Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
31 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
What type of theory is the Social Exchange Theory?
|
An Economic theory of relationship maintenance. - Suggests relationships reflect the economic assumptions of exchange. - The social exchange is the mutual exchange of rewards and costs. |
|
|
|
What is the minimax principle in SET?
|
- When we attempt to maximise reward while minimising costs. |
|
|
|
In SET what is satisfaction determined by?
|
The profit it yields, the rewards minus the costs. - If relationship stops being profitable b/c costs outweigh benefits then relationship dissolution occurs. |
|
|
|
Give examples of rewards of a relationship. (SET)
|
- Companionship - Being Cared for - Status - Sex |
|
|
|
Give Examples of costs in a relationship (SET)
|
- Time - Negative Emotions - Financial Investments - Missed Opportunities |
|
|
|
2 ways to asses social exchange...
|
- The Comparison Level (CL) - The Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt) |
|
|
|
Outline the Comparison Level in SET
|
- This is the amount of reward you feel you deserve & is the standard from which all relationships are judged. - Develops from previous relationships, social norms, media portrayal & parental relationship & feeds into our expectation of current relationships (like a schema). - If profit of current relationship exceeds our CL then our partner is seen more attractive. - Individuals w/ unpleasant previous relationships have a low CL & will find a relatively low quality relationship acceptable . - People w/ high CL have high expectations & if not met are likely to leave a relationship. - Romantic relationship is considered strong if both partners' perceived profits are above their CLs. |
|
|
|
Outline the Comparison to Alternatives in SET
|
- The judgement of whether an individual feels they 'can do better'. - People make comparisons of their current relationship w/ potential relationships or even being on their own. - Weighing up potential increase in rewards gained from a different relationship minus costs associated w/ ending current relationship. - There will be temptation to begin a new relationship if anticipated profit is significantly higher than current where they will remain committed if existing relationships current profit is perceived as being greater than being in an alternative relationship or being by themselves. - Individuals satisfied in their relationships may be unaware that alternatives are available. |
|
|
|
Strength of the SET: Research Support |
- From Kurdek & Schmitt - Investigated relationship quality in 185 couples . - Each couple was cohabiting but fell into 2/4 categories: married, not-married and heterosexual or same-sex. - Individuals completed questionnaires and it was found greater relationship satisfaction was strongly associated w/ perception of type & quantity of benefits. - Saw alternatives as less attractive - Shows factors which predict satisfaction are the same in different types of relationships (population validity) giving credibility to the theory. |
- Who carried out the study? - How many couples? - What were the 4 categories? - What did they find relationship satisfaction was associated with? - What does this show about factors predicting satisfaction? |
|
|
Limitation of the SET: Operationalisation of Costs & Benefit |
- There is difficulty in deciding what constitutes a cost & a benefit b/c they are not fixed entities. - They are often fluid or perceived differently by different people (Subjective). - Littlejohn suggested what may be perceived as a cost or benefit @ 1 stage of a relationship may be different at another stage or change w/ mood. - E.G benefit = fun-loving / cost = immature. - Denton et al argues the inability to quantify costs & benefits is a major pitfall of an economic theory. - Difficulty to operationalise & measure costs & benefits seriously undermines the theory. - |
- What is there difficulty deciding? - How is it subjective? - What did littlejohn suggest about costs & benefits @ different stages? - What is a major pitfall of the economic theory?
|
|
|
Strength of the SET: Real World Application |
- Useful in couples therapy. - Gottman & Levenson found a major difference between satisfied & unsatisfied marriages was the ratio of +ve & -ve exchanges. - In satisfied marriages for every -ve exchange were 5 +ve changes. - Where as in unsatisfied marriages ratio was 1 or less. - Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy utilises principles of SET to increase # of +ve exchanges & decrease -ve exchanges in a relationship. - Helps partners break -ve patterns & leads to a more satisfying relationship. - Demonstrates how SET can be applied to understanding distressful relationships & supporting a +ve outcome. |
- What is this theory useful in? - What did Gottman and Levenson find about satisfied & unsatisfied marriages (about ratio)? - Give the evidence. - What does Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy use the principles of SET to do? |
|
|
Limitation of the SET: SET ignores Equity
|
- Ignores fairness - A concern of the theory is the ratio of perceived costs to benefits suggesting individuals are out to maximise profit (selfish). - However, argued that by ignoring principles of equity (you get out what you put in) theory has significant shortcomings. - Hatfield found under-benefitted partners felt unhappy but so did over-benefitted partners as they had feelings of guilt. - Findings demonstrate inequity in profits leads to dissatisfaction regardless of who benefits thus disputing the suggestion that satisfaction only comes from maximising profit (SET). |
- What is a concern of SET and how does this how individuals to be selfish? - How has the theory got shortcomings? - What did Hatfield find (over-benefitted & under-benefitted)? - What do the findings suggest & how does this dispute SET? |
|
|
Outline Equity Theory
|
- Economic theory - Developed in response to significant criticism of SET. - Addresses idea that most people feel a need for fairness in a relationship not just maximising rewards and minimising costs - very important in a relationship. |
|
|
|
What is an equitable relationship?
