relationships

Question 1

Self-disclosure definition

Answer 1

revealing personal information about yourself.

Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops.

These self-disclosures about one’s deepest thoughts and feelings can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately.

Question 2

reduced cue theory - virtual relationships

Answer 2

Sproull and Kiesler – virtual relationships are less effective than FTF ones because they lack cues, we normally depend on in FTF interactions.

Non-verbal cues and cues on our emotional state

Reduces a person’s sense of individual identity in virtual relationships (deindividuation) leading to disinhibition allow people to feel free to communicate in a blunt / harsh tone.

Less likely to do disclosure to someone who is impersonal

Question 3

the hyper - personal model - virtual relationships

Answer 3

Joseph Walther – virtual relationships can be more personal and involve greater disclosure than FTF ones
As virtual relationships develop quicker so self-disclosure happens earlier leading to more intense and inmate relationships

Question 4

two key features of the hyper personal model

Answer 4

1. selective self-presentation (sender)

2. Receiver

Question 5

selective self presentation

Answer 5

– greater control over the self-disclosure and cues they send in messages than in FTF situations. This allows the sender to manipulate their image to present themselves in the best light. Self-disclosure can be both hyper-honest and or hyper-dishonest

Question 6

receiver - hyper personal model

Answer 6

gains a positive impression of the sender leading to feedback that positively reinforces the sender’s selective self-presentation

Bargh et al – point out the ‘stranger on the train effect in FTF relationships that promote Online self-disclosure and what makes virtual relationships the hyper personal is anonymity. This means when FTF when you know other people know your identity so feel more accountable for your behavior. So disclose more to a stranger than normal.

Question 7

define Absence of gating

Answer 7

face to face relationships often fail to form because of obstacles such as facial disfigurement that some people might find off putting. These barriers or gates are absent in the virtual world allowing relationships to begin when they might not offline

Question 8

absence of gating

Answer 8

• McKenna and Bargh – a gate is an obstacle to forming a relationship.
• FTF relationships are gated as it involves many feature that can interfere with the early development of a relationship.
• Examples – physical unattractiveness, low confidence and a stammer.

Question 9

Benefits and drawbacks of virtual relationships and gating

Answer 9

In virtual relationship most of these gates are absent. This allows self -disclosure to develop to a point where it is more frequent and deeper. Therefore, the relationship can get further than if it was developed FTF.
Absence of gating works by refocusing attention on self-closure and away from superficial features.
So, in virtual relationships you are more interest in what they tell you.
A benefit of gates being absent is that individuals feel freer to be themselves.
However, a negative is that a handful of people may create untrue identities and deceive people in a way which would not be possible in FTF interactions (can change age, gender, extravert levels)

Question 10

evaluation - virtual relationships - lack of support for reduced cues

Answer 10

• Limitation - online non-verbal cues are different rather than absent
• people online interact with other cues such as style and timing of messages
• E.g., taking time to reply to a social media status update may be more intimate than an immediate response but taking to long may show a disinterest.
• Acronyms, emoticons and emojis can also be used as effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice.
• Therefore, the reduced cue theory fails to explain these differences in cues in virtual relationships.

Question 11

evaluation - virtual relationship - lack of support - hyper-personal model

Answer 11

Limitation – challenged by findings from meta -analysis
Ruppel et al – meta-analysis of 25 studies – comparing FTF and virtual interactions
Found that in self report studies the frequency, breadth and depth of self-disclosure was greater in FTF relationships.
Although – experimental studies found no difference between FTF and virtual relationship in terms of self-disclosure.
This contradicts the models view that that greater the intimacy of virtual relationships should lead to more and deeper self-disclosure than in FTF

Question 12

evaluation - Support for absence of gating

Answer 12

Strength – shy, lonely and socially anxious people find virtual relationships especially valuable.
McKenna and Bargh - looked at online communication by shy, lonely and socially anxious people and found that these people were able to express their truest self in FTF situations.
Of romantic relationships formed initially online by shy people 71% survived 2 years whereas when formed in the real world only 49% survived 2 years.
This suggests that shy people do benefit online presumably because the gating that obstructs FTF relationships in absent online.

