Relationships

Question 1

What is Thibault and Kelley’s (1959) theory of Social Exchange?

Answer 1

• economic structure
• minimise losses and maximise gains and so in a relationship
• Peter Blau (1964) described how relationships can be ‘expensive’ as it takes energy, time etc to maintain a healthy relationship (opportunity cost)

Question 2

What is the Comparison Level?

Answer 2

The amount of the reward you deserve to get and this develops out of experiences in past relationships as well as social norms (acts the same as a schema or collecting data). The higher your CL level the more worth pursuing a relationship is. Therefore if you have lower self-esteem you will have a lower CL level and be willing to make a smaller profit or even a loss.

Question 3

What is the Comparison Level for Alternatives?

Answer 3

• whether we believe we will get a bigger reward or fewer costs from another relationship (or from being on our own)
• Duck (1994) says that we base our CLalt on the relationship we are currently in, and will often not notice anyone else if we are in a satisfying relationship

Question 4

What are the stages of relationship development? (4)

Answer 4

1. Sampling stage - We explore the rewards and costs of the potential relationship by having romantic and platonic relationships, developing our CL as we go.
2. Bargaining Stage - This is the beginning of the relationship where the partner way up the costs vs the rewards.
3. The Commitment Stage - We are able to predict the levels of costs and rewards as the relationship progresses. It will become more stable as rewards increase.
4. Institutionalisation Stage - When the rewards and costs settle a long term relationship is established.

Question 5

What are the inappropriate assumptions underlying SET?

Answer 5

There are issues with the economic metaphor, as explored by Clark and Mills (2011) who say that this is the case with exchange relationships, eg. coworkers as it is in communal relationships, eg. relationships where nobody is keeping a tally. Romantic relationships return rewards for rewards and costs for costs and if this tallying were to take part at the start of a relationship it may not be beneficial as each partner would be guessing the commitment level the other wants. Therefore this is not really applicable to most relationships and is an insufficient explanation.

Question 6

What is an issue with the directions of the cause and effects? (SET)

Answer 6

SET argues that when the suspected costs outweigh the rewards then dissatisfaction takes place in a relationship but Argyle (1987) instead of points out that this does not happen (looking for alternatives) until after dissatisfaction sets in. There is also research to support this contrast, Miller (1997) found that individuals in a secure relationship were less likely to look at pictures of attractive people. It was also a good predictor of whether the relationship would still be ongoing 2 months later. Therefore people in a more committed relationship are more likely to ignore other options and SET does not account for this.

Question 7

How is ignoring equity an issue? (SET)

Answer 7

SET ignores the ability of couples to choose equity or fairness in order to create a stable relationship. This is addressed by the improved model of equity theory. There is also a large body of research to support relationships with high levels of equity in the balance of costs and rewards. Therefore SET cannot account for the research findings of equity theory and is thereby limited.

Question 8

How is subjectivity an issue? (SET)

Answer 8

When researching relationships there is a need to quantify what makes a strong relationship or what the level of commitment a couple has to one and the other is. In SET theory psychological rewards and costs are hard to define and change from person to person. Therefore there is no universalisable number that tips a relationship from a too costing one to a rewarding one and therefore is limited in application as it may not be perfectly applicable to all relationships.

Question 9

What is an issue with realism? (SET)

Answer 9

Because of the nature of relationship research often being in an artificial environment it is not a true representation of relationships in an everyday situation, small snapshot studies can be incredibly unrealistic and be dependant on any other factors. Some also just use strangers and have them do game playing scenarios to see how the rewards and costs are distributed. Therefore the artificial limits of relationships research limit the SET and also may ake way for extraneous variables.

Question 10

What is Equity Theory?

Answer 10

As a response to the criticisms of SET, it considers the role of equity in a relationship as well as costs and rewards.

Question 11

What is the role of Equity?

Answer 11

What matters is that the sum of the rewards minus the costs is equal for each partner in the relationship. This was developed by Elaine Walster et al (1978) and they found that dissatisfaction takes place when one partner overbenefits or underbenefits from the relationship (these are examples of inequality. Those who overbenefit are likely to feel guilt or shame while those who underbenefit are likely to feel resentment or anger.

