Theories of Romantic Relationships (Relationships) Flashcards
Social Exchange Theory
• uses concepts from economics and from operant conditioning
• we form a relationship if it is rewarding
• we attempt to maximise our rewards and minimise our costs
• the rewards minus the costs equals the outcome
• we commit to the relationship if the outcome is profitable
Rewards-Cost=Outcome
Thibaut and Kelley (1959)
• the exchange comes from the assumption that when people receive rewards from others they feel obliged to reciprocate
• rewards and costs are subjective, therefore there is a wide variety of outcomes and these rewards and costs can lose or increase their value as the relationship progresses
Minimax Principle
• Rewards: companionship, sex, praise, emotional support
• Costs: missed opportunities, time, stress, money
Blau (1964)
• relationships can be expensive- time, cost, energy, stress
• opportunity cost can be incurred
-time and energy invested in your relationship means using resources you cannot invest elsewhere
Comparison Level
• the amount of reward you believe you deserve to get
• based on experiences in previous relationships which feeds into the expectations of our current one
• influenced by social norms: determined within a culture, a reasonable level of reward
• CL changes as we acquire more data from experiences, based on social norms when we have no experience
Comparison Level for Alternatives
• in your current relationship, you consider whether you could gain greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship or from being single or whether you could do better
• SET predicts that we will stay in our current relationship only as long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternative
• Duck (1994)- plenty more fish in the sea
Relationship Development (Long Term Relationships)
- sampling
-we consider the potential rewards and costs of a relationship and compare it with other relationships available at the time
-we do this in non-romantic relationships as well - bargaining
-we give and receive rewards to test whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile
-negotiate what is most profitable - commitment
-the relationship increases in predictability so each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other, which lowers costs - institutionalisation
-the relationship norms and expectations are firmly established
What does the SET predict in terms of CL and CLalt?
• rewards you believe you deserve- develops from experience in previous relationships
• influenced by social norms
• greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship make it more attractive
• more attractive if costs are higher in current relationship
Clark and Mills (2011)
-argue that SET fails to distinguish between two types of relationships
-they suggest that exchange relationships, such as between work colleagues, does involve social exchange as the SET predicts
-communal relationships do not keep tabs on rewards and costs
-SET claims that reciprocal activities are monitored and weighed up
(evaluation of SET) direction of cause and effect
-Argyle (1987) argues that we do not measure costs and rewards in a relationship, nor do we constantly consider the attractiveness of alternatives- The dissatisfaction comes first
-Miller (1997) found that people who rated themselves as being in a highly committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people- less time spent looking was a predictor of the relationship continuing two months later
(evaluation of SET) ignores equity
• Central concern of SET is comparison level- ratio of perceived rewards
and costs
• Ignores fairness or equity (we will discuss in more detail soon)
• Fairness is more important than rewards and costs in relationships
(evaluation of SET) measuring SET concepts
• Concepts are difficult to quantify
• Rewards and costs are defined superficially in order to measure them
• What about psychological rewards and costs?
• What is the value of CL and CLalt before dissatisfaction threatens a
relationship?
• Can we do this in a valid and reliable way?
(evaluation of SET) artificial research
• Supporting research of SET use artificial tasks in artificial conditions.
• Game-playing scenario- two strangers work together and rewards and
costs are distributed.
• The two partners know nothing about each other and their so-called
relationship depends on the task they are performing together.
• Research using real partners have been less supportive of SET
(evaluation of SET) explanatory power
The Cl-alt helps to explain why somebody would terminate a relationship
they were not satisfied with (in that the alternative partner can offer even
more!)