Question 13

define commitment

Answer 13

a romantic partner’s intention or desire to continue a relationship, reflecting a belief that the relationship has a visible long-term future.

Question 14

define satisfaction

Answer 14

the extent to which romantic partners feel the rewards of a relationship exceed the costs.

Question 15

define comparison with alternatives

Answer 15

a judgement that partners make concerning whether a relationship with a different partner would bring more rewards and fewer costs

Question 16

define investment

Answer 16

the resources associated with a romantic relationship which partners would lose if their relationship were to end.

Question 17

what 3 factors does Rusbult et al suggest commitment depends on

Answer 17

1. satisfaction
   2.comparision with alternatives
2. investment
   With all three, the partners within a relationship experience high levels of satisfaction and alternatives will seem less attractive. Leading to their investments to keep increasing and therefore being more committed.

Question 18

what is rubult’s et al theory based on

Answer 18

modification of the social exchange theory

Question 19

Rubult’s et al - satisfaction

Answer 19

based on comparison level (SET)

A satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards and costs, it is seen to be profitable if it has many rewards and few costs

Generally satisfied if getting more out of the relationship than they expect – based on previous experiences and social norms

Question 20

rusbult’s et al - comparison with alternatives

Answer 20

Results in romantic partners asking themselves if they can do better

Alternatives include not just relationships with other people, but the possibility of having no romantic relationship at all

Question 21

rusbults et al - investment

Answer 21

Rusbult realized that CL and CLalt was not enough to explain commitment, as in many relationships the costs outweigh the rewards, and the alternatives seem more attractive. So, there must be a third factor. – investment

Intrinsic investment: any resources that we put directly into the relationship. These are tangible things.

Extrinsic investments: resources that previously did not feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it. Tangible and intangible.

Question 22

satisfaction vs commitment

Answer 22

Argued that commitment is the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, with satisfaction as a contributing factor. This helps us understand why people stay in relationship when they are dissatisfied – they are committed because of their investments.

Therefore, will work hard to maintain the relationship

Question 23

maintenance mechanisms

Answer 23

• Commitment expresses itself in everyday in maintenance behaviors.
• Partners don’t engage in tic for tac retaliation but instead promote the relationship (accommodation)
• Also put their partners interests first and forgive them for serious transgressions
• Cognitive element to relationship maintenance – think about each other and potential alternatives in specific ways. E.g., unrealistically positive things about their partner and negatives about alternatives

Question 24

rusbult’s investment model - evaluation - research support

Answer 24

P- one strength of the investment model is support from a meta- analysis be Le and Agnew.
E – they reviewed 52 studies which together included about 11, 000 participants from 5 countries.
E – they found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted the longest. These outcomes were true for women and men across all culture in the analysis and for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.
L – this suggests there is validity to Rusbult’s claim that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships

Question 25

Rusbult’s investment model - counterpoint to research support

Answer 25

P – strong correlations have been found between all the important factor predicted by the investment model.
E – for example, most of the studies in Le and Agnew’s meta-analysis were correlational. However, correlational studies do not allow us to conclude that the factors identified by the model cause commitment in a relationship.
E – it could be that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship, so the direction of causality may be the reverse of that suggested by the model.
L – therefore it is not clear that the model has identified the cause of commitment rather than factors that are associated with it.

Question 26

Rusbult’s investment models - evaluation - abusive relationship

Answer 26

P – another strength is that the model is an explanation of relationships that involve intimate partner violence.
E – Rusbult and Martz, studied domestically abused women at a shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported having made the greatest investment and having the fewer attractive alternatives.
E- these women were dissatisfied with their relationship but still committed to them.
L – therefore, the model shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships. This shows that commitment and investment ae also factors.

