Session 6: Why relationships change or end Human Relationships Session 6: Why relationships change or end

Today’s Learning Outcomes Analyse why relationships may change or end What the command terms mean… Analyse: Break down in order to bring out the essential elements or structure. Note: You may include studies and theories from the previous learning outcome “Discuss the role of communication in maintaining relationships”.

Ending intimate relationships The current American divorce rate is nearly 50 percent of the current marriage rate and has been for the past two decades (National Center for Health Statistics, 2005) And of course, countless romantic relationships between unmarried individuals end every day. After many years of studying what love is and how it blooms, social psychologists are now beginning to explore the end of the story—how it dies.

Attributional style can be a factor in whether a relationship might change or end

The role of attributions in maintenance of relationships Attribution Theory (Heider, 1958) Attribution is defined as how people interpret and explain causal relationships in the social world.

The role of attributions in maintenance of relationships In happy relationships, attributions tend to be positively biased towards the partner i.e. positive behaviours are seen as dispositional, and negative behaviours are seen as situational

The role of attributions in maintenance of relationships In unhealthy relationships the opposite is seen. These relationships also employ a stable and global attribution to the partner’s behaviour In discussing problems this always leads to phrases like: “You always…” “You never…”

The role of attributions in maintenance of relationships It seems that communicating attributions for negative events or behaviour could determine whether a relationship will end.

Fletcher et al (1987) Aim: to study whether patterns of attributions were related to relationship satisfaction factors (happiness, commitment & love) Procedure 100 female and 31 male US undergraduate students in a heterosexual dating relationship not living together Participants completed variety of questionnaires After 2 months, 95 participants were still in their relationship They were asked to write a free-response description of the relationship in their own words and to fill out a questionnaire

Fletcher et al (1987) Results High relationship satisfaction after 2 months Attributed positive behaviour to themselves and their partner (dispositional attributions) Attributed negative behaviours to situational factors Also tended to describe relationship in more interpersonal terms (“we”) in free-response description People who made more situational attributions for reasons for relationship maintenance reported significantly less happiness, less commitment and lower levels of love

Bradbury and Fincham (1990) Conducted meta-analysis of research studies on the attributions married couples made on each other’s behaviour

Bradbury and Fincham (1990) Results Happy relationships Focused on partner’s positive behaviour as part of person’s character More likely to make dispositional attributions for positive events and situational attributions for negative events Unhappy relationships Tended to see partner’s negative behaviour as part of their character and downplay positive behaviour More likely to attribute positive events to situational factors and negative events to partner’s disposition

Do attributions affect behaviour? It seems that communicating attributions for negative events could determine whether a relationship will be healthy Important to consider whether: Quality of relationship leads to attributional style Or Attributional style leads to quality of relationship

Bradbury and Fincham (1993) To further investigate whether attributions influence behaviour researchers conducted a longitudinal study over 12 months Measured level of satisfaction at beginning of study Level of satisfaction at beginning of study did not predict what type of attributions couples made at end of study Found that attribution style from beginning influenced marital satisfaction at end of study This indicates that it is in fact attributional style that affects behaviour towards partner.

Self-disclosure is key to maintainance of relationships

The importance of self-disclosure in maintenance of relationships Self-disclosure leads to self-validation: the feeling of being truly known and accepted by the listener. A deeper mutual understanding allows each partner to meet the needs of the other more easily It is also a symbol of trust which is a key factor is attachment

Collins and Miller (1994) Meta-analysis of self disclosure studies Results People who disclose intimate information about themselves are more liked than people who don’t Also found that people tend to disclose more personal information to those they like And, that if people disclose information to someone else they tend to like that person more This clearly indicates that self-disclosure could be an important factor in maintenance of relationships

Emotion and communication style is an important predictor for whether a relationship will change or end

Role of communication of emotions in maintaining relationships Emotional expression and control seem to play a role in conflict resolution and marital satisfaction Gottman and Levenson (1986) Non-verbal factors (e.g. face. voice, gestures and arousal of autonomic nervous system) predicts emotions expressions Gottman (1979) found that dissatisfied couples displayed more negative effect (negative reciprocity). It was also relatively easy to predict how these couples would interact in conflict situations based on the spouse’s behaviour

Levenson and Gottman (1983) Observational study of relationship between marital dissatisfaction and negative affect In a laboratory, 30 couples were observed while they had a low conflict discussion of an event of the day and a high conflict discussion on a major source of disagreement in their relationship Discussions were videotaped and each spouse returned to the laboratory to make a self evaluation of their communication (negative, positive or neutral)

