RELATIONSHIPS EXAM RECAP -
THEORIES OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS -
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY -
REWARDS, COSTS AND PROFITS -
THIBAULT AND KELLEY proposed social exchange theory (SET) it claims that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange
we try to minimises costs and maximise profits and judge our relationships based on the profit it yields and is defined as the rewards minus the costs
whats perceived as rewards can change throughout the relationship, or change in importance, they can also be different for partners in the same relationship
some examples of rewards are companionship, emotional support and sex, whereas some costs may be time, energy, stress or compromise
there are also opportunity costs, spending time or energy in one relationship means it cant be invested elsewhere, e.g. with family
COMPARISON LEVEL -
there are two ways we can measure profit in a relationship
the first is comparison level, which is basically how much profit you think you deserve to get, its developed from previous relationships and social norms
our CL changes over time as we encounter more and more relationships, and we consider a relationship to be worthwhile if our CL is high
this also links with self esteem, people with low self esteem will have lower CLs than people with high CLs as they may believe they are worth-less so deserve less
COMPARISON LEVELS OF ALTERNATIVES -
the second measure of profit, means do we believe we could gain more from a different relationship or by not being in one at all
the SET suggests we will stay in a relationship until we believe the alternatives would be more rewarding
DUCK - the comparison level of alternatives we adopt will depend on the state of our current relationship , there are ‘plenty more fish in the sea’ so is the costs become greater than the profit, the alternatives seem more attractive
STAGES OF RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT -
THIBAULT AND KELLEYs social exchange theory also suggests there are four stages to relationship development, and different social exchanges underpin them
SAMPLING STAGE - we explore the costs and rewards of social exchange by experimenting with them in our own relationships, not just romantic ones or by observing others doing so
BARGANING STAGE - this marks the beginning of a relationship when costs and rewards start to be exchanged and negotiation and identification of profits is done
COMMITMENT STAGE - as time goes on the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen
INSTITUTIONALISATION STAGE - the partners are now settled down because the norms of the relationship in terms of costs and profit are now firmly established
EVALUATION -
RESEARCH SUPPORT -
kurdek asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables
found most committed perceived the most rewards and fewest costs and viewed alternatives as unattractive
matched the suggestions of the social exchange theory and was the first study to demonstrate the main SET concepts that predict commitment are separate of each other
DIRECTION OF CAUSE AND EFFECT -
however, according to SET we become unsatisfied when we perceive the costs to outweigh the profit, or the alternatives are more attractive
but its argued we only consider costs, profits and alternatives when we are dissatisfied, and when we are satisfied we don’t consider alternatives
suggests SET is wrong in suggesting that profit/cost imbalance and attractive alternatives cause dissatisfaction
VAGUE CONCEPTS -
rewards and costs have been defined superficially in research in order to measure them, but real-world costs and profits are subjective and hard to define
the concept of comparison levels is also problematic as its unclear what the starting levels of comparison levels and comparison levels of alternatives must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship, meaning the theory is difficult to test validly
EQUITY THEORY -
was developed in response to the significant criticism of the SET, for failing to recognise the need most people have for balance rather than profit
THE ROLE OF EQUITY -
equity means fairness, walster et al suggested that whats most important in a relationship is that both partners profit levels are similar, this is different to equality where profit and costs must be exactly the same
when a relationship is unequitable, one partner over benefits and the other under benefits, both under and over benefitting is inequitable, but the under benefiting partner is more likely to be dissatisfied
the over benefiter will most likely feel guilt, discomfort and shame, and the under benefiter will most likely feel anger, hostility and resentment and humiliation, this shows satisfaction is about perceived fairness
EQUALITY VS EQUITY -
according to the equity theory, its not the size or amount of rewards and costs that matter, its the ratio of the two to each other, so if one partner puts a lot into a relationship they are more likely to feel satisfied when they also get a lot out of it
EG if a partner works night shifts so cant cook dinner, the equity of the relationship would probably come from the compensations the partner could make in other areas, satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity and that rewards are distributed fairly but not necessarily the same
CONSEQUENCES OF INEQUITY -
