Theories of Romantic Relationships (AQA A Level Psychology): Flashcards

True.

According to SET, people stay in their current relationship if it yields more profit than potential alternatives, e.g. 'Bertie may not praise my cooking, but he takes me on surprise holidays'.

The four stages are sampling, bargaining, commitment and institutionalisation.

In the sampling stage the potential rewards and costs of all types of relationships are explored through direct personal experience or vicariously, e.g. by observing others.

The bargaining stage occurs early in the relationship, when each partner sets out their expectations, finds out the potential costs and rewards and begins negotiations with their partner.

In the commitment stage, costs and rewards begin to be smoothed out and joint work is undertaken to maximise profits as a unit rather than as separate individuals.

In the institutionalisation stage the partners are settled down and the norms of the relationship in terms of each partner's costs and rewards (the 'terms and conditions') are firmly established.

A range of interpersonal relationships can be analysed using SET, but each type needs its own conceptual framework, so SET cannot be generalised across all forms of relationship.

Commitment develops when couples feel rewarded by their relationship and perceive that alternatives will not bring them any deeper satisfaction.

People do not tend to weigh up the pros and cons of their relationship until they reach a point of dissatisfaction with it.

Nakonezny and Denton (2008) found SET too limited in scope to address marital relationships, but Christensen et al. (2004) found therapy based on increasing rewards and reducing costs via positive exchanges led to significant improvement in around two-thirds of distressed couples.

It explains why people may stay in unsatisfying or harmful relationships when they perceive no better options, accounting for behaviour that simpler reward-based explanations cannot, which increases validity.

Rewards, costs and profit are subjective variables that differ from person to person, making research hard to operationalise, which limits SET's status as a scientific explanation.

Much of it uses artificial tasks in artificial conditions, e.g. two strangers in a game-playing scenario, whereas studies with real partners are less supportive, and snapshot studies cannot capture properties such as trust that emerge over time.

SET ignores the role of equity (fairness): research suggests what matters to partners is not simply maximising rewards but whether the distribution of rewards and costs is fair.

It reduces complex emotional relationships to simple cost-benefit calculations, ignoring the emotional, irrational and altruistic elements, e.g. staying with a partner out of love, loyalty or duty, so it may lack validity as it oversimplifies behaviour.

Equity theory (Walster et al., 1978) is an economic theory based on fairness in a relationship, i.e. whether both partners receive the same profit without incurring unequally weighted costs; it explains aspects of the cost-reward balance that SET fails to.

True.

Equity means both people benefit, rather than one partner overbenefitting while the other underbenefits.

The overbenefitted partner may feel unease, guilt and embarrassment about the inequity in the relationship.

The underbenefitted partner may feel anger, resentment and dissatisfaction about the inequity in the relationship.

If one partner feels the relationship is unfair, they may become dissatisfied with it, regardless of whether they overbenefit or underbenefit.

False.

It is the balance of costs and rewards that matters, not the number; insisting on equality, e.g. allocating all tasks equally, is not viable if one partner works away for weeks at a time.

Perceived inequity occurs when one partner feels they are putting in more effort and incurring more costs than the other, e.g. Frankie does all the housework and childcare while working part-time, whereas Freddie does no housework and plays golf.

Equity theory predicts a strong correlation between the size of the perceived inequity and the level of dissatisfaction, and this applies to both the overbenefitted and the underbenefitted partner.

Couples may become complacent and make less effort to please each other, and perceptions of inequity adjust as the relationship evolves, e.g. Sara later decides she wants the spare room Sally has claimed.

Contributing more than you receive may feel natural at the start of a relationship, but if it continues long-term it will no longer feel satisfying.

False.

The underbenefitted partner will work harder to restore equity, even when the inequity seems obvious and unfair to everyone who knows the couple.

They may revise their perceptions of rewards and costs, so that what was once seen as a cost (untidiness, thoughtlessness, even abuse) becomes accepted as the norm, e.g. Sara decides she doesn't really like crafting anyway.

Feeling extremely disgruntled, the underbenefitted partner will end the relationship.

