Relationships ALL

Evolutionary explanation

What is the evolutionary explanation?

states that we behave in certain ways that increase our chances of survival/reproduction (passing on our genes)

The genes that are passed on influence our physiology (brain, NTs) that in turn promote adaptive behaviour

Evolutionary explanation

Natural selection (survival of the fittest)

Members of a species who have characteristics adaptive to their environment = more likely to survive to reproduce = pass on adaptive traits

Evolutionary explanation

Sexual selection (survival of the sexiest)

the ‘best mate’ is chosen to produce and protect the most healthy offspring

2 types - inter/intra

Evolutionary explanation

Inter-sexual selection

B/w sexes

typically female selects

traits that are more attractive to the opposite sex survives

Evolutionary explanation

Intra-sexual selection

competition within the same sex for access to a member of the opposite sex to mate w/

Mate competition - usually done between men

Evolutionary explanation

What is sexual dimorphism?

Physical differences between sexes of the same species

Males need characteristics to help them compete with each other and attract a mate

More masculine/feminine = more sexually dimorphic

Evolutionary explanation

Why is sexual dimorphism attractive?

Signifies better genes

They report lower levels of sickness

And so attractive because the offspring is more likely to survive until old enough to reproduce, and so the gene line survives

Evolutionary explanation

What traits do people generally find attractive?

Healthy looking

Symmetrical features

Sexual dimorphism

Evolutionary explanation

Parental investment theory

Trivers (1972)

Sexual selection is driven by levels of investment by (fe)males in their offspring

The sex with higher investment is more selective

associated w/ greater reproductive benefits

Evolutionary explanation

Differences in female/male parental investment:

female = more investment - physically, time, energy

males = less investment (see above), but can offer other forms (eg: providing food, finding/defending territory, protection, social status)

Evolutionary explanation

Cross-cultural study on mate selection:

Buss (1989)

questionnaire where preferences were ranked for 37 cultures

found:

Males: 37/37 = younger female (2.6 years), more concerned w/ chastity, more concerned w/ good looks

females: older male (3.4 years), 34/37 ambition/industrious more important, 36/37 preferred financial prospects over men

Evolutionary explanation

Why do males prefer younger females?

• More fertile (decreases with age) so easier to conceive

• Therefore, more likely to reproduce successfully

• Reproductive value - mid-teens = start of fertility, and have more time to have babies

• Peak fertility - mid 20s -> producing the best quality eggs

Evolutionary explanation

Why do females prefer males who are older?

• value financial prospects, ambition, and industriousness more than males

• Bcs of female investment to children, may require the man to provide resources, stability, shelter

• older men are more likely to have this

• Also more likely to have a higher status

• Male's fertility DOESN'T decrease with old age

Evolutionary explanation

Why are males more more concerned with chastity than females?

• unlike females, Males don't 100% know child is theirs, so don't want to invest time/effort/resources into raising someone else's offspring (cuckoldry)

• Chastity provides assurance they are the father

Evolutionary explanation

Why are males more concerned w/ good looks?

suggest females have strong genes, so seen as attractive

Females may find other traits attractive (eg: financial prospects) as they rely on a partner more during child rearing

Men can acquire resources because they don't put the same effort into child rearing -> primarily concerned with good genes and healthy offspring

Evolutionary explanation

Evaluation: supporting research

Clarke and Hatfield (1989) found when approached by a stranger on uni campus and asked to sleep with them 75% of males said yes, 0% of women said yes, supports because females more ‘picky’ (bcs parental investment theory), and males usually have to engage in intra-sexual selection (so take opportunity)

Evolutionary explanation

Evaluation: Cross-cultural research

Buss (1989) found 36/37 females preferred financial prospects to males, 37/37 males preferred a younger female, so because of cross-cultural consistency means more likely biological sex differences than cultural factors that result in parental investment -> mate preferences

Evolutionary explanation

Evaluation: not comprehensive enough

Concordance rates suggest genetics influence same sex attraction, but evolutionary explanation suggests that mate selection is because of reproduction, so isn't comprehensive enough bcs same-sex attraction cannot result in offspring.