Levenson and Gottman (1983) Results Marital dissatisfaction was associated with higher levels of expressed negative emotions (negative affect) and negative reciprocity Researchers also took physiological measures during both sessions (heart rate, skin conduction) and found that the unhappy couples displayed similar physiological arousal (stress response) Researchers concluded that unhappy couples experience a negative spiral of negative emotions that lead to increased stress and mutual unhappiness

Gottman and Krokoff (1989) Researchers compared data from 2 longitudinal observation studies of couples Couples were observed in their home and in a laboratory discussion either on a low or high conflict issue Conflict was only seen as a negative sign if couples could not resolve it constructively

Gottman and Krokoff (1989) Results Expressions of anger and disagreement were not necessarily associated with marital dissatisfaction over time Couples who solved their conflict with mutual satisfaction were more satisfied with their relationship Couples who avoided conflict were less satisfied According to the researchers this is because the couples do not have the opportunity to experience that they can solve conflicts together Three specific dysfunctional communication patterns (defensiveness, stubbornness and withdrawal from interaction) were reliably associated with marital dissatisfaction over time

Gottman’s theory of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse

The Four Horsemen. John Gottman identified four conflict styles that can bring about the end of a relationship.

Equality in a relationship can also be a predictor in whether a relationship may change or end

Social Exchange Theory Kelly and Thibaut (1959) argue that relationships are maintained through a cost-benefit analysis In other words the costs must not outweigh the benefits. Although the relationship may be non equivalent for short periods, it must be profitable for both partners in equal measure if the relationship is to survive.

Social Exchange and Equity Social Exchange Theory The idea that people’s feelings about a relationship depend on perceptions of rewards and costs, the kind of relationship they deserve, and their chances for having a better relationship with someone else. Equity Theory The idea that people are happiest with relationships in which rewards and costs experienced and both parties’ contributions are roughly equal.

Equity Theory PROPONENTS OF EQUITY THEORY DESCRIBE EQUITABLE RELATIONSHIPS AS THE HAPPIEST AND MOST STABLE. IN COMPARISON, INEQUITABLE RELATIONSHIPS RESULT IN ONE PERSON FEELING: OVERBENEFITED (GETTING A LOT OF REWARDS, INCURRING FEW COSTS, HAVING TO DEVOTE LITTLE TIME OR ENERGY TO THE RELATIONSHIP), OR UNDERBENEFITED (GETTING FEW REWARDS, INCURRING A LOT OF COSTS, HAVING TO DEVOTE A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY TO THE RELATIONSHIP). According to equity theory, both underbenefited and overbenefited partners should feel uneasy about this state of affairs, and both should be motivated to restore equity to the relationship. This makes sense for the underbenefited person (who wants to continue feeling miserable?), but why should the overbenefited individual want to give up what social exchange theory indicates is a cushy deal—lots of rewards for little cost and little work? Some theorists argue that equity is a powerful social norm—people will eventually feel uncomfortable or even guilty if they get more than they deserve in a relationship. However, being overbenefited just doesn’t seem as bad as being underbenefited, and research has borne out that inequity is perceived as more of a problem by the underbenefited individual (Buunk & Schaufeli, 1999; Hatfield, Greenberger, Traupmann, & Lambert, 1982; Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994; Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990).

Equity Theory Elaine Walster (1978) Equity theory of love predicts that there must be a balance between two partners in a relationship, it must be perceived as fair.

Equity Theory Walster (1978) suggested the main assumptions of the equity approach are as follows: Individuals maximise rewards minimise costs Negotiation occurs to produce fairness. The relationship produces distress if there is inequity. The disadvantaged person is always trying harder to make the relationship more equitable.

Evidence supporting the Equity Theory Hatfield et al (1979) Newlyweds were questioned and asked to reveal whether they believed they were receiving more or less than what they were contributing. They were also asked to rate their contentment, happiness and anger or guilt. Results: The under benefited had the lowest overall satisfaction and experienced guilt The over benefited (they also felt guilt) were second The equitable had highest levels of satisfaction. Those who felt deprived or under benefitted had extra martial sex sooner after marriage and with more partners than those who felt either fairly treated or over benefited. Those with equitable relationships predicted they would still be together after 1 and 5 years. Those who felt deprived OR over benefited did not predict their relationship would last. Relationship breakdown occurs if one or both partners are dissatisfied with their comparison levels of reward. These results were further substantiated by Buunk & VanYperen (1991) These findings only related to who were high in exchange orientation, those with low exchange had reasonably high marriage satisfaction regardless of whether they were under/over benefited or receiving equal benefit.

