# data[].attributes.body
The degree of care and assistance available from others such as friends and family.

i.e. if they approve of the relationship it produces a positive influence that increases commitment to the relationship.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.relationshipscoach.co.uk/blog/social-exchange-theory-and-your-relationships/

http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/Economic_Theories/4stages.Sampling,Bargaining,Commitment&I.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/MissFRalph/filtertheory

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.simplypsychology.org/a-level-relationships.html#rom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A-level Psychology Relationship Revision for Paper 3 | Simply Psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rollie and Duck (2006) added a fifth stage to the model, the resurrection phase where people take the experiences and knowledge gained from the previous relationship and apply it to future relationships that they have. When Rollie and Duck revisited the model, they also emphasised that progression from one stage to the next is not inevitable and effective interventions can prevent this.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9UVT2lqZog

N.B. please refer to it as self-disclosure, rather than social penetration.

# data[].attributes.body
www.padlet.com/missfralph/selfdisclosure

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-young-and-the-restless/201108/disclose-yourself

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A few weeks ago, my roommate and I asked each other a set of questions. It began simple enough, with thirty-six inquiries concerning our heritage, families, and values. But a few minutes in, we began disclosing our greatest fears, what we like and don't like about ourselves, and how we view our relationships with our mothers (very secure, in case you were wondering). I have known said friend for quite some time, and I was certain I would know her answers before she spoke them. However, throughout the exercise, meaningful revelations were disclosed in a way I never predicted. This experience compelled me to start thinking critically about how revealing confidential information to another, or the process of self-disclosure, impacts relationships.

Self-disclosure is kind of like a funnel, beginning with more superficial questions and gradually narrowing into personal topics. This style of communication is typical of the social penetration theory, which holds that strangers begin discussing more superficial, impersonal topics, such as "Where are you from?" before dipping into meaningful conversation. If the small talk is satisfying, acquaintances will gradually reveal more personal information. Conversation begins to increase in breadth (a wide array of topics are discussed) and depth (personal significance attached to topics). In this way, self-disclosure begets familiarity and even fondness. When we divulge intimate information to another, we are more inclined to like this person. Although you might be thinking that we are likely to reveal personal information to those we like or are attracted to, in fact, the opposite can also occur: We grow to like others because we have self-disclosed to them.

More than straightforward factual disclosure ("I was born in Pennsylvania"), individuals find emotional disclosures quite satisfying-particularly, the kind of disclosures that reveal one's private thoughts, opinions, and judgments (insert deepest darkest secret here). Emotional admissions reveal innermost feelings, and thus lie most closely to the core of our self-definition. Couples who disclose more personal information tend to achieve higher levels of intimacy, as such revelations pave the way for the listener to respond in ways that support and confirm core aspects of the sharer. For example, if I were to reveal that I cry every time I watch a trailer for the The Help (this is hypothetical, people!), and someone responded with validation and respect, I'd immediately feel closer to this person.

Given the benefit of healthy self-disclosure, I was surprised to find an article from a popular magazine that suggested women should not engage in self-disclosure to men. The spurious reasoning behind this advice is that, by keeping their partners in the dark, women can subtly impel them to want to know more. This column also stated that men do not have the capacity to endure detailed accounts of women's lives, and for this reason fail to ask. Not only is such a claim an insult to both genders, this logic is also tenuous, since research has shown that men and women are equally capable of self-disclosing and receiving.

In fact, men often do self-disclose to women, and research supports the notion that the more couples share their feelings with each other, the happier they tend to be. More often, then, it is during the dissolution of a relationship that couples stop self-disclosing and revert to superficial small talk. So if you go out to dine with your partner and all you can talk about is whether you should order the shrimp for lunch, though you may be ordering fish for dinner, you may have cause for concern. (Yes, I did overhear this at a restaurant today. No, I was not eavesdropping. The tables were close together, I tell you!)