Question 12

How are Equity and Equality important?

Answer 12

The difference is that it is not about the sum of rewards and costs on either side of the relationship but how these two totals relate to one and other. eg. if someone puts a lot in but gets a lot out then this will lead to a balance. Partners are able to put in different things to the relationship that the other can not and therefore it is not an imbalance but a creation of a whole which creates satisfaction in the relationship.

Question 13

What are the consequences of inequality?

Answer 13

• dissatisfaction
• Changes in perceived equity - For example at the start of the relationship an individual may put more into the relationship than they get out, however, this would not be as satisfying at a later stage in a relationship.
• Dealing with Inequity - If the relationship is salvageable then the partner who has noticed this will try and create more balance by giving more or taking less. Or they may change the amount of equality they need without actually changing anything.

Question 14

What is the support from research evidence? (ET)

Answer 14

Real-life relationships can provide the real evidence for equity theory taking place between couples. Utne et al (1984) carried out a survey of 118 recently married couples between 16-45 years old that had been together for at least 2 years before marriage. They measured equity by using two separate self-report scales - those who found their relationship to be equitable were more satisfied. Therefore research evidence from real-world examples provides a strong support for the validity of equity theory.

Question 15

How are Cultural Influences not considered?(ET)

Answer 15

This theory assumes that all relationships world wide have this product of equity that determines whether the relationship is satisfactory or not. However Aumer-Ryan et al (2007) found that there are in fact cultural differences by comparing couples from a collective an individualistic culture. In an individualist culture equity was most desired, while in a collectivist culture the partner was more satisfied when overbenefitting. Therefore equity theory fails to consider the potential of cultural differences and does not accurately predict satisfaction in all relationships.

Question 16

How is there an issue with individual differences? (ET)

Answer 16

Again, not all relationships reflect what is the norm whether that is socially or culturally, some couples are not concerned about achieving equity in their relationships. Huseman et al (1987) described some partners as benevolents who were willing to give more to the relationships than they received. The other partner was then known as an entitled who believes they deserve to be overbenefitted and do not feel guilty about this. Therefore equity theory is not universalisable on an individual level as well as a cultural one.

Question 17

How is the importance of equity to be measured?(ET)

Answer 17

Equity research may not actually be the main structure of romantic relationships. Clark and Mills (2011) looked at the body of evidence supporting equity in relationships and concluded that, although it was valid in friendships or with coworkers, in a romantic relationship the evidence that equity was necessary is not as divisive. Therefore equity may play a larger role in platonic and more formal relationships while not being central to romantic relationships.

Question 18

How is the importance of equity to be measured?(ET)

Answer 18

Equity research may not actually be the main structure of romantic relationships. Clark and Mills (2011) looked at the body of evidence supporting equity in relationships and concluded that, although it was valid in friendships or with coworkers, in a romantic relationship the evidence that equity was necessary is not as divisive. Therefore equity may play a larger role in platonic and more formal relationships while not being central to romantic relationships.

Question 19

What is the contradictory research for this theory?(ET)

Answer 19

While equity theory suggests that over time the relationship should become more equitable there is alternative research evidence provided by Berg and McQuinn (1986) who found that equity did not increase their longitudinal study of dating couples and could not distinguish which relationships would end and which would continue. Therefore equity is not always supported by research and there may be other forces that determine the continuation of a romantic relationship.

Question 20

What is Rusbult’s Investment Model?

Answer 20

The investment model is developed from SET theory and states that commitment depends on three different factors - satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives, investments size.

Question 21

What is satisfaction and comparison with alternatives?

Answer 21

Satisfaction links back to the CL - the number of rewards minus the costs that a relationship takes. If the costs are too high the relationship will not be satisfactory. A partner will be more satisfied if they get more out of a relationship than they expect.

Comparison with alternatives or CLalt is again whether the person in the relationship feels their needs could be better met by another person, or not being in a relationship at all.

