Relationships; Formation, Maintenance, Breakdown

Relationships; Formation, Maintenance, Breakdown

1. Formation

   • AO1: Matching Hypothesis
     • Similar level of social desirability
     • 2 hypothesis: -more socially desirable someone is the more they expect there partner to be and -couples matched equally are more likely to have a happier relationship
     • Walter argued people make realistic decisions to avoid rejection, they look at: similar attractiveness and likelihood of rejection linked to their level of self esteem
       • Self-esteem influences
         • Low=more likely to target someone less likely to reject them
         • High=more likely to target people out of their league
     • Physical attractiveness is a major determinant of courtship desirability as it is an accessible way for each partner to rate each other
   • IDA:
     • Subculture bias
       • Doesn't take into account all romantic relationships eg homosexual
     • Culture bias
       • Studies based in USA. Doesn't account for arranged marriages where there is no choice
   • AO2: Walster et al
     • Dance study: 752 students thought they were matched by a computer but were randomly matched.
       • Found: Physical attractiveness was most important factor in liking
         • Supports MH as it says couples are more likely to have a happy relationship if equally matched
     • AO3:
       • Outdated (1966), also not fair judgement (subjective opinions).
   • AO2: Silverman
     • Naturalistic observation; measured attractiveness on a scale
       • Couples had similar attractiveness levels. More happy.

2. Maintenance

   • AO1: Social Exchange Theory
     • Economic theory based on principles of operant conditioning
       • 4 stage model:
         • 1. Sampling: explore rewards/costs directly/indirectly.. balancing good and bad
           • 2.Bargaining: the deal breaker, the pros and cons
             • 3. Commitment: routines are established e.g. moving in
               • 4. Institutionalisation: norms established
     • SET also recognises influences outside the relationship; two reference levels..
       • 1. Comparison level... between actual and expected rewards
         • 2. Comparison level for alternatives... concerned with alternatives if we feel we could do better
   • AO2: Rusbult
     • College students in heterosexual relationships were asked to complete questionnaires over a 7 month period.
       • They found 3 underlying factors that determined if they were satisfied...
         • 1. Weighed up rewards and costs
         • 2. Amount they had invested
         • 3. Existence of a more attractive alternative
     • Supports the theory because...
       • A person is more likely to leave (not maintain) a relationship if they stand to lose little and have a high comparison level for alternatives
     • AO3
       • Outdated, can't be applied to todays society
       • Sample is limited as it only looks at college students and excludes other ages
       • Sample also limited as only looks at heterosexual relationships
       • Use of questionnaire leads to quantitative data
   • IDA
     • Subculture Bias
       • Only studied heterosexual relationships which means theory can't be applied to every couple
     • Culture Bias
       • Studies that support were carried out in USA (western individualistic) so doesn't take into account other cultural norms e.g. arranged marriages so it can't be generalised.

3. Breakdown

   • AO1: Rollie and Duck's model
     • The model focuses on the processes involved in a relationship breakdown. The processes may overlap or have common features but they have different purposes and outcomes.
       • 1. Partners become distressed which leads to the breakdown of the relationship
       • 2. This leads to the intrapsychic process; where the partner focuses on good and bad, not a lot is discussed.
       • 3. Some people miss this stage, the dyadic process; where dissatisfaction is expressed. At this stage the relationship may be saved
       • 4. When the dissatisfaction spills to family members/friends this is the social process. The involvement of others may speed up he dissolution.
       • 5. In the grave-dressing process, people may strategically reinterpret the view of the partner in order to make themselves feel better.
       • 6. In the final resurrection process, each partner prepares themselves for a new relationship by building on past mistakes
   • IDA
     • Gender Bias
       • The theory doesn't account for gender differences.
         • For example, women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, where as men are upset by 'sexual withholding'.
         • Also women are more likely to want to stay friends, where as men don't.
     • Ethical Issues
       • This topic is a socially sensitive area.
         • So carrying out research in it may raise issues of vulnerability, privacy and confidentiality.
           • So the researcher faces the choice of pursuing valuable information or terminating their involvement with the participant to prevent any harm.
         • This also means answers may not be truthful
           • Demand characteristics
             • Decreases validity
   • AO2: Tashiro and Frazier
     • Surveyed undergraduates who had recently broke up from their partner
       • They typically reported that they had not only experienced personal distress but emotional growth.
         • These students reported that their breakup had given them a new insight into themselves and a clearer idea about future partners.
           • Through grave-dressing and the resurrection processes, they were able to put their relationship at rest and get on with their lives.
             • The findings support the model as it shows that their are different processes involved.
               • It also supports it as it shows, as Rollie and Duck proposed, that grave-dressing is the last stage of the breakdown. This increases internal validity.
     • AO3
       • Sample bias: undergraduates only, can't be generalised and reduces population validity
       • Culture bias: set in USA, western individualistic, cant be generalised
       • Survery: quantitative data