Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Theories of Romantic Relationships: - Coggle Diagram
Theories of Romantic Relationships:
Social Exchange Theory: Thibault and Kelley (1959)
Costs:
represent the resources one has to contribute to maintain relationship, and represents loss for individual. It includes enduring discomfort, putting in time, effort, and opportunities lost as a result of investing in one relationship instead of another.
Benefits:
Rewards obtained from a relationship one is involved in, and can include material or immaterial things. These benefits can be affection, support, social status, fun, money, goods ect.
Comparison level:
Developed when our experiences in other relationships and our general experiences
Relationship will form if the potential profit exceeds our comparison level
Comparison level for alternatives:
We weigh up the potential increase in rewards from an alternative partner against any costs associated with ending the current relationship
If you were in a satisfying relationship, would you notice the alternatives
Stages in relationship development:
Sampling:
explore the rewards and costs of social change by experimenting with them in our relationships
Bargaining:
marks the beginning of relationship when partners start exchanging cost and rewards, negotiating and identifying what is most profitable
Commitment:
partners are now settled because the rewards and benefits are firmly established
Institutionalisation:
the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable, The relationship becomes more stable as the rewards grow and the cost lessen
Evaluation:
Research support: Miller (1997)
Procedure:
Ppts described their relationship
Inspected slides of attractive opposite sex targets
2 months later, reported whether their relationships had ended
Satisfaction, investment, commitment, and adjustment in a relationship were negatively correlated with reports of vigilance toward desirable alternatives to that relationship
Findings:
Those who had earlier claimed to be attentive to alternatives spent more time inspecting pictures of attractive opposite sex targets
No better predictor of relationship failure than high attentiveness to alternatives
Conclusion:
Inattentiveness may be a maintenance mechanism that helps preserve and protect desirable relationships
However:
It assumes decisions are taken rationally as monitoring, question commitment
Increased costs may not lead to dissatisfaction because of equity or fairness
Measuring costs and rewards is difficult, which means it is subjective, thus has low validity
S - There is evidence to suggest that SET principles predict commitment
Kurdek (1995)
used questionnaires with hetero and homosexual couples and found that those who perceived high rewards and low costs were most committed
W - Concepts in the SET are vague and difficult to test
Definitions of costs and benefits that have been used in research, however in real life both rewards and costs are far more subjective
S - This theory can be used as an application in therapy
If couples can + the number of positive exchanges and - the negative then perceived rewards become more visible and relationships can improve
W - This theory cannot explain all relationships
Costs are high eg. abusive relationships/ partner is ill - these relationships do not always break down and people do not look for alternatives
W - Direction of the correlation between dissatisfaction and lack of benefits may be incorrect
SET suggests we only become dissatisfied when rewards are low, but this may be the only way around - we become dissatisfied then perceive the rewards to be low
Assumptions:
Humans are rational beings, and their relationships are based on well calculated decisions
People try to avoid risks, and aspire for rewards
In a comparison of two situations where the same costs are required, humans choose the one which gives the best outcome
Between two situations which give similar rewards, people go for the one where the least effort is required
When the nature of rewards in a situation is not clear, people act on the expectation of rewards
The expectation of rewards varies from person to person, what is inadequate for one might satisfy another
Equity Theory: Walster (1978)
Research support: Utne et al (1984):
Used self-report scales to measure equity and satisfaction in recently married couples
18ppts (16-45), had been together for 2+ years before marrying
Found that partners who rated their relationships as more equitable were also more satisfied with them
However:
Theory does not account for cultural differences eg. individualistic, collectivist societies - over benefitting/ have equity
Theory does not explain individual differences eg. some may be more innately benevolent or entitled
Consequences of inequity:
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction
Most common when the level of perceived inequity changes
Dealing with inequity:
Behavioural outcome:
if the relationship is salvageable, they will work hard to make it more equitable
Cognitive outcome:
Revise their ideas of costs and rewards. What was a cost will become the norm
The Equity Theory: Walster (1978)
Equality:
Not the levels of rewards being the same
Equity:
Not the levels of costs being the same
It's both partners having similar levels of profit
Over benefitting:
May feel guilt, shame and discomfort
Under benefitting:
May feel anger, hostility, resentment and humiliation
Profit has not got to be the same, but it should be fair
Satisfaction:
Duck's Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown:
Evaluation:
S - Real world applications: suggestion that breakdown can be reversed. Focusing on positive aspects in the first two stages is often used in therapy to help repair relationships
W - Research into breakdown is often retrospective; means there may be trouble remembering, especially in the early phases
W - Issues with validity: self-report data may be subject to social desirability
W - Culture bias; most research is conducted in individualistic cultures (ethnocentric) where relationships may form and break without peer involvement (not always the case with collectivist)
Model:
Intra-Psychic Phase
- A cognitive process within the individual, one partners is dissatisfied and considers pros and cons
Dyadic Phase
- Interpersonal process between partners, problems can no longer be ignored, confrontations may occur
Social Phase
- The break up is public, partners seek support and forge allies, social forces play a role (either encourage/discourage)
Grave Dressing Phase
- Focus is on aftermath, favourable stories are told to friends about the break up
Breakdown is a process not a one-off event
Rusbult's Investment Model:
Evaluation:
Research support:
Agnew (2003)
Found that satisfaction with alternatives to, and investments in a relationship each correlated significantly with commitment to that relationship
Associations between commitment and its theorised bases vary minimally as a function of demographic or relational factors
Meta-analysis of Rusbult's Investment Model of commitment (52 studies, 60 independent samples and 11,582 ppts)
W - The model oversimplifies investments
W - There are issues with the methodology of the research, meta-analysis of self report is subjective and correlational
S - Good at explaining why people stay in abusive relationships
Definitions:
Commitment
- A romantic partners desire to continue the relationship
Satisfaction
- The rewards of the relationship exceed the costs
Comparison with alternatives
- Judgement about whether or not other partners would bring more rewards and fewer costs
Investment
- Resources associated with the relationship
Model:
Satisfaction level; Comparison with alternatives; Investment level
Commitment level
Relationships maintenance mechanisms; Accommodation; Willingness to sacrifice; Forgiveness; Positive illusions; Ridiculing alternatives