Question 22

What is Investment Size?

Answer 22

Rusbult suggests that these are not enough to explain the satisfactory nature of relationships - as SET theory chooses to. An investment is anything put into a relationship that, were we to end the relationship, we would lose.

• Intrinsic Investments - these are the relationships we put directly into the relationship (eg. possessions or self-disclosures).
• Extrinsic Values - these are parts of the relationship that were not originally associated with it but now are (eg. children).

So if we have a high level of satisfaction, no need to look for alternative partners and their investments are increasing it is likely that the relationship will continue.`

Question 23

How is there a trade-off between satisfaction and commitment?

Answer 23

Rusbult (2011) argues that commitment is the most important factor in comparison to satisfaction. Therefore this explains why dissatisfied partners stay in relationships - as they are committed to their partners and they do not want their investments to go to waste.

Question 24

What are relationship maintenance mechanisms?

Answer 24

This may include not taking part in small arguments for no reason to try to resolve these conflicts and they are also more likely to put their partner first (sacrifice) as well as forgive them for any mistakes. There is also a cognitive element to this where each partner thinks of the other with positive regard while also having positive illusions about being with their partner ( the opposite being ridiculing alternative relationship options).

Question 25

How is there supporting research evidence?(R)

Answer 25

There is strong research support provided by Benjamin Le and Christopher Agnew (2003) when they conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies from 1970-99 with almost 11,000 p/pants in five different countries. They found that the three factors of satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size were accurate predictors of commitment. And these were also the relationships that lasted the longest. Therefore this supports Rusbult’s claim that these feature are universal in relationships.

Question 26

How does this model explain abusive relationships?(R)

Answer 26

This model can also effectively explain why intimate partner violence (IPV) takes place in a relationship. Rusbult and Martz (1995) studied ‘battered’ women at a shelter and found that those who reported having the highest investment and few attractive alternatives were most likely to go back to their abusive partner, despite a lack of satisfaction. Therefore this model explains how a partner can not be satisfied and yet still remain in a relationship due to the other factors.

Question 27

How does this oversimplify investment?(R)

Answer 27

However, Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) do point out that that the investment is oversimplified when it is limited to just the ones already in the relationship. For example, in the early stages of the relationship, there are not many investments and therefore would have an incentive to leave when using Rusbult’s model. So instead they add to this model that investment includes future plans. Partners are committed because they want the future to work out. Therefore Rusbult’s Investment Model fails to consider the complexity of investment and the impact it has on commitment.

Question 28

What are the methodological strengths of this?(R)

Answer 28

Much of the research that supports the Investment Model use self-report methods such as questionnaires or interviews. This is more effective than looking at the objective amounts of costs and rewards each partner has, what matters is the amount they perceive that they have. For example, people in a committed relationship may say they have no alternatives but the truth is that were they not in the relationship anymore there would be many potential partners. Therefore the supporting studies use relevant methodology, strengthening the validity of the model.

Question 29

What is the correlational research?(R)

Answer 29

The investment model also has strong correlations found between the important factors that it includes. Although this cannot prove it may also be causation and could suggest alternatively that if you are committed to your partner you are more likely to invest more - not the other way around. Therefore this model may suffer from issues of causality rather than a fixed proof of correlation.

Question 30

What is Rusbult’s Investment Model?

Answer 30

The investment model is developed from SET theory and states that commitment depends on three different factors - satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives, investments size.

Question 31

What is satisfaction and comparison with alternatives?

Answer 31

Satisfaction links back to the CL - the number of rewards minus the costs that a relationship takes. If the costs are too high the relationship will not be satisfactory. A partner will be more satisfied if they get more out of a relationship than they expect.

Comparison with alternatives or CLalt is again whether the person in the relationship feels their needs could be better met by another person, or not being in a relationship at all.

Question 32

What is Investment Size?

Answer 32

Rusbult suggests that these are not enough to explain the satisfactory nature of relationships - as SET theory chooses to. An investment is anything put into a relationship that, were we to end the relationship, we would lose.

