MAINTENANCE OF
RELATIONSHIPS
PSYCHOLOGY
WHAT CAN YOU REMEMBER FROM LAST WEEK?
• THIS WEEK WE WILL BE FOCUSING ON MAINTENANCE
REWARD/NEED SATISFACTION MODEL
RECAP
SO WHAT ARE THE FIVE FACTORS INFLUENCING RELATIONSHIP FORMATION THAT ARE
REWARDING TO US?
1.
PROXIMITY
2.
EXPOSURE AND FAMILIARITY
3.
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
4.
SIMILARITY
5.
RECIPROCAL LIKING
NEED SATISFACTION (ARGYLE, 1994)
THERE ARE SEVEN BASIC MOTIVES OR NEEDS, EACH OF WHICH CAN BE SATISFIED AT LEAST IN
PART BY INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS : WHEN OUR NEEDS ARE SATISFIED IT IS REWARDING
AND WE LEARN = FEELING GOOD
BIOLOGICAL = EATING TOGETHER
DEPENDENCY = BEING COMFORTED/NURTURED
AFFILIATION = SEEKING COMPANY/APPROVAL
DOMINANCE = ESTABLISHING SOCIAL ORDER
SEX = REPRODUCTION
AGGRESSION = INTERPERSONAL HOSTILITY
SELF-ESTEEM = BEING VALUED BY OTHERS.
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
SCHACHTER, 1959 LOOKED AT THE NEED TO AFFILIATE AND HOW LONG COULD
PEOPLE GO DEPRIVED OF HUMAN CONTACT. HE FOUND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES,
ONE PERSON FELT THE UNCONTROLLABLE URGE TO LEAVE AFTER 20 MINUTES, BUT
ANOTHER MANAGED 8 DAYS. HOWEVER, ALL OF THEM ADMITTED TO FEELING
NERVOUS AND UNEASY, WERE APATHETIC AND WITHDRAWN, REPORTING THAT THEY
CONSTANTLY THOUGHT AND DREAMED OF OTHER PEOPLE.
EVALUATION
PRESENTS A ONE-SIDED PICTURE, OMITTING THE BEHAVIOUR OF OTHER PEOPLE. DOES
IT NOT TAKE TWO TO MAKE A RELATIONSHIP? IS STALKING A RELATIONSHIP?
REWARD/NEED SATISFACTION - THROUGH
CONDITIONING:
CLORE AND BYRNE, 1974)
THIS IS THE LEARNING THEORY ACCOUNT OF RELATIONSHIP FORMATION, BASED ON THE CONCEPT
OF REINFORCEMENT.
SOME PEOPLE MAY REWARD US DIRECTLY E.G. SEX, (OPERANT CONDITIONING) OR INDIRECTLY
BY BEING ASSOCIATED WITH PLEASANT CIRCUMSTANCES (CLASSICAL CONDITIONING)
EVIDENCE
VEITCH AND GRIFFITT (1976) PLACED PARTICIPANTS IN A WAITING ROOM WHERE THEY LISTENED
TO EITHER GOOD OR BAD NEWS WITH A STRANGER PRESENT. WHEN THEY WERE ASKED TO
RATE THE STRANGER THE DEGREE OF LIKING WAS RELATED TO THE KIND OF NEWS THEY HAD
BEEN LISTENING TO.
EVALUATION
DUCK (1992) CRITICISES SUCH BOGUS STRANGER METHODS FOR BEING ARTIFICIAL –
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING (LEARNING BY ASSOCIATION) LEADS US TO LIKE PEOPLE WHO
INDIRECTLY REWARD US BY BEING NEARBY WHEN WE FEEL GOOD. EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT
INVOLVED IN MAKING US FEEL GOOD, AFTER A WHILE WE WILL ASSOCIATE THEM WITH THE
GOOD FEELING SUCH THAT WHENEVER WE SEE THEM WE FEEL GOOD.
(SO PEOPLE WHO ARE AROUND WHEN WE ARE DOING SOMETHING WE ENJOY E.G. ‘ WHEN
WE ARE ON HOLIDAY!’ WE ARE MORE PRONE TO BE ATTRACTED TO AND TO FORM A
RELATIONSHIP WITH.)
OPERANT CONDITIONING (LEARNING BY CONSEQUENCES) LEADS US TO LIKE PEOPLE WHO
DIRECTLY REWARD US.
REWARDS CAN INCLUDE BEING FRIENDLY TOWARDS US, SMILING AND GENERALLY ACTING
POSITIVELY TOWARDS US.
EVALUATION
THE THEORY ASSUMES THAT PEOPLE ARE SELFISH AND ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
REINFORCEMENTS THEY RECEIVE. HAYS, 1995 FOUND THAT IN STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS AS
MUCH VALUE WAS ATTACHED TO REWARDING OTHERS AS GAINING REWARDS.
GENDER DIFFERENCES; THERE IS EVIDENCE OF GENDER DIFFERENCES AS WELL AS CULTURAL
DIFFERENCES. IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT IN MAY CULTURES, WOMEN ARE SOCIALIZED INTO
BEING MORE ATTENTIVE TO THE NEEDS OF OTHERS THAN THEIR OWN (LOTT 1994)
IT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR ‘UNREWARDING’ RELATIONSHIPS
HOWEVER THERE IS MUCH RESEARCH EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE MODEL SCHOCHTER,
1959 AFFILIATION STUDY, AND VEITCH AND GRIFFITT (1976) WAITING ROOM GOOD
NEWS/BAD NEWS STUDY. (THOUGH THESE RELY HEAVILY ON BOGUS STRANGER STUDIES
WHICH ARE CRITICISED FOR THEIR LACK OF ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY.