|
- Where an individual gets out what they put in - don't need to receive equal benefits to feel satisfied. - Less likely to risk extramarital affairs & their relationships will be long lasting. |
|
|
|
What is an inequitable relationship?
|
- One partner puts in very little but receives a lot (over-benefitting) or they put in a lot and receive a little (under-benefitting). - Creates dissatisfaction & likely to lead to relationship dissolution. - ST relationship that experience perceived inequity = likely to terminate. - In more established relationships there'll be inequity @ sometime. - If inequity lasts too long or increases individuals maybe motivated to address issue & realign equity.
|
|
|
|
How do couples realign equity in inequitable relationships?
|
- Behaviourally by reducing their own input or gaining more outputs. OR -Cognitively by changing their perspectives of inputs and outputs. |
|
|
|
Strength of the Equity Theory: Research Support |
- Utne et al conducted a survey of 118 recently married couples (been together 2 yrs prior). - Used 2 self-report measures to assess equity. - Found couples who considered their relationships equitable were significantly more satisfied than those who reported being over or under benefitted. - Supports fundamental principles of equity theory - suggests its a valid explanation of romantic relationships & a better account than SET. |
- Utne et al conducted a survey on how many married couples? - What did they use to assess equity? - What did they find about couples who considered their relationship equitable? - Why is support a strength? |
|
|
Limitation of the Equity Theory: Cultural Bias |
- It is argued principles of equity theory reflect values of individualist cultures. - Link between equity & satisfaction is not universal in relationships. - Supported by Aumer-Ryan et al found couples from individualist cultures are satisfied when relationship is equitable but couples from collectivist cultures were more satisfied when over benefitting. - Can be argued equity theory has a limited scope b/c can't fully account for cultural differences. |
- What is it argued that the equity theory reflects? - Link between equity and satisfaction is not... - What did Aumer-Ryan et al find different between individualistic & collectivist cultures concerning satisfaction? - limited scope why? |
|
|
Limitation of the Equity Theory: Individual Differences
|
- Doesn't fully account for individual differences in equity 'sensitivity'. - Husman et al: some people were more or less tolerant to inequity than others. - 3 types: benevolents (more tolerant of being under-benefitted), entitleds (more satisfied when over-benefitting) & equity sensitives (fall in line with equity theory principles). - Benevolents can be satisfied when taking out less than they put into a relationship contrary to what equity theory predicts. - Entitleds dissatisfied if they are underbenefitting, but even when they are in an equitable relationship as their sense of privilege makes them believe they deserve more. - Demonstrates equity theory doesn't account for individual differences & therefore unable to explain the social interaction in relationships. |
- What doesn't the theory account for?-Husman et al believed?- 3 types & what do these mean?
|
|
|
Limitation of the Equity Theory: Gender Differences in Equity & Fairness |
- DeMaris et al suggested significant differences in the way women & men perceive equitability of a relationship. - Women more likely to view themselves as being under-benefitted than men & they are more disturbed by it. - Women who believe they are over-benefitting feel more guilty then men. - Appears women seem much more concerned about equity then men & supported by Van Yperen & Buunk. - Found much stronger correlation between satisfaction & equity - women r=0.44 / men r=0.2. - Findings explained as consequence of socialisation - women raised to be more focused on relationships & more sensitive to injustices. - Until equity theory addresses gender inconsistencies = lacks explanatory power |
- There is a significant difference between what? - Women are more likely to view themselves as what? - If they are over-benefitting how do they feel? - Van Yperen & Buunks findings - women r=? / men r=? - Lacks explanatory power |
|
|
What is commitment?
|
The likelihood that an individual will persist w/ their relationship.
|
|
|
|
Where did Rusbult's Investment Model of Commitment evolve from & what does it suggest?
