Rusbults theory of romantic rel
- Ties that bind partners lead to persisting rel as well as +ve outcomes.
- 3 factors predict rel commitment chance (alternatives, satisfaction, investment)
What are 3 factors that predict rel commitment chance?
(Rusbults theory of romantic rel)
Alternatives: absence of better options maintains rel.
Satisfaction: +ve rewards relative to -ve costs.
Investments: Ties that bind partners (intrinsic/extrinsic)- commitment also sustains rel liklihood- liklihood rel will persist. Can be tangible (money/possessions) or intangible (energy/emotion/self disclosures)
Theories of romantic rel- strengths of Rustbults investment model AO3
+Research support: from meta-analysis by Le and Angew. Reveiwed 52 studies from late 1970s-1999 included 11,000 ptts from 5 countries. Found Rusbults 3 factors of commitment to be correct. Rel w greatest commitment were most stable and lasted longest. Outcomes universal suggesting validity of Rusbults theory.
+Explains abusive rel:Why does a ional person stay in an ‘abusive rel’. Rusbult & Martz (95) studied domestically abused women and found those most likely to return to an abusive rel were the most committed- made greatest investments and had least attractive alternatives.
Theories of romantic rel- limitations of Rusbult’s investment model AO3
-Correlational: Le & Angew’s meta-analysis were correlational. Although a strong correlation was found they don’t allow us to conclude that the factors the model identifies causes rel commitment. Direction of causality may be reversed.
**-Oversimplifies investment: ** It’s viewed in simplistic one-dimensional way. Goodfriend & Angew (08)- Not just current resources but future plans also count. Doesn’t show true complexity.
Evoluutionary explanation for partner prefrence AO1
Darwins sexual selection whereby characteristics that aid successful reproduction are reproduced. Females select males w physical genetic fitness as when offspring are produced prefrenced genetics are seen in them.
Anisogamy: basis of human reproductive bvr, refers to difference in male and female sex cells (gammetes- sperm or eggs). Therefore no shortage in fertile males.
Inter-sexual selection (between sexes): F stratergy of quality over quantity as look for genetic fitness and are more choosy as invest more time in offspring. Trivers- factors that are passed on (e.g. height) determine females choice.
Fisher (sexy sons hyp)- genes we see today are those that enhance reproductive success. ‘sexy’ traits inherited.
Intra-sexual selection (within sexes): M stratergy of qualtity over quality. Winner reproduces and characteristics are passed on. M seek signs of fertility (e.g. youthfulness, narrow waist).
Evolutionary explanation for partner prefrence AO3
+Research support for inter-sexual: Clark & Hatfield- M & F go round campus asking ppl to sleep w them. 75% of M immediatley said yes compared to none of the females. Supports that F are more picky and M have different approach to reproductive success.
+Further research support from surveys: Buss- surveys on over 10,000 adults in 33 countries asking Q’s regarding attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner prefrence. F valued resource related characteristics (e.g. financial prospects) and M physical attractivness.
H: Prefrences may not allign w real world mating (validity).
-Too simplistic: Only 1 stratergy for each gender. Stratergies seem to differ depending on rel length. Buss & Schmitt argue M & F adopt similar mating stratergies when seeking long-term rel w both sexes being choosy (love, loyalty, kindness)
-Social & cultural diffs overlooked: W greater workplace precense means no longer dependent on males to supply for them. Bereczkei et al-Social change may mean F less resource orientated.
Physical attractivness: Factors affecting attraction AO1
Shackleford & Larsen- Ppl wsymetrical faces rated more attractive. Ppl also attracted to baby faced characteristics.
Halo effect: We have +ve stereotypes of physically attractive ppl assuming they possess other +ve characteristics. Karen Dion- ‘What’s beautiful is good’.
E.g. attractive ppl consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable compared to unattractive ppl.
Matching hypothesis: Walster & Walster- We look for partners we percieve to be similar to ourselves in terms of physical attractivness. Walster: ‘the computer dance’ study.