It could help explain why people may stay in an abusive relationship. If
someone has put a lot into the relationship and there is no Cl-alt then they
may stay in that relationship
Rusbult’s investment model (1980)
stability of a relationship over time is determined by how committed the individuals are to the relationship, and that commitment depends on:
• satisfaction- does the relationship fulfil the person’s needs
• comparison of alternatives- could their needs be better fulfilled in another relationship
• investment- how much has the person put in to the relationship, emotionally, for example
-quality of alternatives
• attractive alternative=they may leave the relationship
• no alternative exists=they may maintain the relationship (increases satisfaction)
• however, sometimes having no relationship is a more attractive alternative than being in an unsatisfactory one
Investments
anything that a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if it ends
• intrinsic investments: what we put directly in: time, personal information, money, self disclosure, energy, emotions
• extrinsic investments: resources associated with the relationship: shared things that may lost, like pet, friends, children, memories
(investment model) satisfaction vs. commitment
Rusbult et al. (2011)- argued that the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in relationships is not satisfaction but commitment
(investment model) relationship maintenance mechanisms
• commitment expresses itself in everyday maintenance behaviours
• enduring relationships do not engage in tit-for-tat retaliations but act to promote and accommodate the relationship
• put partner’s interests first- willingness to sacrifice
• forgiveness for serious transgressions
Research support for investment model
• Rusbult asked college students in heterosexual relationships to complete questionnaires over a 7 month period
• they kept notes about how satisfactory their relationship was, how it compared with others and how much they had invested in it
• students also noted how committed they felt to the relationship and whether it had ended
• found that people who stayed in relationships had more satisfaction and had invested more, while those who decided who break up had lower satisfaction and investment and better alternatives
• this was found in homosexual relationships in other studies as well
Le and Agnew (2003)
- conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies, including 60 independent samples and 11,582 participants
- results indicated satisfaction with, alternatives to, and investments in a relationship each correlated significantly with commitment to that relationship
- commitment was found to be a significant predictor of relationship breakup
- support for the model was obtained in predicting commitment in both relational domains (e.g. commitment to a romantic partnership) and nonrelational domains (e.g. commitment to one’s job), but was significantly stronger in relational domains
Rusbult and Martz (1995)
Explaining abusive relationships
• the investment model is thought to be particularly valid and useful in explaining relationships involving Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
• they asked women living in refuge why they had stayed with their abusive partners instead of leaving them as soon as the abuse began
• as predicted by the model, women had felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when their economic alternatives were poor and their investment was great
Jerstad (2005)
• found that investments (time and effort) were the most important predictor of whether to stay with a violent partner
Goodfriend and Agnew (2008)
-investment model oversimplifies investment
• there is more to investment than the resources put into relationships
• in the early stages very little investment is made
• investment in future plans- motivation to commit to each other to see their future plans pan out
• limited explanation because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment
Equity Theory
• SET says behaviour is a series of exchanges- benefit and cost -whilst Equity theory says people strive to achieve fairness in their relationships
• any kind of inequity can make people feel distressed
The distinction between Equality and Equity
• equity doesn’t equal equality
• equity is fair; very subjective
• so if one person thinks they are putting in less, it’s still judged equitable if they think they are getting out less
Satisfaction and perceived fairness
• under benefit: anger, hostility, resentment and humiliation
• over benefit: guilt, discomfort and shame
Walster (1978) Principles of Equity Theory
• Profit: rewards are maximised and costs minimised
• Distribution: trade-offs and compensations are negotiated to achieve fairness in a relationship
• Dissatisfaction: the greater the degree of perceived unfairness, the greater the sense of dissatisfaction
• Realignment: if restoring equity is possible, maintenance will continue with attempts made to realign equity
Consequences of Inequity
Changes in perceived equity
• at the start of a relationship it may feel perfectly natural to contribute more than you receive
• if this continues, it will not feel as satisfying as the early days
Dealing with inequity
• if the relationship is salvageable, the ‘put-upon’ partner will work hard to make the relationship work
• cognitive approach: revise the benefits and costs even if nothing changes
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown (2007)
• relationships are highly complex and this applies as much to thier breakup as to their formation and maintenance (this not only applies to romantic relationships, but to friendships as well)
• the end of a romantic relationship indicates that the two people are now legitimately available as partners for other relationships
Duck’s main three reasons for why relationships break up
- Pre-existing doom: incompatibility and failure are fairly much guaranteed from the start of the relationship
- Mechanical failure: two compatible, well meaning people grow apart and find that they cannot live together any longer
- Sudden death: discovery of infidelity or the occurrence of a traumatic incident (such as a huge argument) lwads to immediate ending of a relationship
Duck’s other factors contributing to relationship dissolution
- predisposing personal factors: individual’s bad habits
- participating factors: love rivals, working hours, lack of relationship direction
- lack of skills: sexually inexperienced
- lack of motivation: perceived inequality
- lack of maintenance: spending too much time apart
Intra-Psychic phase
• threshold: ‘I can’t stand this anymore’, indicating a determination that something has to change
• Cognitive processes within the individual
• partner assesses adequacy of partner’s role performance; broods on dissatisfaction, centring mostly on their partner’s shortcomings
• weigh up pros and cons and evaluate against the alternatives
• consider cost of withdrawal
• make plans: face ‘express/repress dilemma’- whether you should express your dissatisfaction or keep it to yourself
Dyadic Phase
• threshold: ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’
• face up to ‘confrontation/avoidance dilemma’
• Confront partner
• negotiation through ‘our relationship’ talks; dissatisfaction aired- anger, resentment etc.
• attempt to repair and reconciliation?