|
- Evolves from SET - Suggests decision to stay or leave a relationship is a result of commitment of individual had to relationship. |
|
|
|
What are the 3 Factors the determine level of commitment in Rusbult's IMC
|
1. Satisfaction Level 2. Comparison w/ Alternatives 3. Investment Size |
|
|
|
Outline Satisfaction Level of Rubult's IMC
|
- Satisfaction is influenced by a degree to which individual feels their needs are met by partner. - Satisfying relationship is where rewards are judged to outweigh costs = profitable. - High satisfaction strengthens commitment. |
|
|
|
Outline Comparison w/ Alternatives of Rubult's IMC
|
- Individuals make comparisons of current relationship to potential relationships or being on their own. - Individual will assess if needs will be met better in alternative relationships. - If they perceive their needs will be better met elsewhere = quality of alternatives is high. - If needs are best in current relationship = quality of alternatives is low & commitment is strengthened. |
|
|
|
Outline Investment Size of Rubult's IMC
|
- Investments are resources associated w/ relationships that would diminish or be lost if relationship terminated. - Intrinsic investments= resources put directly into relationship (effort, money, self-disclosure). - Extrinsic investments= jointly owned items (mutual friends, house, children). - Investments acts as barriers to dissolution. - Greater amount & higher importance of investments correlates +vely w/ strength of commitment. - High satisfaction - Low comparisons to alt - High investment = committed relationship & likely to be maintained. |
|
|
|
Why was Rusbult's IMC formed?
|
-CL & CLalt in SET aren't enough to explain commitment. - If so, as soon as costs outweighed benefits or better alternatives came we would terminate the relationship. - 3rd factor of investment size = KEY. |
|
|
|
Strength of Rusbult's Investment Model of Commitment: Research Support |
- Le & Agnew did a meta-analysis of 52 studies conducted over 20 yrs on 11,000 participants. - Found strong evidence for each of the components of model. - Across all, satisfaction level, CLalt & investment were highly correlated w/ relationship commitment. - E.G Correlation between commitment & whether to stay or leave was also significant @ r=0.47 strengthening model's explanation of what creates relationship stability. - Research found to be reliable. - Suggests combo of several factors in predicting relationship maintenances of dissolution, acknowledging the complexity of relationships. |
- Statistics of Le & Agnew's meta-analysis: # studies, # yrs & #pps. - What correlation was found? - What were they correlated w/ - What was the correlation between commitment & whether to stay or leave, r=? - What does this suggest? |
|
|
Strength of Rusbult's Investment Model of Commitment: Real World Application
|
- Useful in understanding the maintenance of abusive relationships. - May be difficult to comprehend why a person would stay in an abusive relationship however the model gives a robust explanation. - Rusbult & Martz found in a study of women @ a shelter satisfaction was low however some perceived investment as high & few credible alternatives - seen as committed by model despite abuse. - Wider application is in the therapeutic support of intimate partner violence. - E.G cognitive reframing particularly for CLalt, may help them make more rational decisions in staying or leaving an abusive relationship. |
- Useful in understanding the maintenance of what? - Robust explanation - What did Rusbult & Martz find about the women @ the shelter? - Wider applications in... |
|
|
Limitation of Rusbult's Investment Model of Commitment: Problems Measuring Components |
- Satisfaction, CLalt, investestment & hence commitment can't be quantitatively measure = undermines scientific credibility. - However, Rusbult constructed 'Investment Model Scale' - 29 item scale measuring 4 components. - Scale relies on self-report & found reliable & valid. - Furthermore, argued when determining level of satisfaction, CLalt & investment, it is reasoned they must be measured subjectively - it is the perceived experience of relationship - determines overall commitment. - Use of such methods may cause bias into findings & argued there is no better alternative to measure someone's perception of a relationship. - Model remains robust despite being challenged scientifically. |
- What can't be quantitatively measured & why is this an issue? - What is the Investment Model Scale? - Why should the components be measured subjectively? - What do these methods cause?
|
|
|
Strength of Rusbult's Investment Model of Commitment: Cross Cultural Validity |
- Components have been shown to be universal in predicting relationships success - in different cultures & different types of relationships. - Supported by Van Lange et al, found all factors of model in Taiwanese pps, whereas Lin et al found similar results Dutch pps. - Model is supported by research using various samples (married, non-married, homosexual, unfaithful relationships & frienships). - Suggests key asset of model = can be applied across a range of different cultures & subcultures. |
- Universal - Support by Van Lange et al & Lin et al - EG of various samples in a different study... - what is the key asset of the model? |
