Analyse why Relationships may Change or End

Maintenance of Relationships – basis for change Ending relationships - causes and models

How relationships are maintained 4 How relationships are maintained Influential Theories: Social Exchange Theory Investment Equity Theory. These are referred to as ‘Economic’ theories as they assume that couples calculate ‘costs and benefits’ and ‘investment’ during the relationship.

Also based on a cost benefit analysis Rusbult (1983) Investment Model Also based on a cost benefit analysis Rusbult (1983) predicted that a relationship will be maintained if the rewards outweigh the costs and if there has been significant investments in the relationship. Equally, an individual might maintain a relationship even when the costs outweigh the rewards, because they have invested heavily in the relationship. A relationship is most likely to breakdown when there has been little investment and if the costs of the relationship outweigh the rewards. found that costs are only calculated after the honeymoon phase.

Rusbult (1983) Rusbult asked students in heterosexual relationships to complete questionnaires over a 7- month period and keep notes about: how satisfactory the relationship was how it compared with possible alternatives how much they had invested in it High satisfaction and investment were found to be important in committed relationships. The existence of an attractive alternative featured significantly in deciding to end a relationship. These results were supported by a meta-analysis by Le and Agnew (2003) which studied males and females from different cultures in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Other findings 1983 Rusbult also found two variables which were linked to commitment. The first variable is equity. The second variable is social support such as family and friends.

Rusbult (1983) Results

Evaluation Methodology: Culture: Alternative explanations: Determinism vs free will Reductionism vs holism Situational vs dispositional Other:

Rusbult’s Investment Model of Commitment Processes (1991) There are four ways in which we respond to a negative behaviour in a close relationship. Exit is when we actively destroy the relationship. This is when we move out, actively abuse a partner, get a divorce, threaten to leave or scream at our partners. Voice is when we actively and constructively attempt to improve conditions. This is when we discuss problems, seek help from a friend, suggest solutions or change one's own behaviour. Loyalty is when we passively but optimistically wait for conditions to improve. This is when we support our partners in spite of it all and hope/pray for improvement. Neglect is when we passively allow the relationship to deteriorate. This is when we ignore our partners or spend less time together, avoid discussing problems, treat the partner poorly, criticize the partner for things unrelated to the problem or just do nothing to improve the relationship.

There are several determinants as to whether one is more likely to accommodate or use destructive behaviour Those who truly appreciate their relationship and enjoy greater rewards and fewer costs are happier in their relationships. They also tend to use more constructive strategies to conflict. People who have strong feelings of commitment - because they have invested a lot, have poor alternatives or have strong cultural reasons for needing to be in a relationship - feel more included to act in a way to promote the longevity of the relationship. They tend to use constructive strategies. Accommodation is lower among people who are less empathetic and don't understand how the partner feels about the problem. It is also lower among people who are cognitively rigid and unable to see an issue from another person's point of view. Past experience in relationships only plays a role in one's accommodation patterns. Attachment styles may also play a role in our accommodation patterns.

Murray & Holmes (1997) Found over time partners in committed relationships created positive illusion od their partner. This idealisation was positively associated with relationship satisfaction and fewer conflict.

Social Exchange Theory (Kelly & Thibaut 1959) Relationships are maintained through a cost-benefit analysis. The costs of the relationship must not outweigh the benefits The more one invests in a relationship , the more one expects greater returns. Balance bust be maintained for relationship to survive

SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY Model of long term relationships Thibaut and Kelley’(1959) The four stages that long-term relationships go through

Social Exchange Theory (Kelly & Thibaut 1959) EVALUATION Simplistic Mechanistic approach (how do you define costs and rewards exactly?) Cannot quantify the point of dissatisfaction.

