relationships

Question 1

Social Exchange Theory

Answer 1

tibault and kelly 1959 - relationships form if benefits outweigh costs - rewards and costs liable to change throughout relationship
comparison levels - comparing the costs and benefits within a relationship - developed from previous relationships - positive if benefits outweigh costs
comparison levels of alternatives - compering the CL of current partner to the perceived CL of a potential partner

stages of relationship development
sampling - exploring rewards and costs
bargaining - begginging of r/s cost benefit negotiations begin
commitment - rewards and costs become settle
institutionalization - rewards and costs become established

Question 2

SET AO3

Answer 2

+ rusbult and martz 1995 - explains abusive r/s - low altCL
- clark and mills 2011 - does not distinguish between platonic and romantic r/s
+ kurdek 1995 - consistent in hetro and homo couples
- does not account for why people leave r/s with no alt
- reductionist - ignores other factors and complexities of r/s - ie one party with increased costs

Question 3

equity theory

Answer 3

walster 1978 - extension of SET - rather than maximizing benefits party strive to equalize the perceived costs and benefits - costs and benefits subjective
principles of equity theory
distribution - trade offs and compensations negotiated for fairness
dissatisfaction - inequalitys in costs and benefits
realignment - restoring equity - greater inequality = greater work to realign
messick and cook 1983 - underbenefited party became angry, overbenefited guilty

Question 4

rusbults theory AO3

Answer 4

+ le and agnew 2003 - meta analysis 52 studies - satisfaction, alts and investments correlate with commitment
+ rusbult and martz 1995 - explains abusive r/s - low altCL
- over simplification - includes investments in model
- self report methods inaccurate non-scientific

Question 5

ducks phase model

Answer 5

duck 1999 - 3 reasons for the end of a r/s:
lack of skill - poor comunication, lack of social skills
lack of stimulation - boredom/stagnation
maintenance difficulty - decreased reward
two causes of breakdown - predisposing factors, internal, emotional instability, personal habits ect - precipitating factors, external, proximity, other people, paranoia, money
duck and rollie 2006 - inequality in r/s more likely to lead to breakdown

duck phase model of breakdown 2007 - how a r/s ends
intra psychic - personal brooding - unexpressed dissatisfaction
dyadic - express dissatisfaction to partner
social - dissatisfaction made public to friends and family
grave-dressing - spinning r/s to end in a positive way and tying up loose ends
resurrection process - added at later date - moving beyond pain of break up to personal development

Question 6

ducks phase model AO3

Answer 6

\+ alt explanation
\+ identifies thresholds
\+ stresses importance of breakdown
\+ both platonic and romantic 
- does not explain why
- stages may be skipped
- does not always lead to breakup - can be recovered
- does not explain getting back together
- does not explain romantic r/s become platonic - akert 1998 - woman more likely to remain friends with ex than men
- ethnocentric

Question 7

equity theory AO3

Answer 7

+ staffod and corary 2006 - married couples with equity more satisfied

• moghaddon 1998 - only applies to western cultures and in the short term only - profits more valid in long term
• aumer-ryan et al 2007 - couples in individualist cultures satisfied when equitable - collectivist cultures satisfied when over benefited
• huseman er al 1987 - costs subjective - not easy to measure

Question 8

rusbults investment model

Answer 8

SET but investment is a factor in the comparison level with the more investment put into a relationship the higher the comparison level is - if r/s ends all investments are lost
intrinsic investments - investments directly into r/s - money, time, emotion
extrinsic investments - indirect investments into r/s - house, friends, kids
commitment mechanisms:
accommodation - promoting r/s not keeping tally
sacrifice - putting partners needs first
forgiveness - willingness to forgive partners mistakes
positive illusions - unrealistic positive about partners qualities
ridiculing alternatives - viewing alts in negative light

Question 9

virtual relationships

Answer 9

computer mediated communications - relationships done completely online rather than face to face
reasons for more self disclosure in CMC:
less embarisment
reduced consequences
compensates for lack of physical contact
reasons for more self disclosure in CMC:
not trusted
cannot verify reciprocated info
no physical connection
de-individualisation - decreased self evaluation - more likely to disclose more info faster
stranger on the train - more likely to share if we are not going to see recipient again
paralanguage - non typical comunications ie tone, body language - still in cmc - response time, emojis

Question 10

cmc self disclosure

Answer 10

reduced queue theory - sproll and keisler 1986 - missed cues in cmc lead to genuine, blunt communications - lack of SD and details leads to an idealized image of the other person - can cause disappointment with f to f meetings
hyper personal model - walther 1996 - cmc more personal with greater sd - develops fast and more intense - sender has more control over SD, can manipulate self-image
absence of gating - mckenna and bargh 1999 - gate=obstacle to forming r/s - traditional gates not present in cmc - causes a greater focus on info rather than looks
second life - where a lack of physical gates let a person create an online avatar

Question 11

virtual relationships AO3

Answer 11

• walther and tidwell 1995 - alternitive cues used in cmc - response time and emojis substitutes for proximity and facial expressions
• lack of research support
  + whitty and joinson 2009 - hyper honest comunications in cmc
  + lack of gating - shy and socially anxious people had longer r/s online, 71% laster 2yrs + 49% in ftf