Perhaps a more responsible recommendation from this magazine would have been to suggest that partners should work to match each other's degrees of openness. For instance, if two people are talking, they should engage in reciprocal self-disclosure: One should not reveal too much too soon if the other person is revealing nothing in return. This level of sharing could violate the listener's expectations and scare him or her off. Instead, individuals should be patient and gradually engage in self-disclosure, taking cues from each other in order to create a balanced level of personal revelation. If your blind date says he likes vanilla ice cream more than chocolate, and you respond with "I think I may be in love with you," then, again, you may have cause for concern.

Ultimately, sharing your innermost thoughts with another person feels good and engenders trust. Those who self-disclose are generally more liked by others than those who withhold their opinions and feelings. Experiments conducted with undergraduate students has shown that strangers who engage in reciprocal self-disclosure reported more positive evaluations of their partner, than those who did not divulge as much. So go ahead and try this for yourself. Next time you're at work, at happy hour, or in class, start chatting with someone for at least an hour, gradually progressing from superficial small talk to more personal, meaningful revelations. If you find yourselves sharing secrets, laughing, or exchanging numbers, you may not have cause for concern. Oh, and in that event, my favorite flowers are peonies.

References

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 363-377.

Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. 1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1238-1251.

Miller, R. S. & Perlman, D. (2009). Intimate Relationships. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Sprecher, S. & Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 857-877.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A few weeks ago, my roommate and I asked each other a set of questions. It began simple enough, with thirty-six inquiries concerning our heritage, families, and values. But a few minutes in, we began disclosing our greatest fears, what we like and don't like about ourselves, and how we view our relationships with our mothers (very secure, in case you were wondering).

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/let-their-words-do-the-talking/201503/self-disclosures-increase-attraction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Self-disclosure promotes attraction. People feel a sense of closeness to others who reveal their vulnerabilities, innermost thoughts, and facts about themselves. The sense of closeness increases if the disclosures are emotional rather than factual. Personal disclosures that are too general reduce the sense of openness, thus reducing the feeling of closeness. Disclosures that are too intimate often highlight character and personality flaws, thus decreasing likeability. People who make intimate disclosures too early in relationships are often perceived as insecure, which further decreases likeability.

Self- disclosure is a two-step process. First, a person has to make a self-disclosure that is neither too general nor too intimate. Second, the self-disclosure must be received with empathy, caring, and respect. A negative response made to a genuine self-disclosure can instantly terminate a relationship. Self-disclosures are often reciprocal. When one person makes self-disclosures, the listener is more likely to reciprocate by making similar self-disclosures. The exchange of personal information creates a sense of intimacy in relationships. A relationship in which one person makes personal self-disclosures while the other person continues to make superficial disclosures is an indicator that the relationship is not progressing and is likely to end.

When people find a person whom they can trust, they are tempted to open the emotional floodgates overwhelming the object of their affection. Disclosures should be made over a long period of time to ensure that the relationship slowly increases in intensity and closeness. A steady trickle of personal information increases the longevity of the relationship because each partner continually feels the closeness that comes with self-disclosures.

Mutual self-disclosures create trust. People who make personal disclosures become vulnerable to the person to whom the disclosures are made. Mutual self-disclosures also create a safety zone because each person has exposed their vulnerabilities and tend to protect the disclosures to avoid mutual embarrassment resulting from a breach of trust.

Social network users tend to rely more on self-disclosures to create a sense of closeness because they do not receive verbal and nonverbal cues that would be otherwise exchanged in face-to-face communications. The veracity of information exchanged online is suspect, thus forcing online daters to spend more time verifying information from their online counterpart. Once veracity has been established, the lack of a physical presence increases the probability of more intimate disclosures online leading to the illusion of a close relationship and, likewise, increases the intensity of the disappointment when a relationship goes wrong.

For more information on how to build, maintain, and repair relationships refer to The Like Switch: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Influencing, Attracting, and Winning People Over.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Self-disclosure promotes attraction. People feel a sense of closeness to others who reveal their vulnerabilities, innermost thoughts, and facts about themselves. The sense of closeness increases if the disclosures are emotional rather than factual. Personal disclosures that are too general reduce the sense of openness, thus reducing the feeling of closeness.

# data[].attributes.body
Dainton (2003) studied 219 individuals in romantic relationships and found that those in perceived inequity had low relationship satisfaction but were motivated to return to an equitable state to maintain the relationship.