A survey of 118 recently-married couples using two self-report scales found that couples who saw their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as overbenefitting or underbenefitting.

Schaffer and Keith (1980) found that equity is not stable throughout a marriage: it peaks in the 'honeymoon period' and dips during the child-rearing years, when women mostly underbenefit.

Longitudinal research found that equity did not increase over time, as the theory predicts, and did not distinguish couples who split up from those who stayed together; variables such as self-disclosure mattered more.

Much of the research on equity theory uses real-life couples, so it reflects a real phenomenon in the dynamics of relationships.

Couples in an individualist culture were most satisfied when their relationship was equitable, whereas couples in a collectivist culture were most satisfied when overbenefitting, so equity is not a universal need and the theory cannot account for cultural differences.

Some people are less sensitive to equity: 'benevolents' contribute more than they get without distress, while 'entitleds' believe they deserve to overbenefit and accept it without guilt, so concern for equity is not a global feature of all relationships.

It reduces relationships to simple cost-benefit calculations, overlooking emotional, personal and irrational factors such as love, commitment or personal sacrifice, so it may not capture the full complexity of romantic behaviour.

Rusbult et al. (2011) argue that commitment depends on satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size; when satisfaction is high, alternatives are less attractive and investment is increasing, commitment follows.

Satisfaction is based on the comparison level (CL), drawn from SET: a satisfying relationship is one where rewards exceed costs, judged against previous relationship experience and social norms.

True.

The comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) asks whether a partner's needs would be better met outside the relationship, and alternatives include no relationship at all, not just other relationships.

False.

RIM is also an economic theory of relationships, but it attempts to refine and expand on some aspects of SET.

Investment refers to how much each person has brought to the relationship, in terms of quality as well as quantity; investment size is the overall value of that investment.

Like financial investments, they can lose value as well as increase over time; if the relationship ends, both partners are likely to lose out financially, emotionally and materially.

Intrinsic investment comprises everything each individual has brought separately to the relationship, e.g. money, possessions, time, energy and episodes of self-disclosure.

Extrinsic investment comprises resources that previously did not feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it, e.g. children, possessions bought together, mutual friends acquired since the relationship began, and shared memories.

The survival of a heavily invested relationship even when satisfaction is low has some relevance to the cognitive bias known as the sunk-cost fallacy.

If both partners have substantially invested, materially or emotionally, the relationship is likely to survive even if satisfaction is low at times.

Commitment is the extent to which a couple is resolved to remain together and endure the challenges and hardships that arise in their relationship.

False.

The main psychological factor is commitment, not satisfaction: dissatisfied partners stay because they have made an investment they do not want to go to waste, so they work hard to maintain and repair the relationship.

A committed couple will attempt to work through a 'rough patch' to repair the relationship, even though this may be unpleasant or involve hard work.

RIM suggests four strategies:

• sacrifice on both sides, putting the partner first rather than pursuing selfish motivations

• positive illusions

• accommodation

• forgiveness

Positive illusions involve an unrealistic idealisation of each other alongside 'ridiculing alternatives': being negative about tempting alternatives and viewing other people's relationships as inferior.

Accommodation involves not engaging in petty point-scoring; the couple do what they can to protect the relationship from harm.

False.

RIM suggests forgiveness even when it is difficult, e.g. if one partner has had an affair.

Across 52 studies and around 11,000 participants from five countries, satisfaction, CLalt and investment size all predicted commitment, and the most committed relationships were the most stable and longest-lasting. This held for men and women, across cultures and for homosexual and heterosexual couples, suggesting universal validity.

A longitudinal study of 3,627 married couples found a significant positive correlation between satisfaction and commitment, with investment size also predicting commitment.

Women who reported the greatest investment and the fewest attractive alternatives were most likely to return to their abusive partner, supporting the claim that satisfaction alone does not determine whether someone stays.

It used a large sample and quantitative data, so the findings are robust and able to withstand statistical analysis.

It is the partner's perception of investment, satisfaction and alternatives that influences commitment, not the objective reality of these factors, so self-report captures what matters.

