Describe (AO1) Duck’s theory of relationship breakdown
Main Idea: Duck’s Phase Model (1982) outlines a process of relationship dissolution through four phases: intrapsychic (internal dissatisfaction), dyadic (discussions with the partner), social (disclosure to others), and grave-dressing (post-breakup ‘story’).
Each Phase: In the intrapsychic phase, a partner broods over dissatisfaction. The dyadic phase involves confrontations. During the social phase, friends/family become involved. Finally, the grave-dressing phase involves justifying the breakup.
Later Addition: Duck (2006) added a fifth phase, the resurrection phase, where individuals prepare for future relationships by learning from past ones.
Evaluation (AO3) Duck’s theory of relationship breakdown
- Supporting Evidence: Tashiro and Frazier (2003) found that individuals could reflect and report personal growth following breakups, supporting the existence of the grave-dressing and resurrection phases.
- Practical Applications: Duck’s model can be used in counseling to guide individuals through breakups, particularly by identifying which stage they are in and addressing specific needs.
- Overly Linear: Critics argue that the model is too structured and doesn’t account for back-and-forth transitions between stages, which is common in real relationships.
- Cultural Bias: The model may not fully account for cultural differences in how breakups are managed, as some cultures may discourage open discussion (dyadic/social phases).
Conclusion
Description (AO1) Rusbult’s investment model
- Main Idea: Rusbult’s Investment Model (1983) posits that commitment in relationships is determined by satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investments (resources put into the relationship, like time, money, and shared experiences).
- Commitment Level: High satisfaction, low-quality alternatives, and high investment lead to stronger commitment.
- Types of Investment: Intrinsic (resources put directly into the relationship) and extrinsic (resources tied to the relationship, such as mutual friends or shared possessions).
Evaluation (AO3) Rusbult’s investment model
-Empirical Support: Le and Agnew (2003) conducted a meta-analysis, finding that satisfaction, alternatives, and investments predict commitment, supporting Rusbult’s model.
-Application to Abusive Relationships: The model explains why people may stay in abusive relationships if investments are high and alternatives are limited.
-Cultural Relevance: Although research shows cross-cultural validity, the weight of each component may vary across individualistic and collectivist cultures.
-Deterministic: Critics argue that the model is overly deterministic, implying that individuals stay due to structural reasons without acknowledging the role of personal agency.
description (AO1) equity theory
-Main Idea: Equity Theory, developed by Walster et al. (1978), suggests that fairness is central to relationship satisfaction. Both partners should feel that their contributions and benefits are balanced.
-Equity vs. Equality: Equity doesn’t mean equal contributions but proportional ones; if one partner contributes more, they should also receive more.
-Restoration of Equity: If a partner feels under-benefited or over-benefited, distress arises, and they may attempt to restore equity by adjusting their own or their partner’s inputs or outcomes.
evaluation (AO3) equity theory
-Supportive Evidence: Stafford and Canary (2006) found that equitable relationships are correlated with higher satisfaction compared to inequitable ones, supporting the theory.
-Individual Differences: Some people, especially those with high communal orientation, may not be affected by perceived inequities and are more focused on their partner’s well-being.
-Cultural Limitations: Equity Theory may apply more in Western cultures. In collectivist cultures, maintaining harmony rather than personal equity may be more crucial.
-Gender Differences: Research suggests men and women may perceive and react to inequity differently, as women often place more emphasis on fairness within relationships than men.
description (AO1) social exchange theory
-Main Idea: SET, developed by Thibaut and Kelley (1959), proposes that relationships are maintained based on a cost-benefit analysis. Individuals weigh rewards (e.g., love, support) and costs (e.g., time, effort) to decide whether to stay in a relationship.
-Comparison Level (CL): Expectations based on past experiences and societal norms. If the current relationship meets or exceeds this level, satisfaction is high.
-Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt): Assessment of potential alternative relationships. If alternatives are more rewarding, individuals may leave.
-Stages of Relationship Development: Sampling, bargaining, commitment, and institutionalization.
evaluation (AO3) social exchange theory
- Supportive Evidence: Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that women in abusive relationships remained if they felt the investment was high and alternatives were low, supporting CLalt as a factor in commitment.
-Reductionist: Critics argue that SET oversimplifies relationships by viewing them as economic transactions and neglects emotional or altruistic aspects.
-Cultural Bias: SET may not apply to collectivist cultures where relationships emphasize community and family rather than individual gains and losses.
-Temporal Validity: In modern times, social expectations of relationships and availability of alternatives (due to technology) might alter how SET operates.