problems arise when one partner puts a great deal into the relationship but gets little out of it, a partner who perceives inequity will become dissatisfied with the relationship if that state of affairs continues for long enough
the greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction, and equity predicts a strong correlation between the two, and this applies to both the over and under benefitting partners
CHANGES IN PERCIEVED EQUALITY - what makes us most dissatisfied is change in the level of perceived equality as time goes on, for example at the start of a relationship, it may feel perfectly normal to put in a bit more than you get out, but if this carries on for a long period of time, it will not feel as satisfying as it did in the beginning
DEALING WITH INEQUITY - the under benefitting partner is usually motivated to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe its possible and the relationships salvageable, as the more unfair a relationship feels the harder they will work to restore equity, on the other hand a partner may change their perceptions of rewards and costs so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes, for example something may now be seen as a profit rather than a cost
EVALUATION -
RESEARCH SUPPORT -
Utne - surveyed 118 recently married couples who had been together at least two years before marrying, aged between 16 and 45
they found couples who perceived their relationship as more equitable were more satisfied than couples who saw one person as an over benefiter and the other as an under benefiter
which confirms equity is a major concern for romantic couples as its linked with satisfaction
CULTURAL LIMITATIONS -
however it may not apply to all cultures, Aumer-Ryan found that their are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction
couples in an individualist culture found their relationship to be more satisfying when it was equitable, where as collectivist cultures couples were more satisfied when over benefiting
this was true in both men and women so cant be explained by gender differences and so suggests its a limited theory as it only applies to some cultures
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES -
Huseman et al found that not all people are bothered by equity in the same way, they described some partners as benevolents who are prepared to put more into a relationship than they get out, and others are entitleds who believe they deserve to over benefit without feeling guilt
in both cases these individuals have less concern about equity than the theory predicts which suggests that the need for equity varies from one person to another and isn’t a universal feature of all relationships
RUSBULT’S INVESTMENT MODEL -
RUSBULTS INVESTMENT MODEL -
according to rusbult commitment depends on three factors, the investment model is a development of the social exchange theory
FACTOR ONE - SATISFACTION:
satisfaction is based on the concept of comparison levels, a satisfying relationship is judged by comparing levels of costs and rewards and its seen to be profitable if it has many rewards and few costs
each partner is generally satisfied if they are getting more out of the relationship than they expect based on previous experiences and social norms
FACTOR TWO - COMPARISON WITH ALTERNATIVES:
as seen in the social exchange theory, comparison with alternatives results in romantic partners asking themselves if there needs could be met better in another relationship, or by being single
FACTOR THREE - INVESTMENT:
rusbult et al realised that satisfaction and comparison against alternatives could not explain commitment on their own, otherwise more relationships would end as soon as profits were outweighed by costs or if a more appealing alternative was proposed
so a crucial third element was proposed, investment can be understood as anything that we would lose if the relationship was to end, rusbult argues there are two types
INTRINSIC INVESTMENTS - anything we put directly into the relationship, they can be tangible like money and possessions or intangible such as energy, emotion and self disclosures
EXTRINSIC INVESTMENTS - any resources that didn’t previously feature in the relationship, but are now closely associated with it, for example a car, mutual friends or children
so by putting these all together, if partners in a relationship have high satisfaction levels, alternatives are less attractive and the sizes of their investments are increasing, then we can predict they will will be committed to the relationship
SATISFACTION VERSES COMMITMENT -
rusbult argued that commitment is the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, with satisfaction being a contributing factor
its an important distinction because it can help to explain why dissatisfied partners remain in relationships, its because they are committed to their partner and relationships as they have made investments they don’t want to go to waste
they will therefore work hard to maintain and repair their relationship, especially when it hits a rough patch
RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE MECHANISMS -
commitment expresses itself in everyday maintenance behaviours, according to the model, enduring partners dont engage in tit-for-tat retaliation, but instead promote the relationship
they also put their partners interests first as a willingness to sacrifice and forgive them for any serious transgressions