Murstein and MacDonald (1983) supported the findings of the theory and stated that people consciously are concerned with making sure they get a fair deal, especially n the short term, making compatibility hard to achieve.

Canary and Stafford (1992) devised the relationship maintenance strategies measure (RMSM), using it to assess degree of equity and the prevalence of maintenance strategies, implying that equitable relationships are maintained.

# data[].attributes.body
ALL WORK MUST BE HANDED IN BEFORE 1.40 IN ORDER TO BE IN WITH A CHANCE OF WINNING!
1. psych rooms - something you use every time you come in
2. in the D block - not the classrooms - sometimes it goes up, sometimes down
3. Where you all love to hang out
4. Music to my ears! - you will find this clue
5. near a scary place where all the teachers sleep at night.
6. When I grow up I want to be a bake off presenter...others of you may want to be a psychologist or a novelist - where do you find this information
7. A place where creativity flows - Mr Biddle's  favourite place!
8. This one is where the younger years hang out - and stuff themselves with the mighty chicken burger!

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-dating/201305/will-it-last

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although relationships, by their nature, are ever-changing, in some ways they remain constant. Still, a common question people often ask is "how do I know if this relationship will last?" Rusbult's (1980, 1983) Investment Model offers a lens that helps us better answer that question. This model is important as it has been able to predict whether or not couples remain together in studies ranging from 7 to 18 months (Impett, Beals, & Peplau, 2001; Rusbult, 1983), and even 15 years (Bui, Peplau, & Hill, 1996).

The Investment Model is based on four factors: satisfaction, investment size, quality of alternatives, and commitment. Satisfaction is considered the level of "positive versus negative affect experienced in a relationship'' (Rusbult et al., 1998, p. 359). Next, investment size ''refers to the magnitude and importance of the resources that are attached to a relationship-resources that would decline in value if the relationship were to end'' (Rusbult et al., 1998, p. 359). This entails both tangible and intangible qualities: one might think he/she would lose their partner's affection, family, resources, the stability of being together, the part of his/her identity that belongs to the relationship, and a myriad of other things.

Although counter-intuitive to some, quality of alternatives involves the perceptions of relational rivals or "the extent to which the individual's most important needs could be effectively fulfilled 'outside' of the current relationship'' (Rusbult et al., 1998, p. 359). The argument is that we are constantly evaluating new potential relational rivals in their abilities to be our romantic partner. Many of you reading this might scoff and say 'I don't have any alternatives'-the reality is that you do, but you're happy in your current relationship and therefore evaluate existing alternatives negatively.

The final factor, commitment is "an intent to persist in a relationship, including long-term orientation toward the involvement as well as feelings of psychological attachment'' (Rusbult et al., 1998, p. 359). The Investment Model argues that the first three factors - satisfaction, investment size, and quality of alternatives - form bases of dependence that predict commitment. Specifically, a person who is satisfied, has poor quality alternatives, and a considerable investment is dependent on his/her partner, which then predicts commitment.

Once again, these four factors have been able to predict whether or not couples remain together in studies spanning 15 years, reinforcing their importance (Bui et al., 1996). As a communication researcher, it is important to note that communication is related to these relational perceptions. My own research, for example, has shown that the frequency of affectionate communication, both given and received, is positively related to commitment and satisfaction. In other words, individuals who reported giving and receiving a lot of affection also reported being committed and satisfied. Interestingly, the amount of affection that participants received from partners was the strongest indicator of their satisfaction whereas the amount of affection participants expressed to partners was the strongest indicator of participants' commitment. We argue, then, that affectionate communication functions as a relational thermometer of sorts that allows individuals to gauge the temperature of their relationship based on affectionate messages (which are then related to these important relational factors).

If you believe that you're meant to spend your life with one person, then you must face the reality that a vast majority of your relationships will fail (until you find "the one"). Often individuals spend too much time in relationships that are not fulfilling or are stuck in toxic communicative patterns. The Investment Model, then, provides a framework for individuals to better understand if they should remain in problematic relationships or if the writing is on the wall.