Evolutionary explanation

Evaluation: social sensitivity

Ideas proposed (eg: inter-sexual selection) are used by certain groups (eg: incels) to justify hatred/violence towards women/men who are more 'sexually dimorphic', so it socially sensitive

Evolutionary explanation

Evaluation: Unfalsifiable

All evidence is correlational, and theories are unfalsifiable because you can't go back in time and track evolution so not v scientific

Evolutionary explanation

Evaluation: biologically reductionist

Only considers impact of biological/hereditary factors, not socialisation or lived experience influence attraction/mate selection, so is biologically reductionist.

Evolutionary explanation

Evaluation: socialisation

Women are more likely to be victims of sexual/physical violence from males than males from females, so women may have been socialised to be more careful w/ who they sleep for safety than men.

Evolutionary explanation

Evaluation: alt explanation: Social Structural theory (SST)

Eagly and Wood (1999) SST suggests that mate preference are a result of societally constructed gender roles (want a mate who will fulfil society definition of good wife/husband) and this drives attraction not evolution → found correlation from UN suggesting when gender equality increased, stereotypical mate preferences decreased

Physical attraction

What is the matching hypothesis?

• Walster + Walster (1969)

• when initiating romantic relationships people seek partners w/ approx. same social desirability (OG over range of assets, but now associated w/ physical attractiveness)

• although theoretically attracted to the most socially desirable people, choosing someone w/ similar social desirability minimises chance of rejection

• SO would expect people tend to pair up w/ people w/ similar levels of physical attractive

Physical attraction

What are the steps in choosing a partner according to the matching hypothesis?

1. Assess your own value

2. Figure out the 'realistic choices' (who will most likely be attracted to you)

3. Select your 'ideal choices'(what characteristics you desire) within your realistic choices

Physical attraction

Explain Walster et al (1966),in relation to the matching hypothesis:

Procedure:

• Uni students signed up for a dance

• confederates secretly rated their appearance

• Ps fill in a questionnaire under the guise that it would match them with an 'ideal partner'

• BUT actually randomly assigned partners

• Spent dance w/ partner

• given follow up questionnaire to see if they were satisfied

Findings:

• CONDRADICTS MATCHING HYPOTHESIS

• SHOULD have found couples w/ similar physical attractiveness would be more satisfied with their date

• BUT - People = more likely to want another date if partner was MORE physically attractive than themselves

Physical attraction

Evaluation: Not all place importance physical attraction

Towhey (1979) male/female Ps who scored high on sexist attitudes questionnaire were more influenced by physical attraction than low scores when rating how much they would like a target individual based on photo + some biographical → suggests importance of physical attractiveness (and so the matching hypothesis isn't universal) + maybe influenced by socialisation

LINK TO ROLE OF THIRD PARTIES

Physical attraction

Evaluation: Role of third party

LINK FROM NOT ALL PLACE IMPORTANCE ON PHYSICAL ATTRACTION

Matching sometimes influenced by 3rd parties (eg: dating sites, family, friends) - Sprecher (2009) suggest more likely to consider compatibility (as told by 3rd party) than similarity/physical attractiveness alone SO matching hypothesis oversimplifies attraction by ignoring influence of 3rd parties

Physical attraction

Evaluation: sexual dimorphism > similarity

LINK FROM TAYLOR (2011)

The matching hypothesis places too much importance on similarity rather than sexual dimorphism bcs signifies genetic health - Cunningham found females w/ large cheekbones, high eyebrows, + small nose, = rated ‘highly attractive’ by white/Hispanic/Asian males (suggesting universality/evolutionary)

Physical attraction

Evaluation: supporting research

Murstein (1972), Silverman (1971) = correlational studies w/ couples → several ‘judges’ rated individual attractiveness of real couples (significant similarity in ratings) BUT correlational → cause cannot be established + extraneous variables may have impacted results

Physical attraction

Evaluation: Online dating patterns

Taylor (2011) found preferences for more physically attractive potential partners than similarity in online dating, suggesting physical attraction is more important than the matching hypothesis

