Theories of romantic relationships: Investment and Breakdown Flashcards
(23 cards)
What is Rusbults investment model
way of understanding why people persist in some relationships but not others
- Relationships persist because of the ties that bind them together (investment) and the absence of a better option
What factors do commitment depend on?
Satisfaction
Comparison with alternatives
Investment
What is satisfaction?
a satisfying relationship is judged by comparing costs and benefits and its seen as profitable if it has many rewards.
Each partner is generally satisfied if they’re getting more from a relationship than they expect based on previous relationships and social norms
What is comparison with alternatives
The extent which an individuals most important needs might be fulfilled outside the current relationship
What is investment?
anything we would lose in the relationship were to end
Investment size is a measure of all the resources attached to the relationship which would diminish in value or be lost (time, friends, possessions)
What is the commitment level?
The likelihood that an individual will persist in their current relationship.
- a product of high satisfaction and investment and low-quality of alternatives
What are strengths of Rusbults investment model
- supporting evidence from Le and Agnew
- real life applications
What are limitations of Rusbults investment model
- direction of causality
- overlooks future plants in a relationship
Evaluate supporting evidence from Le and Agnew as a strength of the investment model
P: A strength of Rusbult’s model is that there is supporting evidence from Le and Agnew.
E: They carried out a meta-analysis of 52 studies conducted between the late 1970s and the
late 1990s. Each of these studies had explored the different components of the investment
model. This produced a total sample of over 11,000 ppts from five countries (US, UK, Netherlands, Israel, and Taiwan). Across all the studies,
satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship
commitment. The correlation between satisfaction level and commitment was found to be
significantly stronger than either quality of alternatives and investment size and commitment.
The correlation between commitment and ‘stay or leave’ behaviours was also significant with individuals showing higher levels of commitment being more likely to stay in a relationship and those with lower levels to leave. An especially supportive finding was that these
outcomes were true for both men and women, across all cultures and for homosexual as
well as heterosexual couples.
E: Strength because it provides support to Rusbult’s claims using a very large sample size with participants across different cultures.
Evaluate real world applications as a strength of investment model
P: Explain why individuals may persist in a relationship with an abusive partner.
E: Victims of partner abuse experience low satisfaction, which would lead us to predict that they would leave the abusive partner – but many do not leave. The investment model highlights features of the relationship that would explain this. For example, they lack alternatives or may have too much invested with that partner (children, house), making dissolution (separation) too traumatic and costly.
E: This is a strength because it helps to explain why people might stay in relationships where they are not satisfied or even being abused. The investment model explains why abuse victims do not have to be satisfied with a relationship to stay in it. Therefore, the model has high explanatory power.
Evaluate direction of causality as a limitation of the investment model
P: Direction of causality might be
wrong.
E: Strong correlations have been found between all the important factors predicted by the
investment model. Most of the studies in Le and Agnew’s meta-analysis were correlational.
However, correlations do not allow us to conclude that factors identified by the model cause
commitment in a relationship. It could be that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make.
E: This is a limitation as the research the model is based upon is only correlational and cannot be used to establish cause and effect. Therefore, it is not clear that the model has identified the causes of commitment rather than factors that are associated with it.
Evaluate overlooking the future as a limitation of the investment model
P: Overlooks any future plans that partners have made in the relationship.
E: There is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship.
For example, in the early stages of a romantic relationship the partners will have made very
few actual investments and they may not even live together at this point. In ending a relationship, an individual would not only lose investments made to date, but also the possibility of any investment in the future. Some relationships persist not because of the current balance of investments made, but because of a motivation to see plans work out.
E: This is a limitation because it is a limited explanation of romantic relationships because it fails to recognise the true complexity of the investment and how planning for the future also influences commitment.
Therefore, it is an oversimplistic view of what is meant by an investment.
What is Ducks model of relationship breakdown?
End of a relationship is a process that takes time across 4 stages. Each phase is marked by one partner or both reaching a threshold - a point where their perception of the relationship changes
What are the stages of relationship breakdown
Intra-psychic phase
Dyadic phase
Social phase
Grave Dressing phase
What is the Intrapsychic phase
focus is on cognitive process occuring within the individual
- they feel burdened by feelings of resentment and a sense of being underbenefited
- they wont say anything but express their dissatifaction in other ways (diary, social withdrawl)
What is the Dyadic phase?
- focus is on the interpreational processes between partners
- there comes a point where they cant avoid talking about their relationship
- involves a series of confrontations where dissatisfactions are aired
- guilt and anger may resurface and we may discover that the partner also has concerns
- two possible outcomes, a disre to break up or repair it
What is the Social phase?
- is now harder for partners to deny that there’s a problem
- breakup is made public partners will seek support and gossip is traded
- some friends provide reinforcement and others will blame the other partner
- some hasten the end of the relationship by providing previously secret info
- point of no return
What is the Grave dressing phase?
Focus now is on the aftermath.
After the relationship partners attempt to justify their actions. Each partner must present themselves to others as being trustworthy and loyal to
attract a new partner
Phase also involves creating a personal story that you can live with, which may differ from the public one. This is to do with tidying the memories of the relationship
What is a strength of Ducks model of relationship breakdown
practical applicatios
What are limitations of Ducks model of relationship breakdown
- individual differences
- ignores personal growth
Evaluate practical applications as a strength of Ducks relationship breakdown model
P: Real life applications to prevent relationship breakdown.
E: Duck’s model stresses the importance of communication in relationship breakdown.
Therefore, paying attention to the things that people say and the ways in which they talk
about their relationship offers an insight into their relationship. If the relationship was in the
Intra-psychic phase, repair might involve re-evaluating the partner’s behaviour in a more
positive light. In the later phases of the model, different strategies of repair are appropriate,
for example, in the social phase, people outside the relationship may help the partners to
patch up their differences.
E: This is a strength because it suggests that different stages provide different opportunities to prevent the relationship breaking down.
Evaluate differences individual differences as a limitation of Ducks breakdown model
P: Individual differences in the social phase experienced during breakup.
E: For teenagers and young adults, relationships are largely seen by others as being ‘testing
grounds’ for future long-term commitments. As a result, individuals may receive sympathy but no real attempt at reconciliation from their friends and family as there are ‘plenty more fish in the sea’. However, older people in longer-term relationships may have lower
expectations of being able to find a replacement, therefore the consequences are more
significant.
This suggests that for this age group, the social phase may be characterised by more obvious attempts by others to rescue the current relationship.
E: This is a limitation because the theory doesn’t apply to all relationships. Therefore, the validity of the social phase varies by type of relationship and the age of the individuals in that relationship
Evaluate ignoring personal growth as a limitation of Ducks breakdown model
P: Fails to reflect the possibility of personal growth.
E: Duck acknowledged that his 1982 model did not address growth following breakdown. This led to the introduction of a new model with a final phase of ‘resurrection processes’.
Duck stressed that for many people this is an opportunity to move beyond the distress
associated with the ending of a relationship and instead engage in the process of personal
growth.
Tashiro and Frazier surveyed 92 undergraduates who had recently broken up with a romantic partner. Respondents typically reported that they had not only experienced emotional distress but also personal growth, as predicted by Duck’s updated model.
E: This is a limitation of the original model as it failed to consider this very important phase. Therefore, research support for the existence of this new phase strengthens and gives validity to the updated model.
