Theories of romantic relationships Flashcards
Equity theory
-It’s an economic theory
-People want relationships to be fair and equal
-Emphasises the need for each partner to experience a balance between their rewards and costs. In other words, both partners profit if the same.
Fairness = satisfaction
Unfairness = dissatisfaction
How will the under benefitting partner feel?
Anger
Hostility
Resentment
How will the over benefiting partner feel?
Guilt
Discomfort
Shame
Dealing with inequity
The perception of inequity can change over time, for example, contributing more than what is received may be acceptable early on in a relationship, but will be perceived as unfair if it continues for a long period of time.
To deal with the inequity partner may:
1. work harder to try to restore equity
2.alternatively, a partner may cognitively revise their perceptions of what counts as rewards and costs, so that the relationship comes to be seen by them as equitable, even though nothing has really changed
Research support
Utne et al found that couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who reported themselves as underbenefitting or overbenefitting.
This study used self report measures, we usually consider this as a weakness, but in this case it’s a strength because it’s the persons perception that matters.
Whether they are actually over or under benefitting does not matter, it’s whether they think they are that matters.
If a person isn’t even aware they are under benefitting then they won’t be dissatisfied.
Gender differences
Researcher has found there are differences between the genders and how they experience equity
Sprecher
Women tend to be more disturbed when underbenefitting from relationships, and feel more guilt when over benefitting
Demarcis et al
Women are more focused on relationships, and so are more sensitive to injustices
These 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.
Culture bias
Couples from an individualist culture considered their relationship to be most satisfying when there is equity.
Couples from a collectivist were most satisfied when they were over benefitting. this was true of both men and women, so can’t be explained by gender differences.
This contradicts the theory’s claim that equity is a universal need in relationships and highlights a culture bias in this area of research.
Therefore, the theory is limited because it can’t account for the development of romantic relationships in all cultures.
Individual differences
Some researchers have suggested that not all partners are concerned with achieving equity (some are less sensitive to this than others)
Benevolents means well meaning and kindly
Entitleds means deserving of privileges or special treatment
Benevolents are happy to underbenefitting, entitled want to over benefit
Social exchange theory
An economic theory of romantic relationships where individuals want to maximise profits. Partners achieve this by maximising rewards and minimising costs.
Rewards = positives of a relationship, such as self esteem, satisfaction, sex
Costs = negatives of a relationship, such as stress, effort, arguments, compromises
Comparison level
The amount of reward you believe you deserve to get from the current relationship
Based on social normals, previous relationships, self esteem
Comparison level for alternatives
Concerns a persons perception of whether other potential relationships or being single would be more rewarding than being in their current relationship.
Depends on the state of our current relationship.
There’s usually plenty more fish in the sea but being in a satisfying relationship means you usually don’t see the alternatives.
When the costs of our current relationship outweigh rewards, alternatives are attractive.
Thibaut and Kelley’s 4-stage model
Sampling - partners explore different rewards and costs
Bargaining - partners exchange rewards and costs to find the most profitable situation
Commitment - relationship is stable, rewards and costs to become familiar
Institutionalisation - rewards and costs firmly established
Research support
Kurdek asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables.
He found that those partners who were most satisfied also perceived the most rewards and fewest costs. They also viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive.
These findings match predictions from SET that some people appear to base their evaluation of romantic relationships on rewards and costs.
Individual differences
A strength of SET is it can account for individual differences in attraction. As the theory states rewards and costs are subjective and mean different things to different people, what might be heavily rewarding to one person may be less rewarding to another person or not rewarding at all.
However, due to the rewards and costs and being subjective, this makes them vague and hard to define meaning we can’t operationalise them. Therefore, this makes SET difficult to test scientifically.
Real world application
Integrated behavioural couples therapy
Partners are encouraged to increase the amount of positive exchanges in a day and decrease the amount of negative ones
Furthermore
Christienen et al found two-thirds of couples who used IBCT reported their relationships had significantly improved and they were much happier
This shows the value of SET, as it can be used to help distressed couples in everyday life showing its value in benefiting relationships.
Reductionism
Social exchange theory tries to reduce the complex nature phenomena of romantic relationships down to rewards and costs.
It therefore can’t account for relationships where profit isn’t taken into account. For example, it can’t explain why people stay in abusive relationships despite have low rewards and high costs.
Therefore, a holistic approach may be more useful.
Ducks phase model assumptions
- the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time
- goes through four distinct phases
- each phase has a threshold where each partner’s perception of the relationship changes
Intra-psychic phase
Intra= inside
Psychic= mind
One partner privately perceives dissatisfaction with the relationship
But this is not disclosed to other people or the partner
Dyadic phase
Dyad= something that consists of two parts
Both partners are aware of the problem, there is discussion and confrontation
Social phase
Social= relating to other people
Partners disclose their problems to others
Friends, family become aware of the breakdown of the relationship
There is negotiation about practicalities
Grave-dressing phase
Grave= used as an allusive term for death
Each partner’s perception comes to terms with the breakdown
Each partner rationalises it by constructing a narrative of events
Weakness - fifth phase
A limitation of Duck’s phase model is there is a missing fifth phase. Rollie and Duck added a fifth phase called the resurrection phase. This phase involves partners applying what they learned from the recent breakdown to future relationship.
Therefore, the model is complete.
Reductionist
The model suggests partners take a linear movement through phases. However, in partners may return to an earlier phase at any point. Duck’s model does not take account of the complexity of relationship breakdown and its dynamic nature.
Lacks explanatory power
A limitation of Duck’s model is that it lacks explanatory power. Duck’s model is descriptive rather than explanatory, it only tells us what each phase looks like, instead of telling us the cause of each phase.