THE THEORY HAS FACE VALIDITY: IS SUPPORTED BY EVERYDAY EXPERIENCES I.E. HAPPY, WARM
PEOPLE WITH A GOOD SENSE OF HUMOUR HAVE MORE FRIENDS.
ACCOUNTS FOR RESEARCH FINDINGS: THE THEORY EXPLAINS WHY FACTORS SUCH AS
PROXIMITY, SIMILARITY AND PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS ARE IMPORTANT FACTORS.
MAINTENANCE THEORIES
MAINTENANCE
• THE MATCHING HYPOTHESIS AND REWARD/NEED SATISFACTION
THEORIES EXPLAIN WHY TWO PEOPLE WOULD CHOOSE EACH
OTHER AS PARTNERS, OTHER THEORIES GO BEYOND THIS AND
EXPLAIN HOW RELATIONSHIPS ARE MAINTAINED.
• THE TWO MOST INFLUENTIAL ARE SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY AND
EQUITY THEORY. THESE ARE REFERRED TO AS ‘ECONOMIC’ THEORIES
AS THEY ASSUME THAT COUPLES CALCULATE ‘COSTS AND BENEFITS’
AND ‘INVESTMENT’ DURING THE RELATIONSHIP.
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY (THIBAUT AND KELLY,
1959)
SATISFACTION (PROFIT) IS DETERMINED BY EXCHANGE OF REWARDS (SEX, AFFECTION, SUPPORT) AND
COSTS
(PROVIDING SUPPORT & NOT ALWAYS HAVING YOUR OWN WAY).
SUPPORTING RESEARCH EVIDENCE
• RUSBULT (1983) FOUND THAT COSTS ARE ONLY CALCULATED AFTER THE HONEYMOON PHASE.
• SIMPSON (1990) FOUND THAT PARTICIPANTS WHO WERE DATING RATED MEMBERS OF THE
OPPOSITE SEX AS LESS ATTRACTIVE, SHOWING THEY CLOSE THEMSELVES OFF FROM ATTRACTIVE
ALTERNATIVES.
EVALUATION
• MECHANISTIC APPROACH (HOW DO YOU DEFINE COSTS AND REWARDS EXACTLY?)
• CANNOT QUANTIFY THE POINT OF DISSATISFACTION.
• CLARK & MILLS (1979) ARGUED THAT ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS ARE COMMUNAL RATHER THAN
EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS.
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
MODEL OF LONG TERM RELATIONSHIPS
THIBAUT AND KELLEY’(1959)
“THERE ARE FOUR STAGES THAT LONG-TERM
RELATIONSHIPS GO THROUGH THEY ARE…..”
ALL THESE ‘STAGE’ THEORIES CAN BE CRITICISED FOR
BEING TO RIGID – INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES ARE NOT
CONSIDERED. WILL EVERYONE GO THROUGH ALL THE
STAGES
WHY DOES A SOCIAL EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIP
BREAKDOWN?
•
•
•
•
THEORIES REFERRED TO IN TERMS OF INVESTMENT, PROFIT, LOSS, COSTS & REWARDS ETC.
SO IF RELATIONSHIP IS SHOWING A PROFIT THEN….
IT WILL CONTINUE
BUT IF SHOWING A LOSS (LOW AMOUNTS OF POSITIVE SATISFACTION - FEW REWARDS) &
HIGH NUMBER OF ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES.
• IT WILL LIKELY FAIL.
• THIBAUT & KELLY STATED THAT PEOPLE IN A RELATIONSHIP CONSTANTLY COMPARE THEIR
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIPS AND POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES.
• IF THE PRESENT RELATIONSHIP COMPARES WELL WITH OTHERS THEN THE MOTIVATION IS TO
MAINTAIN THE CURRENT RELATIONSHIP.
EQUITY THEORY (WALSTER ET AL, 1978)
BALANCE IS ACHIEVED MORE THROUGH PERCEIVED FAIRNESS, AS IN THE MATCHING HYPOTHESIS.
INEQUITY RESULTS IN STRIVING TO RESTORE BALANCE OR IN DISSOLUTION. THIS THEORY IS SIMILAR
TO SOCIAL EXCHANGE BUT ATTEMPTS TO QUANTIFY WHAT MAKES A RELATIONSHIP FAIR.
EVIDENCE
• HATFIELD ET AL (1972) INTERVIEWED OVER 500 STUDENTS ABOUT EQUITY IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS.
THREE MONTHS LATER THE INEQUITABLE RELATIONSHIPS WERE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE ENDED.
EVALUATION
• EQUITY MAY BE MAINTAINED BY MATCHING ANY ATTRACTIVECHARACTERISTICS, SUCH AS LOOKS,
MONEY OR STATUS. (LINKS TO MATCHING HYPOTHESIS)
• INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, - INDIVIDUALS LOW IN EXCHANGE ORIENTATION DON’T BOTHER ABOUT
EQUITY (BUUNK & VANYPEREN, 1991)
• CULTURAL DIFFERENCES – EQUITY IS NOT A NORM FOR ALL CULTURES.
• THESE TWO THEORIES ARE CALLED ‘ECONOMIC THEORIES’ BECAUSE THEY EXPLAIN RELATIONSHIPS
IN TERMS OF REWARDS & COSTS.
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.
• THIS IDEA OF RESTORING THE BALANCE HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED BY THE ADVERTISING INDUSTRY!
THANK YOU!
• NEXT WEEK BREAKDOWN