Procedure of ‘computer dance’
* M & F invited to dance and rated by objective observers for physical attractivness. Also completed Q about themselves and that info used by computer to decide on partner for evening.
Findings:
* Hyp not supported. Most liked were most physically attractive. Berscheid et al- replicated study but this time ptts selected partner off varying physical attractivness. Partners able to choose those matching physical attractivness.
Conclude- Tend to chose partner whos attractivness matches ours.
Physical attractivness: Factors affecting attraction AO3
+Research support for halo effect: Palmer & Peterson- attractive ppl rated more politically competent. So powerful that these beliefs persisted even when ptts knew ‘knowledgable ppl had no particular expertise’. Therefore can be dangers for democracy if ppl judged suitable due to attaction.
+Evolutionary explanation: Cunningham et al- found women w large eyes, prominant cheekbones, small nose, high eyebrows rated highly attractive by Hispanic and Asian men. Researchers concluded that whats considered physically attractive is consistent across societies.
-Research challenging matching hyp: Taylor et al- studied activity logs of popular online dating sites finding online daters tend to chose to date ppl more physically attractive than them. Undermines matching hyp validity as it contradicts central prediction about matching hyp.
+Counterpoint: Dating apps are ideals. Feingold- Meta-analysis of established partners supports matching hyp.
-Individual diffs: Some ppl don’t attach much importance to attractivness. Touhey- measured sexist attitudes of M & W finding low scores relatively unaffercted by physical attractivness when judging liklihood of potential partners.
Self-disclosure: factors affecting physical attractivness AO1
Self-disclosure- **Revealing personal info about yourself. **Romantic partners reveal more as rel develops. This strengthens rel as partner understands us better. Plays vital role beyond initial attraction but need to be careful what we disclose.
Social penetration theory- Altman & Taylor:
Use onion metaphor (layers) to explain increasingly disclosing more info. Romantic partners ‘penetrate’ more deeply in each others lives.
Gradual disclosure of inner self is sign of trust but reciprocation is required. Penetration leads to development as a greater understanding of one-another is created.
Breadth- Low risk info revealed early in rel (superficial info), many topics off limits.
Depth- As rel progresses high risk info comes out. Deeper disclosures revealing our true sleves.
Recopricity of disclosure- Reis & Shaver (88):
Once something disclosed revealing true self partner should respond in rewarding way (understanding, empathy) and will also reveal own intimate thoughts/feelings. Reciprocity needed for rel to develop.
Balance of self disclosure > feelings of intimacy > rel deepens
Self-disclosure: factors affecting physical attractivness AO3
+Research support: Sprecher & Hendrick- positive correlation between satisfaction and self-disclosure. Sprecher also found rels to be **stronger when partners take turn disclosing **info (reciprocate). Increase validity.
-Counterpoint: Correlational- may be more satisfied partners are the more self-disclosure, or 3rd variable.
+RWA: Self-disclosure deliberately increases intimacy and strengthen bond. Haas & Stafford found 57% homosexual men & women said open/honest SD was the main way rels were deepened & maintained.
-Cultural diffs: Nu Tang et al- Men and women in US (individualist) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than in China (collectivist). Despite lower disclosure in China satisfaction was no different. Limited explanation, not generalisable to other cultures.
SET: theories of romantic rel AO1
‘economic theory’ proposed by Thibaut & Kelley, rel developing through exchanging rewards & costs. Satisfying rel is maintained when rewards exceed costs and potential alternatives are less atractive. We want to maximise rewards and limit costs (minimax principle). Rewards and costs are subjective and can alter.
Homans- Rel choices are basically rational economic decisions.
Blau- Interactions take time, energy, commitment and may involve unpleasant emotions/experiences. This is opportunity cost as its using resources we cant invest elsewhere.
Comparison level: 2 ways we measure profit. Comparison level- minimum you expect in a rel. Reward cost ratio- If its below CL then rel is unsatisfying but if above rel is worthwile.