THEN SAY ABOUT CUNNINGHAM

Physical attraction

Evaluation: Lack of reliable evidence

Taylor (2011), Cunningham, Taylor (2011), Cunningham, Sprecher (2009), and Towhey (1979), suggest the matching hypothesis isn’t very important in attraction/choosing partners, BUT Murstein (1972) and Silverman (1971) say opposite → lack of consistency = lacks reliability = lack validity for matching hypothesis

Physical attraction
Evaluation: Walster et al (1969) lacks validity

only looks at initial attraction, not long term/growth of attraction, so lacks face/construct validity bcs fails to flesh out definition of ‘attraction’ + how it changes/develops over time

Social Penetration Theory

What is Social Penetration Theory (SPT)

• Altman and Taylor (1973)

• Gradual process of revealing your ‘inner self’/‘bear one’s soul’ to someone

• In romantic relationships → reciprocal exchange of info to further develop (revealing displays trust, SO other partner must also)

• as each reveal more info, they gain greater understanding of each other + ‘penetrate’ more deeply in each other’s lives

Social Penetration Theory
What is Self-Disclosure (S-D)?

• An element of SPT

• Revealing personal information (eg: thoughts/experiences)

• Positive correlation b/w more disclosure + greater feelings of intimacy

Social Penetration Theory

What are important factors in S-D?

• Breadth and Depth

• Reciprocation

Social Penetration Theory

Why are breadth + depth important in S-D?

• Onion metaphor - reveal superficial/low risk (eg: fav colour) first, then intimate details later

• Breadth = restricted at first bcs of ‘off limit’ tops

• As depth increases, so can breadth (+ vice versa) → commitment increases

Social Penetration Theory

Why is reciprocation important in S-D

• Reis and Shaver (1988)

• Must be a balance of S-D b/w both partners for successful romantic relationship as well as breadth/depth

• After S-D partner responds in rewarding way (understanding/empathy/S-D)

• Increases feelings of intimacy/deepens relationship

Social Penetration Theory

Evaluation: Supporting research

Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) found strong positive correlation b/w relationship satisfaction/commitment + S-D for both partner in heterosexual relationships suggesting S-D is important in SPT/attraction

BUT correlation DOESN’T mean causation + bi-directional ambiguity

Social Penetration Theory

Evaluation: Practical application

Hass and Stafford (1998) found 57% of gay men + women said open/honest S-D = main way they maintained relationships → demonstrates value of psychological insight (if more people knew, more would do it) in improving relationships

Social Penetration Theory

Evaluation: Cultural Differences

Tang et al (2013) reviewed research - found people in USA disclosed SIGNIFICANTLY more than people in China (individualist vs collectivist) but satisfaction levels = same, suggesting S-D/SPT = culturally bound → imposed etic (by assuming universality)

Rusbult’s Investment Model

What is Rusbult’s Investment Model?

Rusbult et al (1998):

• Adds investment on to other economic theories

• Claims certain factors influence commitment levels

• When commitment is high, relationship = likely to persist

• Commitment influences ‘stay’ or ‘leave’ decisions

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Fill in the Gaps:

1. Satisfaction

2. Alternatives

3. Investments

4. Commitment Level

5. Future stay or leave decision

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Factor 1 of Rusbult’s Investment Model:

Satisfaction:

• based on concept of comparison levels (CL)

• Satisfaction = measured by weighing up costs vs rewards

• profitable when rewards>costs

• relationships = more satisfying when person = getting more than expected based on previous relationships/social norms (CL)

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Factor 2 of Rusbult’s investment model:

Comparison with alternatives:

• Like social exchange theory

• Clalt → partners questioning self ‘Could my needs be better met outside of my relationship?’ ‘Would alt = more rewarding/less costly?’

