Relationships IDA points

Page 1

Relationship Formation Reward/Need Satisfaction Theory:

Most of the studies into RNS theory are lab studies, which reduces their mundane realism and means they are less generalisable to everyday life. For example, many studies measure "liking", which is not the same as romantic love, so it cannot be assumed that the same mechanisms are involved

The theory does not account for cultural and gender differences in the formation of relationships. In many cultures relationships are not based on personal gain, but on the gain of the group, and thus this theory is irrelevant to them. It has also been found that women are often more focused on the needs of others than satisfying their own needs, which the theory does not account for

The theory is deterministic, suggesting that humans will only be motivated by a desire to fulfill their own needs. However, humans are not so selfish, and can gain satisfaction through fulfilling the needs of others. This theory thus ignores the role of free will by suggesting that humans only form relationships from selfish desires

Similarity Theory:

The same factors to do with culture can be applied here, however...

The dissimilarity-repulsion hypothesis that refutes this hypothesis has received cross-cultural support

Relationship Maintenance Social Exchange Theory:

Explanations of real life relationships (e.g. abused women) could offer implications for intervention, thus being able to be applied to real life

The theory is again biased to individualist cultures, and does not apply to collectivist cultures where security and group gain are valued above personal profit

This is a very economic approach: socio-psychological factors such as how partners communicate or interpret shared events is ignored

Equity Theory:

Same cultural issues as above

The theory does not account for gender differences in perception of equity. It has been found that only when women feel under-benefited are relationships associated with later marital disruption (whereas theory suggests it should be the same for men and also have this effect if partners feel over-benefited)

Relationship Breakdown Reasons for Breakdown:

These do not differentiate between male and female viewpoints. It has been found that women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, whereas men are more upset by sexual withholding. The theory does not account for these gender differences, thus it is weakened

This is a socially sensitive area of research, and participants might be distressed in having to recall previous relationship breakdowns. Private behaviour will always be difficult to research, and participants may not give an honest account of their experiences

This theory is biased to individualist cultures but less so for collectivist cultures, where permanence is often more highly valued, and where relationships are sometimes non-voluntary. Therefore, the theory is not generalisable across different cultures

Model of Breakdown:

The model offers implications for intervening in a relationship breakdown and mending it. Identifying which stage of breakdown a relationship is in could be important for effective counselling. The model is strengthened by being able to be applied to real life

It has been found that perpetrators of relationship breakdown often experience fewer negative effects than the person being broken up with. This theory suggests both parties would experience the same processes, and thus it is not generalisable

The same issues with culture are present as for reasons for breakdown

Evolutionary Explanations Sexual Selection:

There is a gender bias in the theory, as it suggests that men seek casual sex, but does not explain why women would give it to them. However in reality, women do also seek casual sex, which the theory cannot explain

The theory is not generalisable across different types of relationship. In the modern day, people live old enough to be in post-menopausal relationships, and homosexual relationships exist. The theory cannot explain relationships that have no potential for childbearing

The theory is highly determinist, and ignores our capacity for free will. Our ancestors may have been driven by a need to reproduce, but modern humans have morals as well as instincts, societal pressure and group norms, and relationships are expected to be more than simply sex

Parental Investment:

The study into men's physiological arousal in response to the costs of parenting, and the conclusion that they are biologically less prepared for parenting seems initially methodologically sound, as measuring physiological arousal is objective and not susceptible to demand characteristics. However, the conclusion drawn does not consider the potential role of psychosocial factors. The societal norm for men is to be less involved in parenting than women, and it could be that they have internalised a societal expectation, rather than them being biologically less prepared to raise children

The same issues with determinism apply as for sexual selection. Concerns about cuckoldry are no longer relevant

Early Experiences Parent-child relationships:

The research suggesting attachment type continues into adulthood is correlational, and causation cannot be established. It could be that the child developed an insecure attachment because they were a difficult child, and that this personality factor could lead to their later poor quality relationships

The idea that attachment type will doom you to a certain relationship type is very reductionist. Between childhood and adulthood people have a lot of experiences that contribute to their sense of security and trust, so there are many contributing factors to the success of a relationship. Humans are complex being and the quality of a person's relationship cannot be simply reduced to their infant attachment type

Many of the studies into early experiences have been done in a single school or city in the US. This affects their external validity, as it reduces their cultural and population validity, and makes them ungeneralisable to other sub-groups of people

The psychodynamic approach is very androcentric, as the idea of an Oedipus complex was developed solely based on boys, and the concept of an Electra complex was added on later without modification o be a counterpart for girls. The psychodynamic approach is also difficult to test and measure as the concepts are unempirical and unfalsifiable. Being unable to test the theory weakens it, as neither supporting nor refuting evidence can be reliably attained

Culture Culture:

Psychologists have traditionally ignored cultural differences in relationships, because they use experimental, laboratory methods and are based in Western cultures. This means that the same research body for relationship formation, maintenance and dissolution is not available for relationships across cultures, and therefore there is not a balanced view of cultural differences in relationships

The idea that urbanisation can lead to increased mate choice and thus more temporary relationships has supporting evidence in that the divorce rate in Britain has followed the pattern of urbanisation, however, this research is correlational and cause and effect cannot be established. There could be extraneous variables that are affected the divorce rate as well, for example, widespread availability of contraception leading to more premarital sex, and the decreasing power of the church