SET- breakdown

SET- breakdown

1. AO1

   • Success, in terms of whether or not the relationship will breakdown, is based on perceived profitability, which is whether the individuals believe they are at a loss, or profiting from the relationship
   • Costs will determine the breakdown of the RR and can be anything unpleasant, for example, emotional, couples habits, financial investment, ect. Sedikides states that happiness and feeling loved are the most important rewards which prevent breakdown, whereas stress and worry are considered significant losses and will increase the probability of relationship breakdown
   • It has been found that females emphasise intimacy and self-growth, and therefore a lack of the benefits will result in breakdown, whereas males emphasise sex as a benefit and therefore a lack of sex could result in breakdown
   • A loss for men in a RR is money, which then influences likely breakdown. Therefore, when considering the future of our RR and its potential breakdown we will consider the minimax principle where we attempt to maximise our benefits and minimise costs. The extent to which a relationship survives, and breakdown is avoided depends on how mutually beneficial the relationship feels
   • It offers us something that is in short supply to us, we will appreciate it more (satiation), and breakdown is then less likely
   • Rusbult extended the model to include the concept of investment made. She argued that couples will calculate any investment they have made (time, money, mutual friends, possessions), and if the investment is considered minimal then the relationship might breakdown
   • If the costs of a relationship being to outweigh the rewards, then the relationship may be regarded as damaging, or too costly to continue, and it may start to breakdown. It may, for example, require a lot of effort to gain the same feelings of happiness, and when this effort becomes too much, the reward might be too small, and so the overall outcome would be negative, resulting in breakdown
   • Thibaut and Kelly proposed the idea of a CL, which is a standard to which all our relationships are judged, and this may be considered in the breakdown of a relationship. Our CL is a product of our experiences from other relationships, together with the views of what we might expect from relationships ( based on social norms and personal expectations). If we judge that the potential profit does not exceed our CL,, the relationship will be judged negatively and the other person will be seen as an unattractive partner, resulting in breakdown
   • The CL of someone is linked to self-esteem. High self-esteem expects a highly profitable relationships, which means they are vulnerable to viewing a relationship negatively, resulting in breakdown, whereas low self-esteem settles for less (even a loss). A similar concept is the CL for alternatives, which is the amount of costs/rewards we believe are available from alternatives. A person may weigh up the potential increase in rewards from a potential partner, against the costs from the current relationship. If potential benefits are better from a potential partner relationship it is likely the current one will breakdown

2. AO2

   • Research has supported the principle that couples are consciously aware of costs and rewards within a RR and its implications for a potential breakdown. For example, Mills and Clark (1980) in a study of American couples supported the idea that couples were consciously concerned with profits during a RR and there importance in explaining the break of RR. This research suggests that SET has predictive validity when considering reasons why a RR should breakdown
   • However, a problem for SET explanation of the breakdown of RR is that it has a gender bias. SET does not account for gender differences in the perceptions of profit and loss calculations during the breakdown stage of a RR. For example, researchers have found gender differences in how comfortable a member of a couple may feel in ‘owing’ the other partner potential benefits, with females feeling more uncomfortable than males. This suggests that SET has not considered the gender variations in perceptions of economic exchange during the potential breakdown of me and women, and to do so would demonstrate a gender bias towards a male perception of how RR’s are ended. A problem for SET it that is assumes that males and females view all aspects of the relationship in the same way
   • A further related problem is the explanation of the breakdown of RR within a gay/lesbian relationships may also not be determined by the principles of SET. This raises a problem of generalisability for the SET explanation of the breakdown of RR. Secondly, a problem is identified by research from Mills and Clark. They argue that some couples were primarily concerned with the needs of their partner, contradicting the principle of SET’s exchange principle. If RR are based more on communal ideals, then explanations for why some RR will breakdown is not explained by economical calculations. Other perception of losses, for example, Duck argues the SET explanation of breakdown ignores social aspects that may result in the breakdown of RR, like how couples interpret shared events. This undermines social exchange theory as an explanation of all types of RR, as some appear not to breakdown due to economic principles as suggested by SET
   • On the other hand, the problem of reductionism emerges for the SET explanation of the breakdown of RR. The problem is that SET reduces the complexity of the breakdown stage of a RR to a simple profit and loss calculation ignoring issues of a lack of emotional love. This is a rather mechanical view of how RR’s might breakdown
     • A related problem is that it may be considered deterministic, suggesting that the breakdown of RR’s are predominantly determined by our calculation of potential benefits. This is not supported research. For example, Mills and Clark (1979) argue that some individuals consider the breakdown of their RR they will also consider the needs of the other person, rather than the potential benefits or losses to them if the RR was to breakdown. However, the advantage of SET adopting a rather reductionist approach to explaining the breakdown of RR is that it allows to operationalise scientifically the complexity of the breakdown stage of RR in an objective manner
       • Furthermore, an advantage of the SET over other reductionist explanations of the breakdown of RR, for example the reinforcement affect model, is that it considers the role of cognitions (i.e. perceptions and judgements) which makes it less deterministic than it may first appear (i.e. perceptions of self-worth influence our level of acceptable costs and benefits)
   • Another methodological problem with the SET explanation of the breakdown of RR is that most of the research has been based on the potential breakdown of short term relationships, often with samples of students. This makes us question the generalisability of the findings to the breakdown of long-term relationships involving non-students. The theory therefore, is of limited use as the dynamics of the breakdown of long term relationships are different from those of short term ones. A further methodological problem for SET and its explanation of the breakdown of RR is that is cannot state from correlational research that perceived losses in a RR will cause the breakdown of that RR. Research supporting SET and the breakdown stage can only claim that a positive correlation between high losses and the breakdown of a RR exists
   • A problem with SET and its explanation of the breakdown of RR is that it does not predict at what level a relationship becomes so unsatisfactory that we decide to leave even if there is not alternative available. We can say that in this respect the model is descriptive of the breakdown of RR rather than predictive explanation. For example, SET is good at describing how costs and rewards may change, but exactly how unrewarding a relationships needs to be before it breaks down is unclear; and just how much more rewarding an alternative has to be before it is chosen over the current relationship resulting in a breakdown of a current relationship is uncertain. An ethical problem is that it is socially sensitive to examine the breakdown of relationships because of the potential psychological harm. It could bring up previous traumas such as problems in an abusive relationship
     • However, Elliot would argue that their advantages to examine the breakdown of RR even though it is socially sensitive issue. Research, she argues, of this nature can have beneficial effects, such as helping prevent the potential breakdown of relationships. More generally in forming agencies like ‘relate’ or marriage counselling, which can help couples resolve problems preventing breakdowns