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
Minimax Principle
- Rewards: companionship, sex, praise, emotional support
- Costs: missed opportunities, time, stress, money
Comparison Level
- comparing our relationship to previous ones
- 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 as well as being influenced by social norms
Comparison Level for Alternatives
- Looking at other potential partners and considering if they would give a higher profit
- SET predicts that we will stay in our current relationship only as long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternative if not the relationship will end
- Duck (1994)- plenty more fish in the sea
Relationship Development (Long Term Relationships)
SBCI
- 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
Positive evaluation of SET
Comparison level for alternative helps to explain why someone would terminate a relationship (alternative partner offers more)
If there is no comparison level for alternative it can explain why people don’t leave abusive relationships
Negative evaluation of SET
- Central concern of SET is comparison level so it ignores fairness or equity
- Fairness is more important than rewards and costs in relationships
Concepts are also difficult to quantify where they’re defined superifcially
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
Positive Evaluations of Investment Theory
Rusbults (1983) found through a questionnaire that as a relationship developed investment size increased resulting in greater commitment and reduced the quality of alternatives
Negative Evaluations of Investment
Goofriend and Agnew (2008) limited explanation because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment where its oversimplified
(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
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 types of benefit
- 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
Positive Evaluations of Equity theory
Utne (1984) self report survey on married couples, measuring perceived equity. Found partners in equal relationships had higher commitment. No sex differences in desire for equality
Negative Evaluation of Equity theory
- Huseman et al. (1987) suggested that some people are less sensitive
to equity than others.
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown (2007)
- relationships are highly complex and this applies as much to their 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) leads 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
One/both partners consider feeling about relationship problems, plans confrontation and considers alternatives to the relationship. May coincide friends
Dyadic Phase
Partners confront each other to discuss relationship issues and have conversations relating to inequity, intimacy and cost of the breakup
