Relationships

Relationships

1. Formation

   • Reward/Need Satisfaction theory - Byrne and Clore 1970
     • Rewards and punishments (reinforcement - operant conditioning) - rewarding stimuli = positive feelings. Punishing stimuli = negative feelings. Some people make us happy, others don't. We are likely to repeat behaviour that leads to a desirable outcome and avoid those that do not. We enter relationships as the presence of that individual is directly associated with reinforcement - positive feelings - more attractive
       • Griffit and Guay 1969 - Ppts evaluated on a creative task by an experimenter then asked to rate how much they liked the experimenter. The rating was highest when the experimenter had postively evaluated (rewarded the participants performance in the task.
     • Attraction through association (classical conditioning) - as well as positive feelings we also like people who are associated with pleasant events. Meeting them when we're happy - more inclined to like them. A previously neutral stimulus (someone we've never met) can become positively valued through the association of the pleasant event. Relationships where positive feelings outweigh negative ones are more likely to develop.
       • Griffit and Guay 1969- ppts had to say how much they liked an onlooker - onlooker rated more highly in condition where the performance of the ppt had been positively evaluated - ppts rated both individuals and onlookers the same.
         • Both Griffit and Guay claims focus on liking or disliking where romantic relationships are not the key issue- findings from both studies should be viewed with caution and cannot be extrapolated to reasons why romantic relationships form
     • Aron et al 2005 - ppts who measured high in self report questionnaire of romantic love also showed strong activity in particular areas of the brain. Early stage intense romantic love was assoicated with elevated levels of activity in sub-cortical rewards regions of the brain rich in the neurotransmitter dopamine.
     • Cate et al 1982 - rewards level was superior to all other factors in determining relationship satisfaction.
       • Only explores the receiving of rewards - Hays 1985 we gain satisfaction from giving as well as recieving
   • Cultural differences and gender differences - Lott 1994 - in many cultures women are more focussed on the needs of others rather than receiving reinforcement
   • Mundane realism - lab studies - do not equate to what happens in real life relationships - Caspi and Herbener 1990 - Studies on real life couples have supported these claims
   • Similarity theory- Byrne, Clore and Smeaton 1986
     • Personality - Berscheid and Reis 1998 - people are more likely to be attracted to others who have similar personality traits than they are to those who have dissimilar personality traits
       • Caspi and Herbener 1990 - married couples with similar personalities tend to be happier than couples with less similar personalities
     • Attitudes - couples tend to have the same attitudes towards things. If they don't it is suggested that "attitude alignment" may occur, where partners modify their attitudes so they become similar.
     • Similarity or dissimilarity? - Rosenbaum 1986 - dissimilarity rather than similarity was the most important factor in determining whether relationships will form. Multicultural studies have found ppts were first attracted to each other bc of similarities as they got to know them better they weighed the dissimilarities against the similarities
     • Research on similarity has only focussed on attitudes and personality. Yoshida 1972 argues this represents a narrow view of factors important in relationship formation - similarity of self concept, economic level and physical condition being equally important.

2. Maintenance of relationships

   • Social exchange theory - Thibaut and Kelly 1959
     • Profit and loss - assumption that all behaviours are a series of exchanges - individuals attempt to maximise rewards and minimise costs. In society people exchange resources with the expectation they'll earn of profit. Rewards in relationships - being cared for, companionship, sex. Costs - effort, financial investment and time wasted. Rewards - costs = relationship.
       • Rusbult and Martz 1995 - this theory can explain why some women stay in abusive relationships - when investments are high (children, financial security) and alternatives are low (nowhere to go, no money) this could still be considered a profitable situation.
       • Comparison level - built to judge whether one person offers something better or worse than we might expect from another - we creates this level - a standard upon which all our relationships are judged. If potential profit exceeds comparison level the relationship is seen as worthwhile.
         • Simpson et al 1990 - partners who were in relationships gave lower ratings to members of the opposite sex
     • Does not explain why people leave relationships despite having no alternative, nor does it suggest how great the disparity in CL has to be to become unsatisfactory.
     • Cultural bias - Moghaddam 1998 - economic theories only apply to western relationships and then only to certain short-term relationships among individuals with high mobility eg students. Others are more likely to value security over personal profit.
     • Unscientific - subjective, self report data, comparison level cant be objective.
   • Equity theory - Walster et al 1978 - Inequity and distress - we strive to achieve fairness in their relationships and feel distressed in the perceive unfairness - Messick and Cook 1983. Give a lot - receive little -distress - dissatisfaction. Give a little - receive a lot - distress - dissatisfaction.
     • Ratio of inputs and outputs - equity DOES NOT mean equality. One may be putting in more than the others but both partners may see this as equitable. If we do perceive inequity we change the amount we put in or encourage the partner to change the amount they put in. We then compare to the CL to see if it is worth carrying on.
     • Demaris 2007 - 1500 couples - US national survey of families and households - the only subjective index of inequity associated with disruption is women's sense of being under-benefited with greater under- benefit raising the risk of divorce
     • Clark and Mills 1979 - theory relates to more exchange relationships with collegues etc. We are more concerned about equity in these relationships. In communal relationships (friends & lovers) we are driven by the desire to respond to partners needs & believe things will work out in the long run.
     • Ragsdale and Bandau Brown 2007 - an incomplete rendering of the way in which married people behave with respect to each other.
     • Gender differences - men & women might judge the equity of a relationship differently. Often men who earn more than their wives judge their jobs to be more important, women rated husbands careers as more important than theirs. When the wife earns more their careers are equal.

