Relationships The story so far You should be able to DESCRIBE and EVALUATE each of these ThEORIES

1. The evolutionary explanation of partner preference including sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour KEY IDEA: An important way in which evolution works to shape human reproductive behaviour is through sexual selection KEY TERMS: sexual dimorphism; anisogamy; physical attractiveness – body symmetry, hip to waist ratio (health and fertility). Male strategies – bigger size, mate guarding, sneak copulation, promiscuity. Female strategies – sexy sons, handicap hypothesis, long courtship, make up, cosmetic surgery Supporting evidence – Buss; Waynforth & Dunbar; Cunningham, Clarke & Hatfield etc There are other studies that can be used to either support or refute these theories

Evaluation of evolutionary explanation ‘CASTLES’ and ‘GRENADE’ The evolutionary explanation assumes all relationships are heterosexual and that they are all sexual. (Limited) It assumes all relationships are motivated by the desire to reproduce (Limited) Some young males prefer much older women (Limited) Females no longer need male support especially in Western Societies (Limited) Female choosiness and male competitiveness can be explained by gender role socialisation (Limited) Can you find evidence to SUPPORT the theory? Can you find evidence to CONTRADICT the theory? Nature –Nurture; Culture bias - ethnocentrism Gender bias –androcentrism Freewill -determinism

2. Factors affecting ATTRACTION in romantic relationships a. PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS: Walster: ‘Matching Hypothesis’ Brigham: ‘Halo Effect’ Murstein: – couples research b. SELF -DISCLOSURE: Altman & Taylor ‘Social Penetration Theory’. factors in self disclosure are: appropriateness, attributions for disclosure, gender differences, content of disclosure. c. FILTER THEORY: Kerchoff & Davis. Social Demography. Attitudes. Complementarity This section refers to how relationships are formed in the first place There are other studies that can be used to either support or refute these theories

Before we move on …… CASTLES GRENADE You need to have evaluated each of these theories CASTLES Check you have made revision worthy notes GRENADE

Cycle of Romantic Relationships Formation Maintenance Dissolution breakdown 3 stages

3 x Theories Of Romantic Relationship Maintenance 3.3 SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY EQUITY THEORY RUSBULT’S INVESTMENT MODEL OF COMMITMENT 1 x theory of romantic relationship breakdown – Duck’s ‘phase theory’

Economic theories Explained via Disney films  Are a group of explanations which look at how couples regulate and maintain their relationships According to these theories people are aware of what they are ‘putting in’ and what they are ‘getting back’ out of a relationship and they may choose to move to a new relationship if a better “deal” is offered.

Social Exchange Theory (SET) – Thibaut & Kelley (1959) Social Exchange Theory is an ‘economic theory’ - it takes the view that social relationships are run in a similar way to a business – people are negotiating to get the best deal. SET is based on the principles of operant conditioning which suggest we form and maintain relationships because they are rewarding – this means they are profitable because the rewards we receive from the relationship outweigh the costs incurred. According to SET If the relationship stops being profitable because the costs outweigh the rewards the relationship will end.

What are some possible costs and benefits that might affect the formation of a relationship

Activity - page 2 of work sheet PSYA3: Topics in Psychology - Relationships Last Modified 02/02/2013 Activity - page 2 of work sheet Calculate how rewarding a current relationship (friendship) is by assigning a unitary value to the rewards received and the costs incurred Rewards received Costs incurred Value   Total value rewards = Total value costs = Outcome: 100 love points 50 love points 50 love points in profit  Topic 02: Maintenance - Lesson 04 (SET and Equity)

The Comparison Level (CL) Social Exchange Theory The Comparison Level (CL) This is linked to self esteem We each develop a standard against which we compare all our relationships. It is based on our experiences, plus our views of what we might expect to give and receive in a relationship. We make a ‘Comparison Level for Alternatives’ where we weigh up the potential increase in rewards from a new partner, minus any costs involved in ending our current relationship. Clalt If we judge the potential profit of a new relationship to exceed that of our exiting relationship we will be dissatisfied in the existing relationship. This may lead to dissolution (break-up).