Comparion level for alternatives: Consider whether we could get more rewards and fewer costs elsewhere (likely if CL exceeds current RCR)
What are the stages of rel development: SET
1. Sampling: Exploring potential costs/rewards of entering rel w someone (experimenting).
2. Bargaining: Testing phase at beginning of rel where giving and recieving rewards, negotiating and identifying whats most profitable.
3. Commitment: Costs/rewards become more predictable and stabalise. Rewards increase and costs decrease.
4. Institutionalisation: Rel is formed and norms developed. Expectation of specific rewards/costs is set.
SET: theories of romantic rel AO3
+Research support: Kurdek (95)- Hetrosexual, gay, lesbian couples all completed Q’s measuring commitment and SET variables. Found th most commited partners had most rewards and fewest costs. Increases SETs validity.
H: Moghaddam- economic theories only apply to West.
-SET ignores equity: Ignores crucial factor of fairness and equity in romantic rel. Equity has research support but is not considered by SET. SET is limited explanation that cant account for all rels.
-Direction of cause and effect: Argyle- We don’t monitor costs/rewards in a rel, nor constantly attractivness or alternatives: dissatisfaction comes 1st. Wheras SET says dissatisfaction occurs after costs outweigh rewards or better alternatives.
-Vauge concepts: Rewards and costs are defined superficially (e.g. money in research). BUT they are subjective so hard to define in real life (some ppl may value loyalty as a reward wheras others may not). Concepts are hard to quantify making the theory hard to test in a valid way.
Clark & Mills argue SET involves keeping track of exchanges but communal rels are more likely responding to needs of partner. If we felt exchange monitoring was occuring we may question commitment and trust may be destroyed. Not applicable to real world rels.
Equity theory of romantic rel AO1
Walster- another economic theory that developed due to critisism of SET. Says ppl strive to percieved fairness in rels.
Equity is giving every1 what they need to be successful. Equity= fairness.
Lack of equity- one partner over-benefits and other under-benefits which can lead to unhappiness.
Become dissatisfied if ratio of costs to rewards becomes inequiable. If we fear inequity has occured we may try to realign the rel to restore equity.
Perceived inequality changes: At start of rel it may feel natural to contribute more but this satisfaction is not constant as the rel develops.
Dealing w inequality: Work hard to make rel more equitable to salvage rel. Or take cognitive approach by revising perceptions of rewards and costs so feels more equitable even if nothing changed.
Equity theory of romantic rel AO3
+Research support: Utne et al- 118 recently-married couples measuring equity with 2 self-report scales. Couples who consider rel as equitable more satisfied than those who saw themselves under benefitting. Satisfaction is central predictor of Equity theory. Real life rels confirm equity theory as more valid than SET.
H: Mills & Clark- impossible to assess equity as much input is emotional (not quantifiable)
-Ignores other variables: Berg & McQuinn- Equity didn’t increase over time and Rels that ended and continued didn’t differ in terms of equity. Equity theory wld predict opposite. Variables like self-disclosure may be significantly more important. Lowers validity of theory as inequity doesn’t lead to rel dissatisfaction.
-Cultural limitations: Aumer-Ryan et al- compared collectivist cultures (Jamaica) w individualistic (US). Individualistic were most satisfied in equitable rels wheras collectivist most satisfied when over-benefitting. Equity theory assumes need for equity is universal but there are cultural diffs. Suggests theory is limited.
-Individual diffs: Huseman et al- 2 types of ppl. Benevolent (under-benefit) and entitled (over-benefit without feeling guilt). Not every1 is concerned w achieving equity and therefore it is not a universal feature of romantic rels.
Theories of romantic rels: Ducks phase model AO1
Phase model of rel breakdown- Duck argued end of rel takes time and goes through 4 distinct phases. Each stage marked by partner reaching ‘threshold’.
1. Intra-psychic phase: Threshold- ‘I can’t stand this anymore’. Focus on cog processes within individual with partner worrying why their dissatisfied (mostly due to partners shortcomings). Partner mulls thoughts over privately and shares them w trusted friend. Pros and cons are weighed up and evaluated against alternatives. Begin to make future plans.