3. Breakdown

   • Rollie and Duck 2006- dissatisfaction - I cant stand this any more. Intra-psychic phase, social withdrawal, brooding on partners faults. Social phase - going public seeking support from third parties. - Grave dressing phase tidying up memories, stories prepared for new audiences. Resurrection process - recreating a sense of own social value - recalling where old relationship went wrong - prparing for new relationship.
     • Tashiro and Frazer 2003 - undergraduates - new breakup - emotional distress and personal growth- support for grave dressing and resurrection process - VALIDITY
     • Gender differences - beta bias - minimises potential differences - women speak openly - social phase may happen sooner - men might brood more.
   • Lee 1984 - large scale survey 112 couples - stages - dissatisfaction - exposing - negotiating - resolution - termination. Stages can be skipped and moved.
     • Finding cant be generalised - couples weren't married - study in USA. - Sample bias - couples young and uncommitted.
     • Cina et al 2003 - compared 50 couples who received couples coping enhancement training with a control group who did not. Results showed CCET group reported much higher marital quality after training compared to the control group. - resolution stage is needed.
     • Brehm and kassin found women are more likely to stress unhappines and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution whereas men are particularly upset by sexual withholding. - need for movement - compare to other theory
   • Both theories lack scientific credibility - have no scientific evidence to back up claims - no cause and effect can be found.
   • Ethical issues - sensitive area - confidentiality, privacy.

4. Evolutionary explanations - Darwin 1874 - Intrasexual selection - mate competition - members of one sex compete for access to the other sex - usually males. Intersexual selection - mate selection - preferences for opposite sex, genes to pass on

   • Short term mating preferences - men= greater desire for casual sex - can impregnate continually - women can only have only child a year. Men lower their standards - decrease in attraction after sex to not miss out on other mating opportunities
     • Clarke and Hatfield 1989 - college campus. Females - 50% agreed to a date, 6% agreed to go to apartment, 0% agreed to sex. Males - 50% agreed to date, 69% agreed to go to apartment, 75% agreed to sex.
   • Long-term mating preferences - both sexes invest heavily in offspring, both choosy due to the amount of investment. Women look for - resources, physical protection, good parenting skills, minimal costs. Men look for - fertility and reproductive value.
     • Buss 1989 - what we look for in a marriage partner - 10,000 ppts of different cultures. Women want - good financial prospects. Men want - physical attractiveness, younger. Both want - intelligence, kindness, dependability.
   • Lack of validity - preferences rather than real life - study into actual marriages showed that after divorce men go for younger women. But does not show why we pick partners who don't have the things we're looking for.
   • Deterministic - men can be attracted to older women - women can support themselves.
   • Reductionist - focus on heterosexual relationships. What about other theories RNS?

5. Parental investment

   • Trivers - any investment in an offspring that increases the chance of that offspring surviving at the expense of that parents ability to invest in an other offspring - alive or yet to be born
     • Males do invest - restrict their reproductive opportunities & invest more in each individual offspring - Dunbar 1995
   • Why do females invest more? - our brains/ heads have gotten bigger through evolution - when the baby comes out it is not fully developed - childcare is more necessary also breastfeeding.
     • Daly and Wilson - males can opt out - males can devote little.
   • Females - cost of childcare is extremely high - 9 months carrying the baby - years of feeding and carrying. Males - tablespoon of semen
     • Females want more providers. Gene shopping to ensure investment pays off. Baker and Bellis - estimated 14% of women went gene shopping.
       • Miller 1998 - men get concerned about women's fidelity, they are under pressure to protect themselves from cuckoldry as they are investing resources. Buss 1995 - women are more jealous of the shift in emotional focus - loss of resources
         • Buss et al 1992 - physiological response showed that men are jealous of sexual infidelity
           • Introduction of biology - more validity as it has scientific support
   • Determinism - many instances show men as the main parent. Women don't have to invest loads as there is childcare available etc.

6. The influence of childhood

   • Shaver et al 1998 - what we experience as romantic love in adulthood is an integration of attachment, care-giving and sexuality
     • Bowlby 1969 - relationships in the future are determined by your attachment style - secure or insecure - creates an internal working model can lead to an attachment disorder.
       • Children are prone to resist & reject intimacy - can be due to abuse or neglect - leads to abnormal peer relationships & unsuccessful adult relationships
         • Vanderkolk and fisler - victims of childhood abuse formed disorganised attachments instead of healthy ones - difficulty regulating emotions.
           • Bererson and anderson 2006 - adult women abused in childhood - negative reactions towards others - expectation of rejection and emotional distancing - only with people who reminded them of abuser
     • Frayley 1998 - meta-analysis - correlations from 0.1-0.5 between early attachment types & later relationships - low correlation - insecure anxious attachment is more unstable.
   • Attachment type could be determined by their current relationship - kirkpartick and hazan 1994 - relationship breakups are due to secure attachment shifting to insecure.
   • Cultural bias - western relationships - different attachment types in other cultures -
   • Reductionist - focus on attachment types - after childhood events?
   • Deterministic - ignores free will - unstable = unstable is not true
   • Gender bias - boys and girls are different in relationships

7. The influence of culture

   • Western cultures - talk to many people so have a great number of potential partners. Non western have a smaller circle - relationships tied to family & economic resources
   • Epstein 2002 - low mobility = arranged marriages make sense - divorce rates are low - in half of arranged marriages the couples have fallen in w/ eachother
   • Myers 2005 - in india theres no difference in marital satisfaction
   • China 1949 - 70% arranged 1990s - 10% arranged - Xiaoche and Whyte 1990 - women who married for love felt better about the marriage no matter its duration
   • Western cultures, individual = most important - non western = group is primary concern
   • Levine et al 1995 - US - 14% might marry someone they didn't love. India - 24% thailand 34%