• Intrinsic Investments - these are the relationships we put directly into the relationship (eg. possessions or self-disclosures).
• Extrinsic Values - these are parts of the relationship that were not originally associated with it but now are (eg. children).

So if we have a high level of satisfaction, no need to look for alternative partners and their investments are increasing it is likely that the relationship will continue.

Question 33

How is there a trade-off between satisfaction and commitment?

Answer 33

Rusbult (2011) argues that commitment is the most important factor in comparison to satisfaction. Therefore this explains why dissatisfied partners stay in relationships - as they are committed to their partners and they do not want their investments to go to waste.

Question 34

What are relationship maintenance mechanisms?

Answer 34

This may include not taking part in small arguments for no reason to try to resolve these conflicts and they are also more likely to put their partner first (sacrifice) as well as forgive them for any mistakes. There is also a cognitive element to this where each partner thinks of the other with positive regard while also having positive illusions about being with their partner ( the opposite being ridiculing alternative relationship options).

Question 35

How is there supporting research evidence? (Rusbult)

Answer 35

There is strong research support provided by Benjamin Le and Christopher Agnew (2003) when they conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies from 1970-99 with almost 11,000 p/pants in five different countries. They found that the three factors of satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size were accurate predictors of commitment. And these were also the relationships that lasted the longest. Therefore this supports Rusbult’s claim that these feature are universal in relationships.

Question 36

How does this model explain abusive relationships? (Rusbult)

Answer 36

This model can also effectively explain why intimate partner violence (IPV) takes place in a relationship. Rusbult and Martz (1995) studied ‘battered’ women at a shelter and found that those who reported having the highest investment and few attractive alternatives were most likely to go back to their abusive partner, despite a lack of satisfaction. Therefore this model explains how a partner can not be satisfied and yet still remain in a relationship due to the other factors.

Question 37

How does this oversimplify investment? (Rusbult)

Answer 37

However, Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) do point out that that the investment is oversimplified when it is limited to just the ones already in the relationship. For example, in the early stages of the relationship, there are not many investments and therefore would have an incentive to leave when using Rusbult’s model. So instead they add to this model that investment includes future plans. Partners are committed because they want the future to work out. Therefore Rusbult’s Investment Model fails to consider the complexity of investment and the impact it has on commitment.

Question 38

What are the methodological strengths of this? (Rusbult)

Answer 38

Much of the research that supports the Investment Model use self-report methods such as questionnaires or interviews. This is more effective than looking at the objective amounts of costs and rewards each partner has, what matters is the amount they perceive that they have. For example, people in a committed relationship may say they have no alternatives but the truth is that were they not in the relationship anymore there would be many potential partners. Therefore the supporting studies use relevant methodology, strengthening the validity of the model.

Question 39

What is the correlational research? (Rusbult)

Answer 39

The investment model also has strong correlations found between the important factors that it includes. Although this cannot prove it may also be causation and could suggest alternatively that if you are committed to your partner you are more likely to invest more - not the other way around. Therefore this model may suffer from issues of causality rather than a fixed proof of correlation.

Question 40

What is the Model of Breakdown (2007) (7)

Answer 40

1. Breakdown - when issues start to occur in the relationship that are a problem for both or one of the individuals and this causes dissatisfaction.
2. Intrapsychic processes - When a partner becomes so dissatisfied that they start to focus on the negative aspects of their partner and will often make alternate plans for the future in thoughts.
3. Dyadic processes - This is when partners begin to voice their dissatisfaction with the relationship. This is often confrontational and can occur over a longer period. This can result in a decision to a) try to work through the relationship’s issues or b)choose to end the relationship.
4. Social processes - Here the breakup becomes public and the social network begins to split while others begin to support or allocate blame to either of the partners. Yet some support may end in the partner’s trying again to save the relationship with the help of an outsider’s perspective. But this can also work the other way.
5. Grave-dressing processes - If a relationship reaches this point it will not be fixed as each partner starts to make themselves look good to those around them in order to succeed at having another partner in the future. This can result in bitter feelings between partners as they often paint the other in a bad light in order to recover socially.
6. Resurrection processes (added later Duck and Rollie) - Here they reflect on what they have learnt from the relationship and will start to reinvent themselves and make necessary changes to their dating tactics.