Intrinsic and extrinsic investments may overlap or be difficult to distinguish from each other.

Strong correlations exist between satisfaction, CLalt, investment and commitment, but this does not show that these factors cause commitment; greater commitment may lead to greater investment, the reverse of what the model predicts.

An abuser who knows their partner is committed and has few alternatives could gain power over them.

Although explaining why people stay has real-world application, RIM could be misused to justify or normalise staying in harmful situations, so psychologists must consider the ethical implications.

Duck's phase model describes the stages involved in a relationship breaking down, from the earliest phase of one person having misgivings to the final ending of the relationship.

False.

The model charts the typical course of breakdown, but the journey can be averted at any of the first three phases.

A threshold marks the start of each phase: a point at which the dissatisfied partner's perception of the relationship changes, usually for the worse; breakdown develops over weeks, months or even years.

The four phases are the intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave-dressing phases.

The intra-psychic phase begins when one partner feels the relationship is not working, due to dissatisfaction, a lack of equity or poor communication, though they may not voice these feelings or may persuade themselves they are being unreasonable.

They may share them with a trusted friend, write in a journal or list the pros and cons of the relationship, and may dwell on their partner's faults, using confirmation bias to reinforce their dissatisfaction.

The threshold that marks the start of the intra-psychic phase is: 'I can't stand this anymore'.

In the dyadic phase the dissatisfied partner airs their feelings with their partner; each lists the other's negative qualities amid arguments and complaints, and inequity is discussed, with costs emphasised and rewards dismissed.

The couple either decide to work on their relationship or decide to end it.

The dyadic phase begins with the threshold 'I would be justified in withdrawing'.

In the social phase each partner turns to friends and family for solace and consolation, and as a way of affirming their decision.

They may support and reinforce the decision or try to persuade the person to work things out; some use hindsight bias ('I always knew you were too good for him'), and friends may take sides, adding conflict.

The couple have 'gone public' with their grievances, bad-mouthing their partner, so reuniting would potentially embarrass their friends and family.

The threshold that marks the start of the social phase is: 'This really is happening'.

In the grave-dressing phase each partner tries to tell the best 'story' of the break-up to come out looking like the 'good guy', showing the ex as unreasonable to protect their self-esteem.

The relationship history is rewritten by both partners, probably in wildly different versions, with some creative re-imagining of reality.

False.

The most mature and rational response is for both partners to agree they were incompatible and move on, though the high emotion of a break-up makes this very difficult.

The grave-dressing phase begins with the threshold 'It's now inevitable', and the dissatisfied partner finally concludes 'Time to get a new life'.

People in the intra-psychic phase could be encouraged to focus their brooding on the positive aspects of their partner, suggesting the model can identify ways of reversing breakdown at specific phases.

Analysis of posts from 208 college students showed Duck's model was particularly applicable to the social and grave-dressing phases.

The resurrection phase, added by Rollie and Duck (2006) as a fifth phase, is when ex-partners move beyond the pain of the break-up, turn their attention to future relationships and experience personal growth.

The model reflects the experience of many people who have gone through a break-up.

It recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at particular points in the breakdown, e.g. improving communication and social skills in the dyadic phase, insights that can be used in relationship counselling.

It charts breakdown from phase 1 to phase 4, but some couples leap straight into the social phase, bypassing the first two phases altogether.

It outlines the 'what' of relationship breakdown but not the 'why'.

They argued it was oversimplified: the new model makes clear that progression is not inevitable (a couple can return to an earlier point) and emphasises the processes within breakdown rather than linear movement, suggesting the original did not account for the dynamic nature of break-ups.

It offers a generalised sequence, but breakdown is a highly individual experience: some people go backwards or experience multiple phases at once, so the model lacks flexibility.

It reflects Western, individualist values; Moghaddam et al. (1993) note that individualist relationships are voluntary and frequently end, whereas collectivist relationships are obligatory, harder to end and involve the wider family, so open confrontation may be less common, limiting cross-cultural validity.