2. Dyadic phase: Threshold- ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’. Can’t avoid not talking about rel anymore so confrontations occur and dissatisfactions are aired. 2 possible outcomes (rel continues to be broken up or a desire to repair it).
3. Social phase: Threshold- ‘I mean it’. Focus on wider processes involving social levels. Break-ups made public w partners seeking support aiming to form pacts. Mutual friends pick sides and either reassure or blame other partner. Some friends provide previous secret info to hasten break-up wheras others may try to repair it. Point of no return. Social implications discussed and social forces give break-up momentum.
4. Grave-dressing phase: Threshold- ‘It’s now inevitable’. Focus on aftermath. Spin favourable story for public consumption. Maintains positive reputation (shines partner in bad light). Important some ‘social credit’ is retained (La Gaipa).
Theories of romantic rels: Duck’s phase model A03
+RWA in suggesting how rel breakdown can be reversed: Different repair stratergies more effective at diff points in rel. Duck- In intra-psychic stage ppl encouraged to focus worrying on partners positive aspects. Communuication improvement in dyadic phase could foster better rel (stability). Promote relationship counselling.
-Ethical issues (psychological harm).
-Cultural variation: Based on rel breakdown in individualistic cultures. Moghaddam- rels in individualistic cultures are voluntary w divorce being a factor wheras collectivist cultures are less easy to end and can involve wider family. Lacks validity so model application is restricted.
-Incomplete model: Progression & processes differ- progression isn’t inevitable and it’s possible to return to an earlier phase. Processes (e.g. gossip) more important than linear movement. Duck & Rollie- Ressurection stage (ex-partners use experience from recently ended rels to apply to future ones). Model doesn’t account for complexity, reductionist.
-Furthermore: Tashiro & Frazier- undergraduates experienced personal growth.
-Early phases less understood: Ptts recall their experiences a while after rel ends, so recall may be distorted especially for earlier stages. This decreases reliability and validity as not always accurate. Not consistently representative.
Virtual rels in social media AO1
CMC (computer mediated communication)- any online rel
2 theories for self-disclosure in virtual rels:
- Reduced cue theory (Sproull & Kiesler)- CMC rels are less effective than ftf because they lack cues we normally depend on (non-verbal cues (physical apperance) and emotional state cues (tone of voice, facial expressions)). De-individualation occurs which leads to disinhibitation- ppl communicate in blunt aggressive manner and are unlikely to express real thoughts.
- Hyperpersonal model (Walther)- Argue virtual rels can develop quickly as self disclosure is more intense & intimate. Msg sender has greater control over what they disclose meaning they manipulate self-image (present in idealised way) Hyperhonest or hyperdishonest. Reciever recieves +ve impression of sender, gives feedback which reinforces senders selective presentation. Anonymity also increase self disclosure- Bargh (strangers on a train).
Effects of absence of gating (obstacle to forming rel) in rel: ftf interactions are gated so factors like physical unattractivness, stammer, social anxiety don’t interfere w early rel development.
+ allows rel to get of ground easier as is more focused on self-disclosure than looks- ppl can be ‘true selves’.
- Untrue identities created and ppl decieved.
Virtual rels in social media AO3
-Lack support for reduced cues: Walther & Tidwell- online interactions use other cues such as timing and style of messages. E.g. replying to a status long time after may be more intimate than immediate but too long could be seen as a snub. Acroynyms & emojis could be effective substitutes for facial expressions. Hard to explain as VR just as personal as ftf.
-Lack support for hyperpersonal: Challenged by meta-analysis findings from Ruppel et al who found frequency, breadth and depth all greater in ftf rel across 25 studies comparing ftf and virtual rel self-disclosure.
On other hand experimental studies showed no sig difference between ftf and virtual rel in terms of self-disclosure.