Question 27

rusbult’s evaluation - oversimplifies investment

Answer 27

P – one limitation of the model is that it views investment in a simplistic one- dimensional way
E – Good-friend and Agnew point out that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship. As in the early stages, partners will have made very few actual investments.
E – Good – friend and Agnew extended Rusbult’s original model by including the investment partners make in their future plans. They are motivated to commit to each other because they want to see their cherished plans for the future work out.
L – this means the original model is limited because it fails to recognize the true complexity of investments, especially how planning for the future influences commitment

Question 28

social exchange theory - rewards, costs and profits

Answer 28

Thibault and Kelley

• proposed social exchange theory
• Relationships reflect the economic assumptions of exchange
• We try to minimize loss and maximize profits/gains
• Judge satisfaction with a relationship in terms of the profit it yields
• Rewards and costs are subjective – wide range of outcomes
• Rewards = companionship, sex and emotional support

Question 29

blau - rewards, costs and profits

Answer 29

• Relationships can be expensive
• Costs = time, stress, energy, compromise
• Also, opportunity costs = can invest the same resources elsewhere = time and energy

Question 30

comparison level - social exchange theory

Answer 30

• Two ways which we measure the profit of a romantic relationship.
• 1. Comparison level = essentially the amount of reward you believe you deserve to get, developed out of our previous relationships and influenced by social norm.
• When we have more relationships and experience more social norms our comparison level changes
• High Self-esteem = high comparison levels – therefore want more profit and satisfaction

Question 31

comparision level for alternatives

Answer 31

• Second measurement of profit
• Provides wider context for our current relationship
• Do we gain greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship?
• Social exchange theory suggests we stay in our current relationship as long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternative

Question 32

Steve duck - comparison level f alternatives

Answer 32

• Comparison level for alternatives we adopt will depend on the state of our current relationships.
• When the cost of our relationship outweighs the rewards, then alternatives become more attractive

Question 33

stages of relationship development - social exchange theory

Answer 33

1. Sampling stage – the couple explore the rewards and costs in a variety of relationships
2. Bargaining stage – the couple negotiates the relationship and agrees the rewards and cost
3. Commitment stage – the couple settles into the relationship and the exchange of reward becomes fairly predictable
4. Institutionalization – norms and expectations are firmly established

Question 34

social exchange theory - research support

Answer 34

P – one strength is research support for aspects of the social exchange theory

E – kurdek ask homosexual and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables.
E – found that those partners who were most committed also perceived the most rewards and fewer costs and viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive. This study also showed that the SET concepts that predict commitment are independent of each other.

L – these findings match predictions from SET, strongly confirming the validity of the theory in homosexual sexual relationships as well as in heterosexual partners

Question 35

social exchange theory - direction of cause and effect - evaluation

Answer 35

P – one limitation of SET is its claim that dissatisfaction arises only after a relationship stops being profitable or when alternatives are more attractive.
E – but argues that we don’t monitor costs and rewards or consider alternatives until after we are dissatisfied. when we are satisfied with a relationship and committed to it, we do not even notice potentially attractive alternatives.
E – this suggests that considering costs/alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse.
L – therefore an issue with SET is the direction of cause and effect they believe there is between cost, reward, alternatives and satisfaction.

Question 36

social exchange theory evaluation - vague concepts

Answer 36

P – another limitation is that SET deals in concepts that are vague and hard to quantify.
E – rewards and costs have been defined superficially in research in order to measure them. But real-world psychological rewards and costs are subjective and harder to define. This is because rewards and costs vary a lot from one person to another
E - The concept of comparison levels is especially problematic, and it is unclear what the values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship
L – this means the theory is difficult to test in a valid way

Question 37

social exchange theory evaluation - real world application

Answer 37

P- SET has several practical applications, for example it has been used in relationship theory to improve unsuccessful marriages
E- integrated behavioral couples therapy aims to increase the proportion of positive exchanges within a relationship and decrease the proportion of negative exchanges
E- Christensen et al treated 60 distressed couples using IBCT and found that about two-thirds reported significant improvements in the quality of their relationship.
L- this suggest that SET has be a influential theory as it has benefit people with its real world application

Question 38

ducks phase model

Answer 38

An explanation of the stages people got through when their relationship is not working.