Potential relationship Comparison Level Current relationship Potential relationship “What have I got now?” “What could I have?” Comparison level Current relationship Profit Comparison level New relationship Profit

The 4 stages of Social Exchange Theory Description Sampling   Bargaining Commitment Institutionalisation Analysing the potential costs and rewards of entering into a relationship with someone. Looking at other peoples’ relationships. Experimenting. As the relationships gets underway rewards and costs are exchanged. This is a testing phase of giving and receiving rewards to work out if the new relationship is worth forming. Sampling and bargaining are reduced. Rewards and costs are more predictable, the relationships stabilises. Rewards tend to out weigh costs. A relationship is recognised as having been formed and norms are developed that set the expectation of specific rewards and costs for the relationship for continued success. The trade off between rewards and costs is now established

Evaluating Social Exchange Theory   Clarke & Mills (2011) believe this SET is wrong! SET may be true of work colleagues but not loving romantic relationships. If your partner kept score you wouldn’t want to be in the relationship! Maybe we only look at the costs and benefits if we are unhappy in the relationship. Miller (1997) says people in committed relationships do not look at attractive potential others Equity is more important than rewards & costs It is difficult to measure rewards/costs/CL/Clalt = subjective Research methodologies tend to be lab based and artificial. Snapshot studies cannot account for emergent things like trust

Contradictory Evidence

Further more

Think about it ? Why might some women stay in abusive relationships? (think profit and loss) How might people preserve their own relationship (Simpson 1990?) – “ I don’t think Jonny Depp is attractive at all”…said Ms Alexander ! Are we really that selfish? Is this true of individualist cultures? What about more collectivist societies? Who would these theories really apply to ?

Economic Theory 2 Equity Theory: Walster et al (1978) This theory suggests that people strive to achieve fairness in their relationship. Unfairness has the potential to cause distress. This happens when one person gives a great deal and gets little in return (inequity). However the same is true of those who receive a great deal and give little in return. Equality Equity ≠ _____ Equity = _____ Person’s perceived inputs equal outputs!

Equity Theory: Walster et al (1978) Perceived ratio of Inputs and Outputs Inequity doesn’t necessarily mean inequality. Two individuals can put in variable amounts and still maintain equity. This is because a person holds subjective views on the relative inputs and outputs of themselves and their partner. If we fear inequity in our relationship we may try and change our input to restore equity. We may also compare it to our CLalt. Equality Equity ≠ _____ Equity = _____ Person’s perceived inputs and outputs!

And yet I also feel so guilty  Think about it why might people feel dissatisfied in the following examples? And yet I also feel so guilty  Person is giving more to the relationship than they feel they are getting out of it… Person is getting more out of the relationship than they feel they are giving to it…  

PSYA3: Topics in Psychology - Relationships Last Modified 02/02/2013 Maintaining equity Walster (1978) The 4 principles of equity Key Terms Description Profit   Distribution Dissatisfaction Realignment Rewards are maximised and costs minimised. This is basically SET. Trade-offs and compensations are negotiated to try and gain fairness. The greater the degree of perceived unfairness, the greater the dissatisfaction. If restoring equity is possible, attempts will be made to restore it and the relationship is maintained. Topic 02: Maintenance - Lesson 04 (SET and Equity)

Evaluating SET and Equity Theory Use your text books to find one piece of research that supports each theory and one that refutes each theory. SET: Hatfield (1979); Mill & Clark (1980); Rusbult (1983); Rusbult & Martz (1995); Rubin (1983); Sedikides (2005); Fromm (1962); Argyle (1988); Murstein (1977) Equity Theory: Argyle (1977); Murstein & MacDonald (1983); Canary & Stafford (1992); Dainton (2003); Yum et al (2009)

A Hat in a field !!