+Research support for hyperpersonal: Whitty & Joinson- represented how self-presentations manipulated in VR. For example that Qs asked online are probing, intimate and direct (hyperhonest) wheras ftf often feature ‘small talk’. Supports hyperpersonal models claims about Hyperhonest and hyperdishonest SD differences. Represents differences if ftf and VR different.
+Support from McKenna & Bargh for absence of gating: Found shy, lonely, anxious ppl able to express there ‘true selves’ more in online rels. Found of romantic rels formed by shy ppl online 71% lasted at least 2 yrs. Kirkpatrick & Davis found this to be 49% for relsformed in the offline world. Shy ppl do benefit from gating in online world.
Parasocial rels AO1
One-sided, unreciprocated rels with a celebrity/fan expending lots of emotional energy, commitment and time.
McCutcheon used CAS (celebrity attitude scale) which was used in large scale survey by Maltby who identified 3 levels of PSR rels:
- Entertainment-social: Least intense where celebrities viewed as source of entertainment/social interaction. Source of gossip (Giles).
- Intense-personal: Greater personal involvement- obsessive thoughts.
- Borderline-pathological:Uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours.
Absorption addiction model:
McCutcheon- linked levels to deficiencies in ppls own lives (PSR rels allow ppl to ‘escape from reality’. 2 components:
* Absorption- Seeking fulfilment in celeb worship means some1 becomes preoccupied and identifies w celeb
* Addiction- Increased ‘dose’ needed to gain satisfaction. Leads to more extreme bvrs and delusional thinking.
Attachment theory says insecure-resistant form PSR rels as adults as they have unfufilled emotional needs and don’t want threat of rejection.
PSR AO3
+Support for absorption addiction model: Link between celeb worship and body image deficiancy. Maltby assessed boys & girls 14-16 w poor body image formed intense-personal PSR w some1s body shape they admired. May lead to eating disorders.
+Universal tendency: Dinkha- compared Kuwait (collectivist) and USA (individualistit). Found in both cultures that ppl w an insecure attachment type most likely to form PSRs. Supports that the need for PSR is consistent worldwide.
-Counterpoint: McCutcheon et al- Measured attachment type and celeb related attitudes in 299 American ptts. Found attachment security didn’t effect liklihood of forming PSR. -Correlational.
+Research support for levels: McCutcheon- Used CAS to measure PSR level. Assessed ptts problems in intimate rels. Ptts who scored borderline-pathological or intense-personal experienced high anxiety in intimate rels wheras entertainment-social didn’t. Suggests 3 categories for ‘celebrity worshippers’ are predictive of actual bvr.
Filter theory: factors affecting physical attractivness AO1
Different factors reduce range of romantic partners to much smaller pool.
Kerckhoff & Davis- 3 main factors that narrow down field of desirables:
- Social demography: Geographical location (proximity), social class, education level, ethnic group. Any1 ‘different is discounted as potential partner. Homogamy- more likely to have rel w someone culturally/socially similar.
- Similarity in attitudes: Similarities of attitudes/basic attitudes are very attractive in first 18 months, (Byrne), Self-disclosure
- Complementarity: Each partner contributing a trait the other lacks (to meet needs). Becomes more important than similarity later in rel. Opposites attract.
Filter theory: factors affecting physical attractivness AO3
+Research support: Kerckhoff & Davis- Longitudinal study. Partners completed questionnaires to assess similarity of attitudes/values and complementarity of needs. Rel closeness measured by another questionnaire 7m later. Study found closeness associated w similarity of values but only for couples who’d been together for less than 18m. This was complementary of needs later on in rels.
-Counterpoint: Levinger- many studies have failed to replicate that length of rel meant rel was deeper.
-Problems w complementarity: Markey & Markey- found lesbian couples of equal dominamce were most satisfied (sample been together 4 and half yrs on average). Suggests similarity of needs seen more in some long term couples.
-Social change: 1st level filter has changed through online dating and apps meaning theres a wider field available so location no longer limits partner choice (physical apperance more important). Social change also means more partners from diff ethnic backgrounds.