Equity Theory – Hatfield (1979) study of over 2,000 couples Premise is that a couple is happiest when benefits and costs are balanced. Equity Theory as explanation for infidelity

Hatfield (1979) In a study of 2000 couples, Hatfield (1979) found that those who felt deprived or under-benefited had extramarital sex sooner after marriage and with more partners than those who felt either fairly treated or over-benefited. Those who felt that their relationship was perfectly equitable were more likely than others to think that they would still be together in one year and in five years. Those who felt greatly under-benefited and those who felt greatly over-benefited were least likely to think that their relationship would be intact in the future. What is most interesting is that the over-benefited were just as doubtful about future prospects as were the under-benefited.

Clark & Mills 1979 Argue relationships are based on sharing and belonging not equity and people accommodate because they want to feel close to the other person.

Why does an Equity type relationship breakdown? People try to maximise their rewards and minimize negative experiences within a relationship. The distribution of rewards is negotiated to ensure fairness. This may be achieved through trade-offs or compensations (i.e. a favour or privilege for one person is paid back by an equivalent favour or privilege.) Unfair (inequitable) relationships produce dissatisfaction. As long as the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring the balance (equity) they are motivated to save the relationship.

Evaluating Social Exchange & Equity Theory Social Exchange theory tends to see relationships as SNAPSHOTS at one point in time – whereas they are DYNAMIC constantly changing. This theory see people as CALCULATING (Selfish – What’s in it for me? Am I giving more than I am getting?) The theory doesn’t take into account the social context of the relationship E.g. Arranged marriages, religion, parenting, health traditions etc. Research evidence is inconsistent (Clark and Mills, 1979 identified two types of couples:

Evaluating Social Exchange & Equity Theory continued THE COMMUNAL COUPLE – giving is motivated by concern and positive regard for the other ~ they give to meet each others needs – not expecting anything in return ~ shared responsibility for relationship. THE EXCHANGE COUPLE – As in social exchange – certain amount of ‘score keeping’ is evident. Expect a return on their investment ~ cost benefit analysis of relationship ~ give but expect same in return. There is also evidence that equity is not the same for everyone (Hatfield) Equity may be more important for females than males. (Gender Issue) Murstein et al (1977) Equity may only be a problem in troubled relationships. (Health of relationship issue)

Cultural Bias in Economic Theories THE KEY IDEAS Moghaddam (1993) concluded that Western Relationships were generally: Individualistic Temporary & Voluntary Whereas Non-Western relationships tended to be: Collectivist Obligatory & Permanent So remember : MOGHADDAM I.T.V. COP This means that many of the research studies and / or theories we have studied can be criticised for being:- Ethnocentric (relevant only to the society where the theory and / or study was based) and so lacking cultural relativism. Rooted in capitalistic interpretations of society

Other evaluative points Era Dependant (as social structures & norms generally change over time e.g. single parent families and cohabitation much more common now than 50 years ago) Assuming Heterosexuality (heterosexual bias) (Most research is only completed on heterosexual relationships so can we apply them to homosexual with any confidence?) Some have Ethical Problems – what if no one wanted to date you! Many would be difficult to make generalisations from because the task or environment was artificial (lacked mundane realism) Walster not how we normally arrange a date etc.

Reasons for Relationships ending Conflict on an issue Breaking agreed rules Dissatisfaction or boredom Lack of stimulation or novelty Attractive alternative relationship Costs outweighing rewards Perceived changes in the relationship Interference from others Abuse (alcohol, sexual, monetary etc) Changes in one partner Falling out of love Saving face

Factors leading to the breakdown of relationships Factors leading to Breakdown Enviro Factors Individual Inter-Personal

Factors leading to the breakdown of relationships Environmental factors Interpersonal factors (Lack of stimulation, reduction in stimulation, conflict) Individual factors (background, lack of commitment, social skills, emotional incompatibility)

Environmental Factors Physical Environment Social Environment Distance – lack of proximity Hardship – lack of resources Field of ‘availables’ Family and friends (competition for intimacy and attention)

Inter-personal Factors Boredom Conflict Lack of Stimulation Reduction in Stimulation Rule-Breaking Compromise difficulties Conflict maintenance

Individual Factors Lack of Social Skills Background (DUCK) Difference in demographic background Marriage at early age History of lack of relationship commitment Low socio-economic or education level Coping strategies Conflict avoidance Emotional expressiveness