Question 41

How is it easier to break up with someone than to be broken up with?

Answer 41

In this theory, it means that the person who are breaking up with the other (in a case where it is not mutual) has time to mentally prepare for this to happen, without the shock of suddenly being alone.

Although this does not apply to emotionally distanced relationships.

Question 42

What did Askert (1992) say about guilt?

Answer 42

However, this is contrasted by Askert (1992) who suggests that the instigator suffers more as the result of guilt.

Question 43

What is Duck’s theory of Reasons for Breakdown (1999)?

Answer 43

• Lack of Skills - some people lack the interpersonal skills to maintain relationships ei. bad conversational skills and therefore this leads to issues in the relationships.
• Lack of Stimulation - part of SET theory suggests we need stimulation to not become bored and dissatisfied.
• Maintenance Difficulties - Sometimes external events or stress from other aspects of life can strain a relationship until it breaks down.

Question 44

How is this theory effective in the application? (Duck)

Answer 44

This theory has a positive impact in the application when it is used in the therapy setting to help save relationships or to end them healthily. Duck (1994) looked at the thoughts in the intra-psychic phase and realised that if partners, were asked to think actively about the positive aspects their partner, has then they are more likely to try and improve the relationship than break up. Therefore Duck’s phase model has a valid real-life impact upon the breakdown of relationships.
Although it is important to realise that most couples are past the point of support by the time they choose to get external help - if it can be done before this time it may be successful.

Question 45

How does Tashiro and Frazier’s (2003) study provide a support? (Duck)

Answer 45

Tashiro and Frazier (2003) looked at emotional stress and personal growth in relationships and in support of Duck’s model concluded that these are common factors of a breakup. This also has an aspect of face validity to it, we can see it in our own and others’ relationships as a process, not as a single event. Duck’s model also comprehensible looks at the whole group impacted by a breakup, not just the partners.

Question 45

How does Tashiro and Frazier’s (2003) study provide a support? (Duck)

Answer 45

Tashiro and Frazier (2003) looked at emotional stress and personal growth in relationships and in support of Duck’s model concluded that these are common factors of a breakup. This also has an aspect of face validity to it, we can see it in our own and others’ relationships as a process, not as a single event. Duck’s model also comprehensible looks at the whole group impacted by a breakup, not just the partners.

Question 46

How is Flemlee’s (1995) fatal attraction hypothesis an issue? (Duck)

Answer 46

Felmlee suggests that the endearing and cute things at the beginning of the relationship later make the partner who enjoyed this irate they have got too much of what they asked for. This was called the ‘bunny boiler’ effect (from the film Fatal Attraction). Therefore there is another reason for relationship breakdown, the original factor that created this (common in immature relationships).

Question 47

How are cultural differences an issue here? (Duck)

Answer 47

This model does however suffer from issues of cultural differences. Moghaddam et al (1993) point out that there is a difference between individualist and collectivist cultures when it comes to how the relationship breaks down. In an individualist culture, it is often easier to break up than in a collectivist culture where there is much more weight from external factors eg. family, money to stay together. Therefore Duck’s model does not take into account the difference in culture.

Question 48

How is retrospective recall an issue? (Duck)

Answer 48

One methodological issue with the research is that it relies upon self-report methods that means the partners are often looking at their relationship retrospectively. The issue with this is that they may have remembered incorrectly or changed their opinion multiple times on how they feel about the relationship. There is also the possibility of social desirability affecting what they choose to say. Therefore the reliability of Duck’s supporting research is questionable.

Question 49

How is self-disclosure different in virtual relationships?

Answer 49

In many ways, relationships in person are very similar to those online but there are also other aspects that impact the conversation the partners are having.