• Alt = new/no relationship

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Factor 3 of Rusbult’s investment model:

Investments:

• Bcs Rusbult thought SET’s CL/CLalt oversimplified commitment (suggests relationships would end AS SOON as costs>rewards/attractive alt available)

• Investment (what would be lost if relationship ended) = crucial to explain commitment

• Two types:

  1. Intrinsic (resources put in - money, possessions, energy, emotions, S-D)

  2. Extrinsic (resources that became closely associated w/ relationship that didn’t always feature - eg: possessions bought together (eg: car), shared friends/memories/children)

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Explain commitment in terms of Rusbult’s Investment Model:

• combination of the 3 factors

• Rusbult argues it = main psychological factor in staying → satisfaction = contributing factor

• Important in explaining why dissatisfied partners stay

• Expressed through maintenance: behaviours + cognitive elements

Rusbult’s Investment Model

What are maintenance behaviours for enduring partners?

• promote relationship (accommodation)

• put partner’s needs first (willingness to sacrifice)

• forgiveness, NOT revengeful

Rusbult’s Investment Model
What are cognitive elements of maintenance for enduring partners?

• Think of partner unrealistically positively (positive illusions)

• Think of alts negatively (ridiculing alts)

Rusbult’s Investment Model
Explain future stay or leave decision in terms of Rusbult’s investment model:

• Commitment level explains why dissatisfied people make ‘stay’ decision (bcs high commitment/investment → don’t was to loose →work hard to maintain relationship)

• Eg: maintenance behaviours/cognitive elements

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Evaluation: Supporting Research of RIM

Le + Agnew (2003)'s meta-analysis (52 studies b/w 1970s-99, ~11,000 Ps) found satisfaction, CLalts, + investment size predicted commitment → high commitment = stable + lasted longest → true for: men, women, across 5 cultures included, homosexuals, + heterosexuals) → suggests validity of Rusbult's claim that factors = universally important for relationships

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Evaluation: Counter point for Le + Agnew (2003)

Most studies in analysis = correlational → can't establish cause + effect → BIDIRECTIONAL AMBIGUITY → can't conclude the model identifies causes of commitment

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Evaluation: RIM explains abusive relationships

Explains why stay in abusive relationships → Rusbult + Martz (1995) found abused women who were most likely to return (most committed) reported making greatest investment/fewest attractive alts → were dissatisfied, but committed → model shows satisfaction alone can't explain staying, commitment + investment also factors

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Evaluation: RIM oversimplifies investment

Oversimplifies investment → Goodfriend + Agnew (2008) suggest investment = more than resources alr put into relationship (eg: early stages = few investments) extend model to include investment made in future plans → motivated to commit bcs want to see plans work out → SO model = limited bcs doesn't recognise complexity of investment (esp future plans influence)

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Evaluation: Perception VS reality for RIM research

Supported by self-report (eg: questionnaires) → can be influenced by P’s biases/subjective beliefs → issue bcs unscientific + limits reliability of supporting research

BUT

 

May be appropriate to measure investment/CLalt bcs what determines commitment = NOT objective reality → what person believes/perceives may be more important (eg: thinks made big investment but not objective case)

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Evaluation: more comprehensive than previous economic theories

Adds investment to SET/ET -> commitment -> 'stay or leave' decision NOT just dissatisfaction bcs profit/lack of AA/perceived inequity (over/under-benefiting) -> highlights major issue of SET/ET -> explains why dissatisfied partners stay -> more comprehensive

Equity Theory

What theory does equity theory build on?

Social Exchange Theory (minimax principle - maximise reward + minimise costs in relationships)

ET - claims also need balance

Equity Theory

What is Equity theory?

• Walter (1978) - people strive for fairness/equity in relationships

• SO - important that each partner’s profit is approx. same, NOT costs/rewards being same (equality)

• Lack of this = one partner over-benefiting and the other under-benefiting → dissatisfaction → in the long run unhappiness

• Satisfaction in a relationship is about perceived fairness

Equity Theory

What types of dissatisfaction do 1. over-benefiting and 2. under-benefiting partners feel?

1. guilt, discomfort, shame

2. unhappiness, anger, resentment, hostility, contempt

Equity Theory

What is distribution in terms of equity theory?

Trade-offs and compensations are negotiated to achieve fairnes

Equity Theory

What causes greater dissatisfaction in terms of equity theory?

greater degree of perceived unfairness

Equity Theory

What is realignment in terms of equity theory?