Duck (1981) Causes for relationship breakdown Predisposing personal factors – eg personal habits or emotional instability Precipitating factors Exterior influence (rival, family etc) Process/behavioural management features (eg incompatible working hours) Emergent properties of relationship that cause decline (eg relationship got too intense) Attributions of blame

Processes involving the breakdown of relationships

Two Models of Relationship Dissolution Lee’s sequences of separation model (1984) Duck’s model of dissolution (1999)

Lee’s Sequences of Separation Model (1984) Based on a survey on 112 romantic break ups of premarital couples, Lee identified the following stages:

Lee’s Sequences of Separation Model (1984) In some cases, stages missed. Some go from D to T Time taken from D to T affects reported later loneliness and affection. The more drawn out the process, the greater the impact

Lee’s Sequences of Separation Model (1984) Exposure and Negotiation tend to be the most intense, exhausting and negative aspects of the experience

Duck’s (1999) Model of Relationship Breakdown 1. Personal assessment of costs rewards 2. Confrontation and Negotiation 3. Involvement and use of social Network 4. Retrospective analysis and public distribution of break-up story

Strengths of Ducks Phase Model Addresses cognitive not just behavioural aspects of relationships. The theory has practical implications for the repair of relationships and looks at strategies to repair relationships.

Weaknesses of Ducks Phase Model Descriptive rather than explanatory. Rigid and doesn’t allow for individual differences

Similarities between the Models These models show that dissolution is not a sudden step but a process They identify stages where things start to go wrong Lee has greater emphasis on the early stages, especially the painful stages of exposure and negotiation Duck focuses on beginning and end stages and impact when relationship is over.

Rule Violations Argyle & Henderson (1984): 160 participants aged 17-34 were asked on the dissolution of friendships The most critical rule violations were jealousy, lack of tolerance for a third party relationship, disclosing confidences, publicly criticizing the person and not volunteering when helping Individual differences: Women identified emotional support, younger participants public criticism, over 20s lack of respect or request for personal advice

Negative emotion Gottman (1988) has developed a model to predict which newlywed couples will remain married and which will divorce four to six years later. He claims that his model has 80-90% accuracy. His prediction method relies on Paul Ekman's method of analyzing microexpressions of couples in the laboratory (observation analyzed by content analysis). Gottman believes that the four emotional reactions that are most destructive for relationships are defensiveness, stonewalling (withdrawal from relationship), criticism and contempt. He considers contempt to be the best predictor for marital divorce and particularly men’s stonewalling..

Communication- Gottman Dissatisfied couples displayed more negative affect and more likely to return negative affect (1979) Non verbal factors influence emotional expression (Gottman & Levenson 1986) Four Horsemen of the Apocalyse – communication that predicts marital satisfaction Criticism Contempt Defensiveness Stonewalling

Communication Negative communication patterns (Gottman) (1993) 79 couples videotaped observation: Stable marriages are correlated with more positive comments (5x) and unstable relationships with greater negative than positive comments. 19% unstable couples divorced within 4 yrs vs 3% of stable couples Suggests communication patterns is a leading factor in relationship breakdown or survival. Methodology: Gottman based his evidence on observations which he argues provides richer and more reliable data than self report measures typically used.

Happiness & Satisfaction Many studies look at the element of happiness as a predictor of marriage stability. However happiness is not necessarily an indicator of relationship stability many other complex factors are evident in the research. Research such as Flora & Segrin (2003) support the role of satisfaction. Common sense!

Canary & Dainton (2003) Proposes that relationships tend to naturally end so problems in relationships can be seen as catalysts for change.

Culture Arranged marriages- built on a different premise not enough evidence though to show they are any less likely to end Intercultural marriages are cultural norms an additional stressor? Measurement of satisfaction – different cultures have different relationship expectations and different baselines. Continuous verses discontinuous cultures.

Factors leading to the breakdown of relationships Factors leading to Breakdown Enviro Factors Individual Inter-Personal