high investment results in high commitment
+ explains what SET and ET cannot - why abusive partners stay in a bad relationship
+ explains long-term relationships but cannot be used to explain early relationships where investment costs are low
- uses self-report method - may lack validity due to response bias or social desirability bias
what are 3 reasons why a relationship might breakdown according to Duck?
pre-existing doom: individuals are incompatible from the start
mechanical failure: compatible people are no longer able to function as a couple
sudden death: traumatic event ie cheating
what is Duck’s phase model?
explains the stages of a relationship breakdown
Duck says ‘a breakup isn’t sudden but as a result of distinct phases’
what is the first phase of relationship breakdown?
intra-psychic phase
one or both partners consider feelings about problems in their relationship or behaviour of their partner
may plan to confront partner, save relationship or look for alternative
often confide to friends
what is the second phase of relationship breakdown?
dyadic phase
partners confront each other to discuss issues
includes conversations about inequity, intimacy and costs of breakup
what is the third phase of relationship breakdown?
social phase
announce breakup to social network
engage in activities aimed at getting over relationship e.g. going out and practical aspects are negotiated e.g. shared custody of children
friends and family pick sides and provide support
what is the fourth phase of relationship breakdown?
grave-dressing
partners create a narrative of how the break-up occurred to save save
often blames partner or circumstances out of their control
question their decision and consider how break-up has impacted their social network
research evidence to support Duck’s phase model
Tashiro and Frazier used a self-report survey on 96 undergrad students - recalled experience of breakup
findings indicated after a breakdown PPs experienced both emotional distress and personal growth e.g. improving agreeableness
suggests relationship breakdowns are staged with grave-dressing stage allowing recovery
-: lacks population validity - may not be generalisable to wider population
-: lack validity - may suffer from bias or due to reconstructive nature of memory
+: study demonstrates aspects of model applies to virtual communication - social phase activities include changing facebook status and taking down tagged photos and grave-dressing includes emphasising they’ve moved on through photos of nights out
evaluations of Duck’s phase model
+ resurrection stage added later - focuses on time taken to focus on themselves for personal growth e.g. learning new hobbies and interests
+ application to couples therapy - may be able to prevent other stages by improving communication during dyadic phase
- contains beta bias - men often suggest a lack of sex is responsible for breakdowns and men often suggests no emotional support is responsible
+ high face validity - related to many people’s experiences
