Describe and evaluate psychological research Essay

There argon rough(prenominal) different factors into why some descents fail and others succeed. In this particular essay, I entrust look into why some relationships do breakdown.The first model into the prodigality of relationships was devised by Karney and Bradbury (1955). They said that thither were three study factors that determined marital stability. The first of these were enduring vulnerabilities, which includes an sorrowful childhood and high neuroticism.The second is nerve-racking events such as illness or poverty. Lastly, adaptive processes as well as have an effect. This refers to constructive and destructive coping strategies to steadiness issues. All three factors shtup be relate unneurotic for use, enduring vulnerabilities can cause stressful events. This model is good because past research has shown that legion(predicate) factors have been associated with the breakdown of relationships, and most of these factors can be related to the three variables men tioned in this model.This shows that it can pardon why some relationships do break down. some other strength is that it shows how these three variables can link together to reduce marital quality. However, it can be criticised as it places too much emphasis on marital quality and satisfaction leading to a break-up. Levinger argued that on that point are other factors that also affect whether a partner off break up or non. An example of this is divorce people may not inadequacy to go through the hassle.Duck (1988) proposed a four-phase model, which explains what happens during the terminal of close or intimate relationships. The first distributor point is the intra-psychic phase, where one of the partners becomes very unhappy with the relationship. This past leads to the dyadic phase, where the other person becomes involved. If the problem is not re passd, then it leads to the social phase where family and friends become involved. If the problem is not resolved here then it goes to the final form. This is the grave-dressing phase, where the ex-partners arrest the organisation of their post-relationship lives. A strength of this model is that it addresses cognitive aspects, not just behavioural aspects of relationships.It has important implications for the unsex of relationships. However, it can be criticised because, although it mentions the stages of a breakdown, it doesnt run reasons for why this happens. It also doesnt slay into delineate individual differences for example it assumes that everyone goes through the same stages in a relationship break-up. This might not ineluctably be true, for example not every relationship breakup may involve friends or family, or couples may go through the stages in a different order. Lastly, it is culturally biased, and so the results cannot be talk to other countries. For example, Japan see break-ups as wrong(p) and so probably wouldnt go through those phases.Another theory into the dissolution of bre ak ups is lee(prenominal)s (1984) Model of Relationship Break Up. He conducted extensive interviews of 112 break-ups of premarital romantic relationships. He argued that there were five stages to a relationship break-up. The first of these is dissatisfaction, which is when the couple realise there are problems within the relationship. following is exposure where the dissatisfaction is brought into the open, and then is negotiation where discussions of the issues are raised. termination then happens when the partners try to find ways to solve the problems and if this doesnt work, then termination happens, which is the final stage. However, there are weaknesses to this theory. For example, it assumes that everyone goes through those stages and so doesnt put one over into account individual differences. In fact, couples may girl out certain stages such as resolution. In terms of both Duck and Lees models, a 6 or 7 stage model incorporating phases from both of the models would provi de a conk out and more accurate account of the break up of a relationship.The Social Exchange theory, proposed by Thibaut and Kelley (1959) can also explain the dissolution of relationships. This theory is found on the cost and rewards, or the sustain and take in a relationship. Costs in a relationship could be seen as energy, time and bullion spent, whereas rewards could be affection, company and security. The Social Exchange speculation argues that the relationship will end if the costs are greater than the rewards.It states that we compare the relationship we are in to past relationships -if the costs and rewards are better or worse than before, it can help to determine whether we will stay in that relationship. This theory is strengthened by the Equity theory, which states that people are happiest in relationships if the give and take is about equal. However, there are some criticisms firstly, it doesnt take into account peoples feelings. Secondly, although it provides a r eason for why relationships breakdown, it doesnt explain how.