If restoring equity is possible, relationship will continue with attempts to restore equity

Equity Theory

Explain perceived ration of inputs and outputs in terms of Equity theory:

• ET isn’t about size/amount of rewards +costs BUT ratio

• If one partner puts in a lot, but gets a lot out of it → likely to be satisfied

• eg: shift worker in stressful job (eg: in A and E) vs stay at home parent → not fair for domestic tasks to be EQUALLY distributed

Equity Theory

What are the consequences of inequity according to the Equity theory?

• Predicts strong correlation b/w inequity + dissatisfaction

• Changes in perceived equity = particularly strong indicator of dissatisfaction (eg: a move from fairness → unfairness in relationship)

Equity Theory

What are ways of dealing w/ inequity according to the equity theory?

• Behavioural - changing behaviour to help restore equity -> the more inequitable, the harder to restore equity

• Cognitive - reassessment of perception of costs/rewards -> what was once seen as cost, now seen as the norm

Equity Theory

Evaluation: Supporting research of Equity theory

IRL evidence confirms ET = more valid explanation than SET -> Utne et al (1984)'s survey of 118 recently married couple (b/w 16-45 who were together >2 years before marrying) found couples w/ perceived equitable relationships (on 2 self-report scales) = more satisfied than P's who saw themselves as over/under-benefiting, confirming equity = major concern for romantic couples + is linked w/ satisfaction (central prediction of ET)

Equity Theory

Evaluation: Counter-point of supporting research/ contradiction of Equity Theory

Clark (1984) - most couples don't time in terms of reward + equity, if they do = sign of marriage in trouble (so dissatisfaction = cause, not inequality) - undermines validity of ET bcs contradicts idea equity plays role in (dis)satisfaction

Equity Theory

Evaluation: Individual differences/limitation of Equity Theory

Not all partners are concerned w/ achieving equity - Huseman et al (1987) suggests some are less concerned w/ it than the 'norm' -> eg: 'benevolents' = prepared for input>output (under-benefit) OR 'entitleds' = believe they deserve to over-benefit w/o guilt/distress -> shows desire for equity varies + isn't universal feature of romantic relationships

Equity Theory

Evaluation: Cultural differences/limitation of Equity Theory

ET doesn't apply to all cultures - Aumer-Ryan et al (2007) - USA couples (individualist) consider equitable to be most satisfying vs Jamaican couples (collectivist) consider over-benefitting most satisfying (for women + men) → ET = limited bcs imposed etic/culturally bound → NOT universal

Equity Theory

Evaluation: Bidirectional ambiguity/causality issues w/ Equity Theory

Research suggests inequality + dissatisfaction = linked but causation = not clear -> Clark (1984) - most couples don't time in terms of reward + equity, if they do = sign of marriage in trouble (so dissatisfaction = cause, not inequality) BUT Van Yperen + Buunk (1990) - people in inequitable marriages became less satisfied over year, no evidence of converse -> Hatfield + Rapson (2011) suggest that both processes may be operating in failing marriages SO bidirectional ambiguity

Equity Theory

Evaluation: alt explanation of Equity theory (SPT)

Eg: SPT suggests S-D is most important in satisfaction (eg: Sprecher + Hendrick (2004) - strong positive relationship b/w S-D + relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples

Equity Theory

Evaluation: Alternative of ET (RIM)

Alt to ET = RIM - adds investment ->commitment -> 'stay or leave' decision NOT just dissatisfaction bcs of perceived inequity (over/under-benefiting) -> highlights major issue of ET -> explains why dissatisfied partners stay -> more comprehensive

Filter Theory

What does filter theory suggest (not specific filters - brief overview)?

People filter possible mates from a range of eligible candidates - FT suggests people use different methods at different levels of the process:

1. Social variables such as race or class, and proximity (bcs more likely to meet them) - more likely to seek similarity to ourselves

2. Next, individual/internal values (eg: personality) (Similarity of attitudes filter) - more important to seek complementary characteristics

Filter Theory

What are the filters?

