Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
theories of romantic relationships - Coggle Diagram
theories of romantic relationships
social exchange theory
economic theory
attempts to describe relationships as series of exchanges between partners, aiming at balancing the rewards and costs
base theory on principles of operant conditioning
claim partners in relationships strive to maximise rewards and minimise costs
rewards
companionship, praise, emotional support and sex
costs
stress, arguments, compromises, time commitments
comparison level (CL)
propose people use levels of comparison to assess how profitable their relationships are
based on persons idea of how much reward they expect to receive in relationships
based on previous romantic experiences and cultural norms of what is appropriate to expect from relationships
comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)
concerns a persons perception of whether other different potential relationships would be more rewarding than their current relationship.
people will stay in their current relationship as long as they find them to be more profitable than the alternatives
the more profitable a comparable alternative relationship may seem, the less likely an individual is to remain in their current relationship
evaluation
limitation- confusion of what constitutes a cost and a benefit within a relationship. what might be considered rewarding to one person may be punishing to another (eg.constant attention). SET subjective and its concepts are difficult to accurately quantify so hard to produce valid research support
supporting research- found CLalt were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship, whilst rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction especially for women.. can be concluded that some people base their evaluation of relationships on rewards and costs. so, would appear some people do stay in current relationship while it remains more profitable than alts
equity theory
economic theory
based on idea of fairness for each partner
emphasises need for each partner to experience a balance between the effort they put into the relationship and the benefit they receive
means people get out of the relationship should be roughly equal to what they put into the relationship
developed in response to the signifiant criticism of social exchange theory that suggested being in profit state was the reason why people stayed in relationships
if one partner perceives a relationship as unfair because they are either over-benefitting or under-benefitting they are going to be dissatisfied with the relationship.
overbenefitting
feels guilt/shame
underbenefitting
feel angry and resentful
the longer the feeling of unfairness (lack of equity) goes on, the more likely a couple is likely to break up
evaluation
research support by investigating role of equity in marriage satisfaction. found satisfaction was higher in relationships which couples believed were equitable- shows appears to be a positive relationship between relationship satisfaction and equity
limitation- individual differences in the perception of equity. researcher discovered there are people who are less sensitive to inequity and are prepared to give more in the relationships, termed benevolents whereas other people, entitleds, believe they deserve to over-benefit from relationships and don’t feel too guilty about this. means ET cannot be reliably applied to all people
Rusbults investment model
future stay or leave decision
commitment level
alternatives
investment
satisfaction
satisfaction
based upon the notion of comparison level as seen in SET
partners will have a higher level of satisfaction with their relationship if they receive more rewards and incur fewer costs
to measure satisfaction a partner must internally offset the perceived positivity from the relationship against any negativity, with an emergent result that feels gratifying to them personally
comparison with alternatives
a judgement that is made by one, or both, of the partners in a romantic relationship concerning whether or not they could receive greater satisfaction by terminating the current partnership
alternatives can also include staying on their own and not engaging in romantic relationships at all
investment in romantic relationships
investment is anything a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if they leave
intrinsic investments
resources we put directly into a relationship eg. effort, money, self disclosures
extrinsic investments
resources that did not originally feature in the relationship but do now eg. mutual friends, children, shared memories/possessions
commitment
refers to a partners desire to remain in a couple and reflects their intention to have a long-term future together
rusbult believs commitment acts as a maintenance factor in romantic relationships, even if the couple encounter difficulties in their partnership, given that they will not want to see their respective investments go to waste by breaking up
According to Rusbult's, there are three major factors that lead to commitment in relationships: satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and investment size
evaluation
limitation- assumes western principle of personal choice
limitation- potential methodological issues with studying the investment model because most info comes from interviews/questionaiires which are subjective therefore unreliable
strength- research support from meta analysis of 52 studies which found satisfaction with the relationship, comparison with alternatives, and investment in the partnership all correlated significantly with commitment to that union. results indicate support for Investment Model of romantic relationships with individuals showing the highest level of commitment to a partnership choosing to remain in the relationship
ducks phase model of relationship breakdown
duck suggested relationship dissolution is a process that consists of several distinctive phases
intra-psychic stage
dyadic phase
social phase
grave dressing stage
inta-psychic stage
person admits to themself they are dissatisfied with the relationship
focuses on a persons internal thought processes which occurs before confronting the partner
cognitive threshold= I can't stand this anymore
at each stage there is a cognitive threshold and once this is breached the process moves to the next stage
dyadic stage
person confronts partner and voices dissatisfaction, making many complaints about partners commitment
dissatisfied partner rethinks the alternatives to their current relationship
cognitive threshold= I would be justified in withdrawing
social phase
involves friends and relatives by making their distress public
once reached this stage harder for a couple to mend their relationship
friends and family will take sides and intervene in the couples relationship/ offer advice which makes reconciliation more problematic
usually leads to dissolution of relationship
cognitive threshhold= I mean it
grave dressing phase
having left each other both sides construct their version of why relationship broke down
usually minimises own faults and maximises partners whilst trying to perceive themselves as loyal and trustworthy in order to attract a new partner
signifies closure of previous relationship and readiness to start a new one
cognitive threshold= its inevitable, its time to start a new life
evaluation
assumes western principle of personal choice
doesn't explain all relationships- suggests that nature and impact of social phase experienced during breakup depends on the sort of relationship that is involved especially in relation to age of the partners. For example, for teenagers and young adults, relationships are seen as more unstable than long-term adult relationships, and are largely recognised by others as being 'testing grounds 'for future long-term commitments. shows that model cannot be applied to all couples and suggests that the model is unable to accurately predict breakdown in different types of relationship.