Once one partner is dissatisfied, there are four phases in the process, each with a different focus: intra psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing.

Duck suggests that the ending of a relationship is a process that takes time and goes through distinct phases that are marked by a threshold.

Question 39

4 phase of duck’s model of relationship breakdown

Answer 39

1. intra psychic phase
2. dyadic
3. social
4. grave dressing

Question 40

intra psychic phase

Answer 40

Threshold: “I can’t stand this anymore”

Focus on cognitive processes occurring within the individual.
Dissatisfied partner worries about the reasons for their dissatisfaction, centring mostly on their partners shortcomings.
Mull over thoughts privately (weigh over pros and cons and evaluate alternatives) and may only share with a trusted friend

Question 41

dyadic

Answer 41

Threshold: “I would be justified in withdrawing”

Focus on the interpersonal processes between the two partners – a point where they can longer avoid talking about their relationship.
Series of confrontations where dissatisfactions are aired. – characterized by anxiety, hostility, complaints about lack of equity, resentment over imbalanced roles and rethinking commitment.
Two outcomes – determination to end the relationship and renewed desire to repair it. If rescue attempts fail the next threefold is reached.
Self-disclosure may become deeper and more frequent in this phase

Question 42

social phase

Answer 42

Threshold: “I mean it”

Focus on wider processes involving the couple’s social networks.
The breakup is made public, and the partners will seek support and try to forge pacts.
Mutual friends will be expected to pick a side, and gossip is traded and encouraged.
Some friends will prove reinforcement and reassurance whilst other will place the blame on one of the partners. Finally, some will try to repair the relationship.
This is usually the point of no return and the breakup take on a momentum driven by social forces.

Question 43

grave dressing phase

Answer 43

Focus on the aftermath.
Relationship is dead, so a favorable story about the breakup is created for public consumption to allow it to be buried. – this allows the partners maintain a positive reputation but usually at the expense of the other partner.
Gossip is important in this phase, and it is crucial that each partner tries to retain some social credit by blaming anything but themselves.
Also involves creating a personal story that they can live with that may differ from the public one. This is to do with tidying up the memories of the relationship and a degree of rewriting history.
Traits that were once endearing become reinterpreted in a much more negative fashion.
In the end they will reach the threshold of “time to get a new life”.

Question 44

ducks phase model evaluation - real world application

Answer 44

P – one strength of the model is that it suggests ways in which relationships breakdown can be reversed.
E – this model is useful because it recognizes that different repair strategies are more effective are some points in the breakdown than at others.
E – for example, duck recommend that people in the intra physic phase could be encouraged to focus on their worrying on the positive aspects of their partner. Also, as a feature of the dyadic phase is communication, any attempt to improve this and wider social skills could be beneficial in fostering greater stability in the relationship
L – these insights can be used in relationship counselling to help people through difficult times. Therefore, Duck’s model is beneficial as it has real world application

Question 45

ducks phase evaluation - counterpoint

Answer 45

P – however, an issue with the Duck’s phase model is that it has a cultural bias affecting it ability to be applied to the real world.
E – this is because the model is based on research into relationships breakdowns in individualist cultures, especially the US. According to Moghaddam et al relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end.
E – But relationships in collectivist cultures are less easy to end and involve the wider family. In fact, the whole conception of a romantic relationship differs between cultures.
L – this means the model’s application would not be useful in all cultures, as it struggles to explain the breakdown of relationships in collectivist cultures.

Question 46

duck’s phase model evaluation - incomplete model

Answer 46

P- one limitation is that the original model described is an incomplete explanation of breakdowns.
E- Duck and Rollie added a fifth phase after grave dressing called the resurrection phase. This is where Ex-partners apply the experience gain from the recently ended relationships to future relationships.
E- the researchers also argued that progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable because it is possible to return to an earlier point at any point in any phase. Finally, the processes that occur in relationship breakdown are more important than linear movement from one phase to the next.
L- Therefore, the original model does not account for the complexity of breakdown and its dynamic nature.