committed partners also think about each other and potential alternatives in specific and predictable ways, they are unrealistically positive about their partners (positive illusions) and negative about tempting alternatives and other peoples relationships (ridiculing alternatives) much more so than less committed partners, this is a cognitive element
EVALUATION -
RESEARCH SUPPORT -
Le and Agnew reviewed 52 studies from the 1970s to 1999 which together included 11000 participants from five countries and found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment
relationships with the highest commitment were the most stable and lasted the longest, and these outcomes were true for both men and women, across all cultures in the analysis and for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples which suggests that rusbults claim is valid as the three factors are universally important in relationships
EXPLAINS ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS -
Rusbult and Martz studied domestically abused women at a shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner (IE the most committed) reported having made the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives
these women were dissatisfied with their relationships but were still committed to them, the investment model is therefore supported in its view that satisfaction alone cannot explain why people stay in relationships
OVERSIMPLIFIES INVESTMENT -
Goodfriend and Agnew point out that there is more to investment that just the resources that you have already put into a relationship, in the early stages of relationships, partners will have made very few actual investments
they extended the model to include the investments partners make about their future plans, they are motivated to commit to each other because they want to see their cherished plans for the future work out, making the initial model a limited explanation as it failed to explain the complexity of investment and the influence of future plans
DUCK’S PHASE MODEL -
DUCKS PHASE MODEL OF RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN -
Duck proposed that the ending of a relationship is not a one off event, but rather a a process that takes time and goes through four distant phases, with each ‘phase’ being marked by one or both partners reaching a ‘threshold’ at which their perception of the relationship changes
the road to a breakup begins once one partner realises they are dissatisfied and distressed about the way things are going
INTRA-PSYCHIC PHASE -
the threshold here is that one of the partners decides they cant stand the relationship being how it is anymore, so something has to change
this phase focuses on the cognitive processes occurring in the individual, they worry about the reasons for their dissatisfaction, they think this through privately and weigh up the pros and cons of the relationship and evaluate these against the alternatives and begin to make plans for the future
DYADIC PHASE -
the threshold for this phase is that they come to the conclusion that they would be justified in withdrawing from the relationship
this phase focuses on the interpersonal processes between the individuals as there comes a point where speaking about the relationship cannot be avoided
there is a series of confrontations where the relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions are aired, these are characterised by anxiety, hostility and probably complaints about a lack of equity and rethinking about the commitment that kept the partners together
there are two possible outcomes, continue with the breakup or a renewed desire to repair it, self disclosure may also increase here as partners express thoughts and feelings they have been withholding in the intra-psychic stage
SOCIAL PHASE -
the threshold for this stage is that the dissatisfied partner expresses that they really mean they want to end the relationship
this phase focuses on the wider processes that involve the couples social network, the breakup is made public and partners will seek to forge pacts, whilst mutual friends are expected to choose a side
some friends may reinforce that the person made the right choice, others may try and hasten the end of the relationship by revealing previously secret information, and some may try and pitch in to help repair it
this is usually a point of no return as the breakup takes up momentum from social forces
GRAVE-DRESSING PHASE -
the threshold for this phase is that the end of the relationship is now inevitable
the focus of this phase is the aftermath of the breakup, once the relationships over, partners will ‘spin’ a favourable story about the breakup for public consumption, which allows the partners to maintain a positive reputation, usually at the expense of the other partner as it probably shows them in a bad light
gossip plays a big role as partners still try to retain some social credit by passing the blame to the other partner or circumstances away from themselves completely
grave dressing also involves a personal story you can live with, which may differ from the public one, previous partner traits that were positive are now negative and memories are given a negative view and lastly the partners reach the threshold that its time to get a new life
EVALUATION -
REAL WORLD APPLICATION -
the model is useful for understanding how breakups can be reversed as different repair strategies are more useful at different stages, for example Duck recommends that people in the intra-psychic stage focus their worrying on the positive aspects of their partners
