Topic 3 - Theories of Romantic Relationships Flashcards
Social Exchange theory
Thibault and Kelley –> States that one motivation to stay in a romantic relationship and a large factor in its development is the result of a cost benefit analysis that people preform either consciously or unconsciously.
1) Uses concepts from economics and operant conditions –> Assumes that people try to maximise the rewards they obtain from a relationship and minimise the costs –> The exchange comes from the assumption that when people recieve rewards from others they feel obliged to reciprocate.
2) Satisfaction depends on the outcome - balance between rewards and costs –> Successful relationship is a profitable one.
What is the Comparison level?
1) Judgement of how much profit an individual is receiving –> The acceptable CL needed to continue a relationship changes as a person matures and can be affected by a number of external and internal factors. Such as media and images of romance
2) When we meet a new partner he/she is compared with the comparison level, and if the profit of this new relationship is thought to exceed the comparison level –> a relationship will be formed.
Four Proposed stages that all relationships go through
1) Sampling -> Consider potential rewards and costs and compare it
2) Bargaining -> Give and receive rewards to see if its worthwhile
3) Commitment -> Relationship increases in predictability. knows how to elict rewards from the other
4) Institutionalisation -> Relationship norms are developed which establishes the patterns of rewards and cost for each partner
Evaluation 1: Hatfield
Hatfield –> Questioned newlyweds about their levels of contentment in their marriages. SET states that happiest people should be those who over benefit –> However Found that the happiest people were those who felt that the marriage was equal for both partners in terms of costs and benefits. SET assumes that people are inherently selfish when it is not the case
Evaluation 2: SET does not equity into consideration
Hatfield –> It is difficult to quantify what “rewards” and costs are as they are subjective, you may even gain rewards in the sense of feeling good about helping. Much of the research into exchange theory is artificial and has been held back by the difficulty of scaling rewards
Evaluation 3: Michael Argyle
Michael Argyle questions whether it is the CL which leads to dissatisfaction with the relationship, or dissatisfaction which leads to this analysis. It may be that Social Exchange Theory serves as a justification for dissatisfaction rather than the cause of it.
What is the Equity Theory?
1) SET says behaviour is a series of exchanges however- benefit and costs
2) However Equity theory says people strive to achieve fairness in their relationship and any kind of inequity can make people feel distressed.
3) Walster et al makes the distinction between an uneven level of rewards or costs between partners which may be balanced out over time.
4) Perceived ratio of inputs and outputs –> Inequity doesn’t necessarily mean inequality. Two individuals can put in variable amounts and still maintain equity. This is because a person holds subjective views on the relative inputs and outputs of themselves and their partner
5) It is not the size or amount of the rewards and costs that matter, it’s the ratio of the two to each other.
Evaluation 1:
Hatfield looked at people who felt over-or under benefited. The under-benefited felt angry and deprived while the over benefited felt guilty and uncomfortable –> Supports the theory as it suggests that satisfaction is best achieved when there is equality.
Evaluation 2:
Moghaddam –> Suggests that such ‘economic’ theories only apply to Western relationships and even then only to certain short term relationships among individuals with high mobility. Where there is little time to develop long-term commitment, it makes sense to be concerned with give and take. However, long-term relationships within other less mobile population groups, particularly non-traditional societies are more likely to value security than personal profit.
Evaluation 3:
Not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity. Hueseman suggests that some people are less sensitive to equity than others.
Separated into two types of people
Benevolvents: contribute more to the relationship than they get out
Entitled: those who believe they deserve to over benefit and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty
Duck’s Phase model
- Duck’s phase model suggests that the breakdown of a relationship is not a single event, but rather a system of stages or phases which a couple progress through which incorporate the end of the relationship
Stage 1) Intra Psychic phase –> One of the partners begins to have doubts about the relationship, spend time thinking about the pros and cons of the relationship and possible alternatives including being alone. They may either internalise these feelings or confide in a trusted friend.
Stage 2) Dyadic phase –> Partners discuss their feelings about the relationship, usually leads to hostility that may take place over a number of days or weeks. During this period, discussions will often focus on the equity in the relationship and will either culminate in a renewed resolution to invest in the relationship, or the realisation that the relationship has broken down.
Stage 3) Social phase –> Other people are involved in the process; friends are encouraged to choose a side and may urge for reconciliation with their partner or may encourage the break down through expressions of opinions. Each partner may seek approval from their friends at the expense of their previous romantic partner. relationship unlikely to be repaired as each partner has invested in the breakdown to their friends and any retreat from this may be met with disapproval.
Stage 4) Grave Dressing Phase- When relationship has completely ended, each partner will seek to create a favourable narrative of events justifying themselves.
- There are risk factors involved that would threaten the relationship both dispositional and situational which can be classed as predisposing and precipitating. Such as the
- -> Lack of skills, poor conversationalists, poor at indicating their interest in other people, generally unrewarding in their interactions (Ducks
Lack of Simulation –> According to the SET people look for rewards in their relationships one of which is simulation(Baxter) such as the relationship not leading anywhere.
–> Maintenance Difficulties, there are some circumstances where relationships become strained simply because partners can’t maintain close contact.
Evaluation 1: An incomplete model
Rollie and Duck state that the original model is over simplified. They modified it to have a faith phase after grave dressing
Resurruction process - where they take experiences and knowledge gained from the previous relationship and apply it to future relationships.
R and D also emphasised that progression from one stage to the next is not inevitable and effective interventions can prevent this
Evaluation 2: Methodological Issues
- Most of the research relating to Duck’s model is retrospective
- Participants generally give their experiences of the breakdown process sometimes after there relationship ended
- This means that what they can recall might not always be accurate or reliable
- -> Subjective experiences and participants may not be truthful to put themselves more favourable
Evaluation 3: Cultural Bias
Moghaddam –> Individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end.
In collectivist cultures relationships tend to be obligatory –> Less easy to end involve wider family and in some cases even arranged with little involvement of the partners.
–> Duck’s research has imposed etic, his research lacks ecological validity for collectivist cultures as they have different beliefs and attitudes which differ from individualists.