1. Social demography - we only meet small faction of people - most tend to be same: class, education level, race - so, are in our proximity

2. Similarity of attitudes - Similarity of: attitudes, beliefs, values, most important at start of relationship → could stem from social demography factors (eg: religion)

3. Complementarity - Based on Psychological factors, meeting each others needs → similarity = less important, chances of ST → LT depend on it most

Filter Theory

Evaluation/AO1 if needed: Supporting research

Kerckhoff + Davis (1962) (Longitudinal) - both members of heterosexual couples complete questionnaires on complementarity/similarity of attitudes, relationship ‘closeness’ measured 7 mnths later → found ‘closeness’ associated w/ similarity of attitudes in ST (<18 mnths) + complementarity in LT (>18 mnths) → supports FT

Filter Theory

Evaluation: issues w/ Kerckhoff + Davis (1962)

Uses arbitrary cut off point (18 mnths) for LT vs ST, reduces pop val bcs LT/ST = more subjective

Lacks temp val - Levinger (1974) - difficult to replicate Kerckchoff + Davis’ results → due to social changes in dating norms?

Filter Theory

Evaluation: temp val issues w/ FT + Kerckhoff + Davis (1962)

Bidirectional ambiguity → complementarity/SOA causes LT, OR, LT causes complementarity/SOA → hard to establish cause/effect → limits application/understanding of attraction in relationships (eg: Davis + Rusbult (2001) found partners become more similar as become more attracted (similarity = result, not cause)

Filter Theory

Evaluation: Heteronormative/lacks temporal validity

Heterosexual = more common SO more options (so FT has face val) BUT homosexual = less common SO less options → potentially less influenced by filters (esp social demography) (so FT tells us little about same-sex attraction/relationships) due to eg: online dating = larger dating pool (for everyone) → FT outdated/heteronormative

LINK TO ISSUE W/ COMPLEMENTARITY

Filter Theory

Evaluation: Issue w/ complementarity

LINK FROM HETERONOMITIVITY

Complementarity might not be central in all LT → FT suggests must have complementary qualities (eg: submissive + dominant) - Markey + Markey (2013) found lesbian couples of equal dominance = most satisfied (mean relationship length of 4.5 yrs) → SUGGESTS FT oversimplifies attraction in relationships + is heteronormative

Filter Theory

Evaluation: Actual vs perceived similarity

Another limitation = actual similarity matters less than perceived similarity (how similar they THINK) - Montoya (2008) found actual similarity only effects attraction in ST, lab based interactions, but studies on IRL relationships → perceived similarity = better indicator

BIDIRECTIONAL AMBIGUITY → cause/effect not established, limits understanding/application of FT as factor in attraction in relationships

What is Social Exchange Theory?

Thibaut + Kelley (1959):

• Rewards - costs = outcome

• Satisfaction = rewards>costs (profit)

• Economic Theory - uses concepts from economics + operant conditioning

• Form relationships if it’s rewarding

• Minimax principle (minimise costs, maximise rewards)

• Commit if it’s profitable

• Exchange part = assumption that if people receive rewards from others, they feel obliged to reciprocate

Social Exchange Theory

What is the 1st stage of Social Exchange?

Sampling:

People explore the rewards/costs in a variety of relationships (not just romantic ones) eg: via media, personal relationships, or relationships of others we know → so know what a rewarding/costly relationships look like

Social Exchange Theory

What is the 2nd stage of Social Exchange?

Bargaining:

• Couple negotiates the relationship + agrees the rewards/costs

• Marks the start of the relationship where partners start to exchange

Social Exchange Theory

What is the 3rd stage of Social Exchange?

Commitment:

• The couple settles into the relationship

• The exchange of reward becomes fairly predictable

• Stability increases as rewards increase and costs lessen

Social Exchange Theory

What is the 4th stage of Social Exchange?

Institutionalisation:

• Norms + expectations are firmly established

• Settled down

Social Exchange Theory

What are comparison levels (CL) and how are they set?

• How we measure profit in romantic relationships/how much of a reward you believe you deserve

• Formed based on sampling stage

• Changes as we acquire more ‘data’ to set it by

Social Exchange Theory

How do CL affect entering relationships/relationship satisfaction?