the dyadic focuses on communication, so any attempt to improve this could be beneficial and may bring stability to the relationship, and can help couples overcome rough patches in their relationships, meaning it can be helpful in relationship counselling
AN INCOMPLETE MODEL -
Duck and Rollie later added a fifth ‘resurrection phase’ to the model, this is when ex partners apply to new relationship opportunities and use the experiences gained from their previous one
researchers also argue that progression from one phase to another inst inevitable because its possible to return to an earlier stage at any point in any phase
finally the processes that occur in relationships, EG the role of gossip in the social stage are far more important than the linear movement from one phase to the next, meaning the complexity of relationship breakdown and its dynamic nature is not accounted for
EARLY PHASES ARE LESS UNDERSTOOD -
the earlier stages in the model are underexplained because the research on them is retrospective, as participants in studies have to report there experiences from some time ago, so what they do manage to recall may be inaccurate and unreliable
the early stages occur even longer ago than the breakup, and stages such as the intra-psychic stage can last a very long time before the dyadic phase is reached so recall of it may be particularly distorted, meaning the earlier phases of the model are not explained as well as the later ones
VIRTUAL RELATIONSHIPS IN SOCIAL MEDIA -
SELF DISCLOSURE IN VIRTUAL RELATIONSHIPS -
psychologists have long known that self disclosure is a crucial element of face to face relationships in the offline world, but with the development of dating apps and long distance virtual dating, two theories of how self disclosure works in virtual relationships the development of two contrasting theories has occurred
REDUCED CUES THEORY -
Sproull and Kiesler suggest that virtual relationships are less effective than f2f relationships because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in f2f interactions
these include nonverbal cues such as physical appearance and cues to our emotional state such as facial expressions or tone of voice
this reduces a persons feeling of personal identity and lead to disinhibition, many people then feel freer to communicate in blunt or aggressive ways, so people are unlikely to want to express their real thought to someone so impersonal
THE HYPERPERSONAL MODEL -
Walther argues that virtual relationships can be more personal adn involve greater self disclosure than f2f ones, because virtual relationships can develop very quickly as self disclosure happens earlier and once established they are more intense and intimate
there are two key features of hyperpersonal self disclosure in virtual relationships -
1- the sender of a message has more control over what to disclose and the cure they send than they would in a f2f relationship, this is selective representation as the sender manipulates their self image to present themself in a ideal way, the self disclosure can be intensely truthful or intensely false
2- the receiver gains a positive impression of the sender, they may give feedback that reinforces the senders selective self presentation
another factor that promotes online self disclosure and makes virtual relationships hyperpersonal is anonymity, Bargh points out this is like the strangers on a train effect, when your aware the other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour so may disclose more
EFFECTS OF THE ABSENCE OF GATING IN VIRTUAL RELATIONSHIPS -
Mckenna and Bargh suggest a gate is any obstacle to forming a relationship, f2f relationships are gated, as it involves many features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship, EG physical unattractiveness, facial disfigurement, a stammer or social anxiety
BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS -
a key feature of virtual relationships is that most of these gates are absent, so a relationship can start and develop in a way it may not usually in real life, as attentions refocused on self disclosure and away from superficial and distracting features
a benefit of gating being absent is that the individual is more free to be their true selves , on the other hand there is more scope for people to create untrue identities and deceive people in ways they couldn’t in f2f relationships, EG a person can change their age, gender, become an extrovert
EVALUATION -
LACK OF SUPPORT FOR REDUCED CUES -
Walther and Tidwell point out that most people in online interactions use other cues, such as style or timing of messages EG taking the time to reply to a social media update may be more intimate than responding immediately to messages, but taking to long to do so can be a sign of uninterest
so there are cues in virtual relationships that are just as subtle as in f2f relationships, acronyms and emojis can be used in substitute for facial expressions, which is hard for the reduced cues theory to explain as it means virtual relationships cand be just as personal as f2f ones
LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THE HYPERPERSONAL MODEL -
ruppel et al carried out a meta analysis of 25 studies comparing slef diclosure in virtual and f2f relationships and found that self report studies found a greater bredth, depth and frequancy of self diclosure than f2f relationships