Equity Theory evaluation The theory is rather cold and mercenary and does not deal with emotions. Reductionist. Research findings only related to who were high in exchange orientation, those with low exchange had reasonably high marriage satisfaction regardless of whether they were under/over benefited or receiving equal benefit. There is a fundamental supposition that individuals are self seeking in their relationships. This may have validity in some cultures, such as individualists, but not collectivists. It is difficult to quantify all psychological costs and rewards in a relationship to test the theory. (However-partners do tend to be equally physically attractive). Self reports do not always get reliable information.

Patterns of Accomodation Rusbult et al (1991) The theory highlights the importance of how an individual responds to a partner’s negative behaviour. Destructive behaviors Actively harming the relationship (e.g., abusing the partner, threatening to break up, actually leaving). Passively allowing the relationship to deteriorate (e.g., refusing to deal with problems, ignoring the partner or spending less time together, putting no energy into the relationship). Constructive behaviors Actively trying to improve the relationship (e.g., discussing problems, trying to change, going to a therapist). Passively remaining loyal to the relationship (e.g., waiting and hoping that the situation will improve, being supportive rather than fighting, remaining optimistic).

Murray and Holmes (1997) Idealization of one’s partner seems to lead to constructive accommodations. They found that over time partners in committed relationships create “positive illusions” of their partners. The idealization of the partner was associated with satisfaction and less conflict. If a person is not willing to adopt a constructivist approach to negative behaviour, the relationship ends. Evaluation: Tries to address the role of emotions in a relationship-may idealize partner more at the beginning of a relationship or may be committed to making a relationship work. Idealization could also be a threat to a relationship if the partner does not live up to the high expectations.

Key study: Flora and Segrin (2003) Analysis of young couples’ relationships satisfaction & stablity Aim: To investigate the extent to which shared interests and spending time together was a predictor of perception of quality of the relationship. Procedure: The participants were 66 young dating couples (of 6 months) and 65 married couples (of 4 years). The study was a longitudinal study. Data collection took place through self report questionnaires and interviews. At the beginning of the study participants described positive and negative feelings, disappointment and contentment with their partner. After 12 months the participants filled out questionnaires to measure well being and satisfaction with the relationship. All married couples were together but 25% of the dating couples had split up. The researchers were interested in finding possible factors that could predict either break-up or satisfaction.

Key study: Flora and Segrin (2003) Results: Satisfaction with a relationship for men depended on common interests and spending time together. For women, the best predictor of staying in a relationship and satisfaction was the amount of their own negative feelings about their partner.

Key study: Flora and Segrin (2003) Evaluation: The study was conducted with a sample from the USA so it may not be possible to generalize findings. Self reports can be bias.

Can you predict the breakdown of a relationship? Duck (1992) carried out a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and found the following factors could predict the end of a marriage: People who had parents that had divorced. Teenage marriages. Marriage between partners of different backgrounds (socioeconomic, cultural, education). Marriage between people from a lower socioeconomic background. Marriage between partners who have had many sexual partners before the marriage. Conclusion Relationships offer comfortable predictability. Relationships end when this predictability is disrupted.

Do people simply fall out of love? Sprecher (1999) Carried out a longitudinal study to find out. Couples self reported their feelings about the relationship over several years. In the relationships that eventually broke up, individuals reported higher levels of general dissatisfaction and frustration with the relationship. BUT there was no change in their feelings of love for one another. When frustrations outweigh positive feeling of love, couples break up. The feelings of love that still exist make breaking up painful.

Culture and maintenance of relationships A large proportion of marriages in the Western world end up in divorce (in some countries up to 50%) In some cultures divorce is rare or non-existent (e.g. China) Fiske (2004) arranged marriages usually last longer than romantic marriages. Marriage is traditional societies is a contract between families and often involves economic and social engagements that create powerful bonds between the families and makes divorce impossible. This could be a reason for stability of marriages

Cultural Differences in Views on Marriage Levine et al (1995) Individualistic countries more likely to rate love as essential to the establishment of marriage and to agree that disappearance of love is sufficient reason to end a marriage Countries with a large GDP* also showed this tendency. They also found that divorce rates are highly correlated with the belief that the disappearance of love warranted the dissolution of marriage *Gross Domestic Product: measure of total market value of all goods and services with a year