• assess joint costs of withdrawal or reduced intimacy
Social Phase
• threshold: ‘I mean it’
• negotiate post-discussion state with partner
• initiate gossip/discussion in social networks; seek support
• create publicly negotiable face-saving/blame-placing stories and accounts
• some friends will hasten the end of the relationship whilst others may try to help and repair it
• consider and face up to implied social network effect
• point of no return- the break up takes on a momentum driven by social forces
Grave-Dressing phase
• threshold: ’it’s now inevitable’
• perform ‘getting over it’ activities
• retrospective, reformative post mortem attribution; creating a personal story you can live with, which may differ from the public one- tidy up your memories
• publicly distribute own version of break-up; gossip plays an important role and it is crucial that each partner tries to retain some ‘social credit’ (La Gaipa 1982)
(Evaluations of Duck) an incomplete model
• Rollie and Duck (2006) stated that the model is oversimplified
• added the resurrection phase
• ex partners turn their attention to future relationships using the experiences gained from their recently-ended one
• Rollie and Duck stated that progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable- you can return to an earlier phase
• processes that occur rather than linear movement
(Evaluations of Duck) Methodological issues
• most of the research is retrospective- after a relationship has ended
• what is recalled may not be accurate or reliable
• early stages of breakdown tends to be distorted or ignored altogether
• it is almost impossible to measure when problems first appear
• researchers can hinder the relationship
(Evaluations of Duck) Description rather than explanation
• why do relationships breakdown?
• the theory cannot explain this
• Flemlee’s (1995) ‘fatal attraction hypothesis’ argues that the cause o relationship breakdown can be found in the attractive qualities that brought romantic partners together
• caused by getting too much of what we were looking for
(Evaluations of Duck) Cultural Bias
Moghaddam et al. (1993)
• relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end
• collectivist cultures are more likely to be obligatory, involve a wider family and do not end easily
(Evaluations of Duck) Useful real-life applications
• the model helps us identify and understand the stages of relationship breakdown and offer various ways to reserve the breakdown
• identifies different repair strategies are more effective at particular points in the breakdown
• Duck (1994) recommends that people in the intra-psychic phase could be encouraged to focus their brooding on positive aspects of their partner
• Dyadic phase- communication, any attempt to improve this and wider social skills could be beneficial in fostering greater stability
(evaluation of investment model) correlational research
• Strong correlations have been found between all the important
factors predicted by the investment model.
• However, even the strongest correlation is no evidence of causation.
• Most studies don’t actually allow us to conclude that any of the
factors actually cause commitment in a relationship.
• It could be the more committed you feel towards your partner, the
more investment you are willing to make in the relationship, so the
direction of causality may be the reverse of that predicted by the
model.
(evaluation of investment model) methodological strengths
• Much of the evidence supporting the Investment model relies on self-report
measures such as interviews and questionnaires.
• Generally these methods would be seen as a weakness but in this instance they
are the most appropriate methods to use because it’s not the objective reality of
factors that matter.
• What matters is the individual partner’s perception of these factors. It is your
belief that you have made a big investment in your current relationship, or your
belief that you have no attractive alternatives, that will influence your
commitment. Whether the belief matches the objective reality of the situation is
really neither her not there
(Evaluation of Equity Theory) supporting research evidence
- More valid than SET- Utne et al. (1984) conducted a survey of 118 recently married couples, measuring equity using two self-report
scales. - Aged 16-45 > two years of relationship before marriage.
- Results indicated that couples who considered their relationship
equitable were more satisfied. - Hatfield (1989) looked at people who felt over-or under-benefited.
The under-benefited felt angry and deprived, while the over-
benefited felt guilty and uncomfortable.
Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007)
• Compared couples in a collectivist culture and individualist culture.
• Couples from an individualist culture considered their relationships to
be most satisfying when the relationship was equitable.
• Collectivist couples were more satisfied when they were over
benefitting.
(Evaluation of Equity theory) Individual Differences
• Huseman et al. (1987) suggested that some people are less sensitive
to equity than others.
- Benevolents: prepared to contribute more than they get out
- Entitleds: who believe they deserve to be over benefitted and accept
it without feeling distressed or guilty.
(Evaluation of Equity theory) Clark and Mills 2011
• We should distinguish between different types of relationships.
• Research supports the view that equity plays a central role in causal
friendships, work relationships and acquaintanceships.
• In terms of romantic relationships, the evidence is mixed.
• Does the equity theory support romantic relationships?
• Berg and McQuinn (1986) equity did not increase in their longitudinal
study of dating couples
• ET does not distinguish between relationships that ended or
continued- self-disclosure does
Relationships