on the other hand experimental studies showed no significant differences between f2f and virtual relationships in terms of self diclosure, this means the hyperpersonal models suggestions that the greater intimacy and deeper levels of self disclosure happens in virtual relationships is contradict
SUPPORT FOR THE ABSENCE OF GATING -
Mckenna and Bargh looked at online communication by shy, lonely and social anxious people, they found these people could express their true selves more than in f2f relationships
of the relationships formed by the shy participants, 71% lasted more than two years which compares well with the relationships for shy people formed offline (EG 49% in a study by Kirkpatrick and Davis) which suggests that shy people do benefit from online relationships because the gating that obstructs them in f2f relationships is removed
PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS -
LEVELS OF PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS -
McCutcheon et al developed the celebrity attitude scale (CAS) which was used in a large scale study by Maltby who identified three levels of parasocial relationship, each level describes the attitudes and behaviours linked to evermore extreme forms of celebrity worship
ENTERTAINMENT SOCIAL - the least intense level, celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and fuel social interaction, EG people may enjoy talking about celebrities appearances in shows or magazines with friends
INTENSE PERSONAL - this is an intermediary level which reflects a greater personal involvement in a parasocial relationship with a celebrity EG a fan of Kim Kardashian may have frequent obsessive thoughts and intense feelings about her or maybe even consider her to be a soulmate
BORDERLINE PATHOLOGICAL - this is the strongest level of celebrity worship, featuring uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours, these might include spending or planning to spend a large amount of money on a celebrity related object or be willing to perform a illegal act on the celebritys say so
THE ABSORPTION ADDICTION MODEL - '
McCutcheon linked the levels of parasocial relationships to the deficiencies some people have in their own life, for example low self esteem and a lack of fulfilment in their everyday relationships
someone who initially has an entertainment-social level relationship to a celebrity may be triggered into a more intense involvement by a personal crisis or stressful life event, as it allows them to ‘escape from reality’
the absorption addiction model has two components -
ABSORPTION - seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates an individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celebrity, to become preoccupied with the celebrity and identify with them
ADDICTION - in the same way as with a psychological addiction to a psychoactive substance, the individual needs to increase their dose in order to gain satisfaction, this may lead to more extreme behaviours or delusional thinking EG stalking a celebrity as they believe they reciprocate the persons feelings, but someone such as the celebritys manager is stopping them from getting involved
ATTACHMENT THEORY EXPLANATION OF PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS -
various psychologists have suggested that there is a tendency to form parasocial relationships in adolescence and adulthood because of attachment difficulties in early childhood
Ainsworth suggested insecure avoidant and insecure resistance types were more at risk of unhealthy development
insecure resistant adults are more likely to form parasocial relationships as adults because they have unfulfilled needs they seek to be met, but in a relationship thats not accompanied by a fear or rejection, break ups or disappointment (like real life relationships)
insecure avoidant types prefer to avoid the pain and rejection of relationships altogether whether they are social or parasocial
EVALUATION -
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR LEVELS -
McCutcheon used the CAS to measure levels of parasocial relationships, they also assessed participants problems in their own intimate relationships
participants who scored as borderline pathological or intense personal tended to experience high levels of anxiety in their relationships, where as people at the entertainment social level did not, but they did experience other relationship issues, which suggest McCutcheons levels of parasocial relationships have a legitimate basis
SUPPORT FOR THE ABSORPTION ADDICTION MODEL -
the absorption addiction model suggests that a deficiency in a persons life would predispose them to forming parasocial relationships
Maltby assessed boys and girls aged 14-16, they were particularly interested in girls who had an intense personal parasocial relationship with an adult female celebrity who’s body image they admired, and found these girls tended to already have a poor body image
this supports the models association between poor psychological functioning and the level of parasocial relationship
UNIVERSAL TENDENCIES -
Dinkha et al compared individualist and collectivist cultures, they found people with insecure resistant attachment types were more likely to form parasocial relationships with tv celebrities and characters
this was true in both culture types, meaning the reason for forming parasocial relationships is independent to cultural influences which supports the idea that attachment types maybe a universal explanation for the need to form parasocial relationships