investment model

Maintenance of Relationships #3

Maintenance of Relationships #3Describe & Evaluate the Investment Model

Maintenance of Relationships

1. Social Exchange Theory (SET)

2. Investment Model

3. Equity Theory

Social Exchange TheoryWe are constantly making these calculations about all of our relationships

All social behaviour is a series of exchanges attempting to maximise rewards and minimise costs

We are rational beings who seek the most profitable deal

We are all inherently selfish in our relationships



2. Investment Model

3. Equity Theory

Equity TheoryDeveloped by Walster et al (1978)

Central Assumption is that:

People strive to achieve fairness in their relationship

Partner #1s benefits costs = Partner #2s benefits costs



2. Investment Model

3. Equity Theory

Investment ModelDeveloped by Rusbult (1983, 1996)

Builds on SET with the addition of a 3rd factor

Suggests that the best predictor of whether a couple will stay together is commitment

Investment Model3 components:

1. Satisfaction with RelationshipRewards - Costs

2. Quality of AlternativesA belief that alternative options may be more rewarding (CL-ALT)

3. InvestmentAnything a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if they leave it.

Alternatives not necessarily other people8

Investment ModelLevel of Commitment contributes to the stability of the relationship

Investments:Mutual Friendship networkShared PropertyFamily NetworkTimeEmotional Investment

IM - A02 Rusbult (1983)

Questionnaire given to college students in heterosexual relationshipsOver a 7 month period, they reported their satisfaction with the relationship; how the relationship compared with alternatives & how much they had invested in it

IM A02Results:

Satisfaction , comparison & investment all contribute to the commitment of relationships

IM A02

Application to Abusive Relationships

Axsom (2006) Interviews with women living in refuges fleeing an abusive relationshipAsked why they had stayed in their abusive relationship

IM A02

Application to Abusive Relationships

Found that:

Highest level of commitment to the relationship was felt when Investment was High and Economic Alternatives were low

AO3

GenderReductionistEthical Guidelines?Nature vs. NurtureAnimal StudiesDeterminsm vs. Free WillEthnocentricism

14

IM A03

Too Simplistic?

Economic theories assume that humans are all rational beings who opt for the best outcome with the least lossThese theories dont accurately reflect real-life relationships which are often much messier than a simple reward-cost equation!Investments are subjective and therefore difficult to quantify

AO3

GenderReductionistEthical Guidelines?Nature vs. NurtureAnimal StudiesDeterminsm vs. Free WillEthnocentricism

16

IM A03Fails to account for gender differences in Investment. Males may be expected to invest more resources/economic valueWomen may be expected to invest more time/emotional energyIt also fails to confront cultural differences in Investment expectations of relationships and much of the research is based on Heterosexual relationships, thus may not be applied to Homosexual relationships

IM A03 : Sexual OrientationHowever

Le & Agnew (2003)

Meta-Analysis of 52 studies & over 11,000 ppsFound that

Photocopy page18

IM A03 : Sexual OrientationLe & Agnew (2003)Satisfaction highest predictor or commitment

Heterosexual men show a stronger correlation between investment and satisfaction in relationships than homosexual men

There was a stronger relationship between alternatives and commitment in lesbians than heterosexual women

Photocopy page19

IM A03 : Sexual OrientationLe & Agnew (2003)

Supports theory in terms of all 3 factors correlating with commitment in relationships

H/W Highlights differences in homosexual relationships, the theory therefore cannot be applied to other sexual orientations.

Photocopy page20

Filter TheoryMatching HypothesisReward/ Need SatisfactionInvestment ModelEquity TheorySocial Exchange Theory123456

Describe & Evaluate the Matching Hypothesis

A01:

Developed by Murstein (1972)May desire most attractive, but reality says we wont keep them Idealistic ChoiceRealistic Choice= look for someone of equal attractiveness to ourselvesMatched couples (in terms of social desirability) are more likely to lastPhysical Attractiveness dependent on Architectural and Dynamic features


A02:

Murstein (1972) Photos judged individual partners as similar Walster (1966) dance dates 6m later if matched McKillip & Riedel (1993) friends also matched with attraction / - Feingold (1988) Correlation of attractiveness = +0.49

Complex Matching Compensate for lack of looks with other traits


A03:

Gender BiasPhysical Attraction valued more heavily by men

Cultural Bias Arranged marriages? Status > Physical Attraction Complex Matching

Describe & Evaluate Filter ModelA01

Created by Kerckhoff & Davis (1962)Relationships form after filtering out other potential partners Narrow our field of availables through 3 filters1. Socio/Demographic 2. Attitudes/Values3. Complementarity of emotional needs

Describe & Evaluate Filter ModelA02

Kerckoff & Davis (1962) Longitudinal study with couples questionnaires Attitude similarity most important factor before 18mAfter 18m, Psychological compatibility and ability to meet each others emotional needs was most important.

Describe & Evaluate Filter ModelA03:

Unrealistic (no reflection on flow of real relationships)

Too Traditional ? Lacks temporal Validity Demographic filter not needed now with online dating.

Culture / Gender

Describe & Evaluate Reward/Need Satisfaction ModelA01:

Developed by Byrne & Clore (1970)We form relationships b/c we find them rewardingPartner reward us directly via Operant ConditioningNeg-ve = Remove loneliness & Pos+ve = Provides pleasureRelationships are rewarding to us when they meet some of our needs (A,D,D,S)Partners also reward us indirectly via Classical Conditioning Association with a pleasant experience (i.e. holiday)Relationships move from Exchange to Communal over time


May & Hamilton (1980) pleasant music = attraction

(your research)


Unrealistic/Reductionist - Looks at relationships as only a method to receive rewards in real life, they tend to be communal Culture- Hill (1972) African American less focus on Rewards, more resilient relationshipsGender- Females orientated towards gratification of mans needs met

Maintenance of Romantic Relationships


2. Equity Theory

3. Investment Model

investment model

Science