Follow me on Twitter @therealdrsean for relationship commentary/links, complaints about mass transit, comments on bad TV, and support for WVU Athletics. Continue to follow this blog for future entries about deception, online dating, using affection to lie, workplace romance, and other issues that make obtaining and retaining a mate oh so interesting.

Selected references:

-Horan, S. M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Investing in affection: An investigation of affection exchange theory and relational qualities. Communication Quarterly, 58, 394-413. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2010.524876

-Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 172-186.

-Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.

-Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternative, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although relationships, by their nature, are ever-changing, in some ways they remain constant. Still, a common question people often ask is "how do I know if this relationship will last?" Rusbult's (1980, 1983) Investment Model offers a lens that helps us better answer that question.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/topics/rusbults-investment-model-of-commitment

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/topics/rusbults-investment-model-of-commitment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We've just flicked the switch on moving all our digital resources to instant digital download - via our new subject stores.

For every subject you can now access each digital resource as soon as it is ordered. This will always be the latest edition of each resource too (and we'll update you automatically if there is an upgraded version to use).

Simply add the required resources to your cart, checkout using the usual options and your resources will be available to access immediately via your mytutor2u account.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rusbult's Investment Model of Commitment | tutor2u Psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rusbult's investment model of commitment is a theory of romantic relationships that was developed to explain why some people might remain in a relationship while others might not. It is based on four factors: satisfaction, investment, comparison with alternatives, and commitment.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.loopa.co.uk/ducks-phase-model-relationship-breakdown-aqa-psychology/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AQA Psychology Relationships Paper 3

Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown see's relationship breakdown as a process of stages rather than a one-off event. There are four distinct phases with each one marked by one or both partners reaching a threshold where their perception of the relationship changes, usually for the worse, allowing each to progress through the different stages. Relationship breakdown begins when a partner realises they are unhappy within the current relationship. This may be because the relationship is deemed inequitable or the relationship results in a greater loss. The lack of stimulation may also contribute to partners feeling the relationship is not progressing or developing. A lack of maintenance or circumstances where partners are not spending enough time together due to work commitments may also lead to strain.

Intra-psychic phase

The first phase is the intra-psychic phase where the focus is on the cognitive processes within the individual. The individual may not say anything about their dissatisfaction but feel resentful and unhappy and have thoughts around whether they would be better off without the relationship. Their unhappiness may also be expressed indirectly through social withdrawal. The threshold for this stage is usually characterised by thoughts such as "I can't stand this anymore" indicating a need for change.

Dyadic phase

The second phase is the dyadic phase and sees the unhappy partner discuss their dissatisfaction. A series of discussions take place where partners may discuss their lack of inequity, resentment and imbalanced roles. Feelings of anger and guilt may also be aired at this point between both and two possible outcomes may come from this phase. Provided the discussions can be constructive, this can lead to reconciliation with a desire to repair the relationship or if this fails the threshold for the next phase is reached. This threshold may be characterised by thoughts such as "I would be better off without this relationship".

Social phase

The social phase sees the breakup made public within their social circles. Each partner will seek support, forge alliances and negotiations will take place over assets. Mutual friends may be expected to pick a side and gossip may be traded with some being judgmental placing blame on one partner. Some may provide previously withheld secrets to hasten the end of the relationship or help repair the relationship between them. The threshold here would be thoughts such as "this is now inevitable" as often once others become aware this is the point of no return.

Grave-dressing phase

The grave-dressing phase sees a post view of the relationship breakdown being established by both. This will cover why the breakdown occurred with each person having their own account that presents themselves favourably often at the expense of the other. The rebuilding of self-esteem for future relationships occurs here to show trust and loyalty, two important qualities which are under question after breakdown. People may try to retain social credit by blaming circumstances, the other partner, people or anything except themselves. They may also create a story that sits comfortably with themselves such as traits they found initially endearing about the partner not reinterpreted as a characteristic that contributed to the relationship breakdown. The threshold here would be the individual concluding "its time to start a new life".