• Reduced cues theory (Sproull and Keisler 1986) suggest that online conversations are not as effective as it does not have the necessary cues that happen in a normal FtF conversations. This causes de-individuation where it reduces the sens of the individual having a unique identity, which in turn leads to disinhibition. CMC is a more aggressive and direct way to communicate but this also allows for self-disclosure to occur at a faster rate.
• Walther (1996, 2011) developed the hyperpersonal model which states that online relationships can be way more personal where self-disclosure occurs at a greater rate. But this can also mean they end more quickly because trust doesn’t match the excitement of the relationship (Cooper and Sportolari 1997 - boom and bust theory). This can also mean that people have more time to craft and filter their online image - called selective self-presentation.
• Relationships are also anonymous Bargh (2002) points out. When people do not know who you are you have more freedom to feel less accountable and act how you wish.

Question 49

How is self-disclosure different in virtual relationships?

Answer 49

In many ways, relationships in person are very similar to those online but there are also other aspects that impact the conversation the partners are having.

• Reduced cues theory (Sproull and Keisler 1986) suggest that online conversations are not as effective as it does not have the necessary cues that happen in a normal FtF conversations. This causes de-individuation where it reduces the sens of the individual having a unique identity, which in turn leads to disinhibition. CMC is a more aggressive and direct way to communicate but this also allows for self-disclosure to occur at a faster rate.
• Walther (1996, 2011) developed the hyperpersonal model which states that online relationships can be way more personal where self-disclosure occurs at a greater rate. But this can also mean they end more quickly because trust doesn’t match the excitement of the relationship (Cooper and Sportolari 1997 - boom and bust theory). This can also mean that people have more time to craft and filter their online image - called selective self-presentation.
• Relationships are also anonymous Bargh (2002) points out. When people do not know who you are you have more freedom to feel less accountable and act how you wish.

Question 50

How is there an absence of gating in virtual relationships?

Answer 50

A gate is anything that might get in the way of the relationship continuing initially. For example, being anxious or unattractive will not have such a large impact on CMC (McKenna and Bargh 1999). Therefore this not being a focus means that self-disclosure is even more important and this also creates room for a ‘second life’ where you can completely change your identity.

Question 51

How is there a lack of research support for reduced cues theory? (VR)

Answer 51

However it is not actually the case that non-verbal cues are not present in CMC relationships, there is a different way of this being expressed. Walther and Tidwell (1995) saw that there was still the presence of timing and style. For exampling taking the time to reply to a message caringly but not taking too long as well. Therefore these nuances in communication prove these CMC relationships have just as many alternative cues.

Question 52

What is the research support for the hyperpersonal model? (VR)

Answer 52

Whitty and Joinson (2009) looked at the ‘hyperhonest’ and the ‘hyperdishonest’ ways people in CMC relationships communicate online. There are more intimate, direct questions asked in the evidence collected by these researchers than the more common ‘small talk’ that takes place in FtF relationships. Therefore this supports the central idea of the theory - that CMC relationships have a different disclosure rate that presents partners in a positive light.

Question 53

How are there different types of CMC?

Answer 53

Self-disclosure does not always come in one form in CMC depending on the format you were using. For example, those using online dating sights will end up dating in person and so their actions online still have an impact on their ‘real’ life. Or you can also compare the level of disclosure in a questionnaire to a status on Facebook (Paine et al 2006). Therefore this aspect of CMC communication has been neglected and this means there may be other missing aspects in this theory.

Question 54

How can relationships also be multimodal? (VR)

Answer 54

Walther (2011) pointed out that relationships do not just take place either online or face to face and therefore must be examined as a whole. This is also more necessary in the modern day where relationships that occur online affect our actions in real life. Therefore none of the approaches takes an interactional approach to both of these types of relationships.

Question 55

What is the support for the absence of gating? (VR)

Answer 55

Mckenna and Bargh (2000) looked at those who were socially anxious and found that when they took part in CMC relationships they were able to be more easily their ‘true selves’ than in a FtF relationship. This also lasted long term with 70% surviving more than 2 years which is a major difference to relationship success in the real world. Therefore online relationships have a positive impact on the lives of anxious people and the impact of, for example, reduction of cues theory, is not a large enough effect to limit the success of the relationship.