Relationships Study Summary

Reward/need:

Griffitt and Guay (1969) 

• Participants = evaluated on creative task by experimenter
• Asked to rate how much they liked the experimenter 
• Rating = highest when experimenter had positively evaluated performance on task

Griffitt and Guay (1969)

• Asked to say how much theyliked an onlooker
• Rated = highest when perforamcne of the participant had been evaluated positively
• Participants rated both experimenter and onlooker the same 

Aron et al (2005)

• Participants measured high on self-report questionnaire of romantic loe
• Showed strong activity in particular areas of the brain 
• Early-stage, intense romantic love = associated wih elevated levels of activity in subcortical reward regions of the brain, rich in dopamine.

Similarity:
Rosenbaum (1986)

• Dissimilarity-repulsion hypothesis 
• Dissimilarity rather than similarity was the more important factor 
• Tested in a number of cultures
• Singapore and in the USA
• Participants were first attrcted to each other because of similarity
• Those who discovered dissimilarities later became less attracted to each other

Yoshida (1972)

• Only dealswith attitude and personality similarities 
• Very narrow view of factors important in formation
• Similarity of self-concept, economic level and physical condition equally important 

Condon and Crano (1988)

• Rule out dissimilar people = lessen the chance of rejection 
• When others share our attitudes and beliefs, it tends to validate them, which is rewarding 

Social Exchange Theory:
Rusbult and Martz (1995)

• Notion of exchange = explains why women stay in abusive relationships
• Investments are high (children)
• Alternatives are low (no money)
• Still considered a profit situation and so they may choose to stay in the relationship

Simpson et al (1990)

• Asked participants to rate members of the opposite sex in terms of attractiveness
• Already in a relationship = lower ratings 
• One way of dealing with potential alternatives is to reduce them to protect relationship
• Theory doesn't explain why some leave relationships despite having no alternative

Duck and Sants (1983)

• Focuses too much on the individual's perspective and ignores social aspects 
• Selfish nature of the theory 
• Only motivated to stay in the relationship for selfish concerns? 

Equity Theory:

Clark and Mills (1979)

• Disagreed that all are based on economics
• Distinguished between exchange relationships (colleagues) and communal relationships (between friends or lovers) 
• Exchange = keeping track of rewards and costs
• Communal = governed more by a desire to respond to the needs of the partner 
• Still some concern with equity, but partners tend to believe things will balance out 

DeMaris (2007)

• Whether martial inequity is associated with later marital disruption
• 1500 couples in US National Survey of Families and Households
• Only subjective index of inquity associated with disruption in women's sense of being under-benefited, with greater under-benefit raising the risk of divorce 

Reasons for Relationship Breakdown:

Boekhout et al (1999)

• Extramartial affairs might be direct reaction to perceived lack of skills and/or stimulation 
• Asked undergraduates to rate various sexual and emotional reasons for women and men to be unfaithful in a committed relationship
• Men = sexual reasonns
• Women= emotional reasons 

Rohlfing (1995)

• 70% of students sampled had experience at least on LDRR 
• 90% had experienced one LDF 
• Mobile society = management strategies 

Holt and Stone (1988)

• Little decrease in relationship satisfaction as long as lovers are able to reunite reguarly 

A Model of Breakdown:

Tashiro and Frazier (2003)

• Surveyed undergraduates who had recently broken up with a romantic partner
• Reported that they not only experienced emotional distress, but also personal growth
• Breaking up had given them new insights about themselves
• Clearer idea about future partners 

Penton-Voak et al (1999)

• Female choice varies across the menstrual cycle
• Women chose a slightly feminised version of a male face for long term
• Short term = preferred face shape was more masculinised
• Feminised = kindness and cooperation in parental care 
• Masculine = higher levels of testosterone which suppresses the immune system 

Baker and Bellis (1990)

• Women may shop around for 'good genes' through affairs 
• Survey of over 2700 UK women
• 14% of the population are products of extramartial affairs 

Buss et al (1992)

• Male US students indicated more concern about sexual infidelity
• Female US studentsexpressed more concern about emotional infidelity
• Supported by physiological responses when respondents were asked to imagine scenes of sexual or emotional infidelity 
• Men showed much more distress for sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity 

Dunbar (1995)

• Joint parental care = desirable 
• High costs of successful reproduction 
• Any situation where males can increase success = pay them to do so 
• Males do restrict their reproductive opportunities and invest more in each individual offspring 

Fraley (1998)

• Meta-analysis of studies finding correlations of .10 and 0.50 
• Between early attachment type and later relationship 
• One reason for low correlation = insecure-anxious attachment is unstable

Kirkpatrick and Hazan (1994)

• Found that relationship break ups were associated with a shift from secure to insecure attachment - attachment theory does suggest significant relationship experiences may alter attachment organisation 

Richard and Schneider (2005)

• Gender differences in childhood relationships
• Girls have more intimate friendships than boys
• More likely to report care and security in their relationships with other girls