• If judgment of potential profit of a relationship exceeds our CL = judged as worthwhile

• If relationship outcome is positive (profit > CL) = satisfied

• If outcome is negative (profit < CL) = dissatisfied

Social Exchange Theory

What are Comparison Levels for Alternatives (CLalt)?

• Used to give context to current relationship by comparison to other possible partners/no relationship (alternatives) - would we gain greater rewards from alternative

• We will stay in relationship as long as we view it as more rewarding/profitable than alternatives

• If current relationship = costs>rewards → assume ‘grass is greener on the other side’ + if potential rewards of alternative > current, alternative = more attractive

• If satisfied we may not even notice any alternatives

Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: Supporting Research

Kurdek (1995) gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples completed questionnaires measuring the relationship’s commitment, profit perception, CLalts → most committed couples perceived their relationships as having high rewards + fewest costs (minimax principle), + reported finding alternatives as relatively unattractive → supports SET bcs found variables of costs, rewards and CLalt = IVs that could influence commitment in relationships

Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: Supporting Research issue

Kurdek (1995) used Self-report, questionnaires → social desirability bias (want to seem happy/committed) → lowers validity of findings → lowers validity of theory bcs hard to test

Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: Bidirectional ambiguity

Bi-directional ambiguity: SET claims we become dissatisfied after perceiving costs outweighing rewards/alternatives = more attractive → become uncommitted, Argyle (1987) argues it's the other way around - committed partners don't notice alts - SO studies claiming SET -> committed relationships may have false cause + effect link, SO link = inaccurate SO lack validity

Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: Vague concepts

SET’s use for predictive = limited bcs lacks objectivity + has subjective concepts → can't compare two people’s CL bcs subjective (based on individuals perceived costs/rewards) so SET has limited explanatory powers -> can't apply to large groups of people (not nomothetic)

Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: reductionist

Is both machine + environmentally reductionist → fails to account biological/human factors → ignores emotion/love of relationships almost reducing people to how computers interpret data by suggesting satisfaction = solely dependent on rewards/costs → SO SET fails to holistically explain relationships + so may miss important factors

Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: Alternative explanation (link from reductionist para)

RIM = alt to SET - adds investment → commitment → 'stay or leave' decision NOT just dissatisfaction (bcs profit/lack of AA) → highlights major issue of SET by explaining why dissatisfied partners stay → more comprehensive/less reductionist

Duck's Phase Model

What is DPM?

DPM (1982)

• a model of relationship breakdown → not a one-off event, but a gradual process w/ distinct phases

• Each partner reaches a threshold: perception of relationship changes → become dissatisfied

Duck's Phase Model

What’s the first phase?

Breakdown:

• Dissatisfaction is realised

• Threshold: ‘I can’t stand this anymore’

Duck's Phase Model

What’s the second phase?

Intrapsychic phase:

• social withdrawal, rumination about how they would be better off not in the relationship, resent their under-benefitting

• Threshold: ‘I’m justified in leaving’

Duck's Phase Model

What’s the third phase?

Dyadic phase:

• discussion of unhappiness w/ partner → Anxiety, hostility, complaints, may become away of the things that bind them together (eg: children, house) and costs of relationship ending (eg: social/economic) → if both are willing to try and save the relationship may go to couples councilling

• Threshold: ‘I mean it’ - v serious about leaving

Duck's Phase Model

What’s the fourth phase?

Social processes:

• going public, discussing with friends and family, building alliances, hard to deny problems w/ relationship and reconcile

• POINT OF NO RETURN

• Threshold: ‘it’s inevitable’

Duck's Phase Model

What’s the fifth phase?

Grave-dressing process:

• organising post-relationship life - make themselves look presentable/loyal to attract future relationships, stories about relationship (eg: betrayal) that makes their contribution to the breakdown look favourable (La Guipa (1982) - need to leave w/ their ‘social credit’ in tact). May reinterpret view of partner (eg: rebellious (attractive) → irresponsible (unattractive)

• Threshold: ‘time to get a new life’