Strengths, Weaknesses and Evaluation

One strength of the theory is it has face validity as the process of breakdown occurring through phases is something most people can relate to through their own experiences. Hatfields study (1984) supports Duck's breakdown model as this study found individuals reported to feel dissatisfaction and resentment and feelings of under-benefitting which lead to social withdrawal. This supports the notion of an intrapsychic phase as the model proposes.

However gender differences exist and this theory could be argued to suffer from gender bias, particularly beta bias as it attempts to play down gender differences assuming the process is experienced similarly by men and women. Argyle (1988) found women cited a lack of emotional support as the reason for breakdown while men cited an absence of fun. Kassin (1996) found further support for gender differences with women citing unhappiness and incompatibility while men blamed a lack of sex. Women also wanted to remain friends while men preferred clean breaks. This suggests gender differences exist that the model is unable to explain.

Another criticism of Ducks breakdown explanation is Individual differences also exist and a possible additional phase that is unaccounted for. Akert (1992) found that the person who instigated the break-up tended to suffer fewer negative consequences than the non-instigator. This suggests individual differences in the effects of the dissolution but also the fact that another stage may exist where the instigator may already have calculated the breakup costing them less overall at some point which falls outside of Duck's explanation.

Another criticism is the model for breakdown is not universal as it does not apply to every case of relationship breakdown nor does the phases always occur in the same order. The model does not apply to homosexual relationships or heterosexual relationships where there are no children.
Duck's model of breakdown does present us with real-world applications particularly as it has implications for interventions to save relationships. The model identifies opportunities for different repair strategies at different points. For example during the intrapsychic stage where people brood over the negatives of their partner and the relationship, they can be encouraged to focus instead on the positives. During the Dyadic stage communication is key and ensuring this is constructive and solution focused rather than blame orientated can help avoid hitting the next threshold where breakdown is more difficult to avoid as it becomes social. Therefore such insights into the break-up process as applications particularly in relationship counselling.

A criticism of Duck's model is it does not fully explain how breakdowns occur offering a description rather than an explanation which undermines this explanation. Research into breakdown like this also raises ethical issues as it focuses on sensitive areas which raises the issue of vulnerability in participants who may have to relive the experiences of breakdown causing further stress. Privacy and confidentiality are also invaded as researchers question them to find out why the relationship broke down and this presents a major issue particularly when domestic abuse is a factor.

Duck's model is also based heavily on western society and therefore suffers from cultural bias. In some cultures arranged marriages tend to be more permanent and involve families in crisis, which these models cannot fully explain. Therefore the model can be argued to be ethnocentric and lacking external validity to wider generalisation across different cultures.

The model does not account for love and how that may play a mitigating role in relationship breakdown yet it is universally accepted as a key component within relationships. In addition the theory cannot fully explain abusive relationships where an abused partner may not initiate the stages of dissolution but instead walk away completely.
How to reference/cite/link to this article: <a href="https://www.loopa.co.uk/ducks-phase-model-relationship-breakdown-aqa-psychology/">Duck's Model Of Relationship Breakdown</a>

This is an essay answer taken from the relationships ebook for AQA psychology A level students studying paper 3 as part of their A level psychology course (new specification). You can download all the possible essay questions and model answers in the relationships ebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Duck's Phase Model Of Relationship Breakdown AQA Psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown see's relationship breakdown as a process of stages rather than a one-off event. There are four distinct phases with each one marked by one or both partners reaching a threshold where their perception of the relationship changes, usually for the worse, allowing each to progress through the different stages.

# data[].attributes.body
13C

# data[].attributes.body
13A

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/apr/16/lily-allen-stalked-singer-police

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lily Allen on being stalked: 'I was asleep. He steamed into the bedroom and started screaming'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Exclusive: Singer speaks for the first time about a seven-year ordeal that left her feeling isolated from friends and family and failed by the police

# data[].attributes.headline
Tutor2u Levels of Parasocial Relationships

# data[].attributes.subject
Tutor2u Levels of Parasocial Relationships

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/topics/levels-of-parasocial-relationships

# data[].attributes.headline
Levels of Parasocial Relationship - Journal Article

# data[].attributes.subject
Levels of Parasocial Relationship - Journal Article

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2001/jan/21/life1.lifemagazine2