Compare Explanations for Relationship Breakdown Given

Compare explanations for descent division exposen by transfer possibility and equity possibility. Which do you consider to be the most convince and why? What does Ducks theory add to the explanation? The rallying system which was put forward by Homans in 1971 suggests that when we are in a relationship, we keep an eye on what we are putting in and getting pop bulge of a relationship. It argues that whether ir non we are genial depends on the ratio of rewards and costs that are given within the relationship.If the psyche involved opinions as though, for them, the rewards outweigh the costs, they willing most potential feel satisfied with the relationship as they do non need to give as much, however, if the person involved feels like the costs outweighs the rewards, they will sour dissatisfied with the relationship and this will result in them becoming in all probability to look elsewhere for better offer and the previous relationship will opendown.On the other hand, Equity Theory which was veritable by Walster in 1978, does not argue that if the rewards outweigh the costs the person will be happy, yet that when in a relationship, the great deal involved expect the relationship to be fair. Where mass meeting Theory would say that people would leave a relationship as it is if they felt they were in the advantaged position where rewards are concerned, Equity theory says that the person would look to restore the equity within the relationship by either reducing their input or increasing their outputs.If this does not advance to work, it is liable(predicate) that the relationship will breakdown as an equilibrium has not been reached. I think that the Equity Theory is a more persuade approach to the breakdown on relationships as most people in the 21st century, are more likely to try and work it out if the relationship appeared to be in turmoil.It is true that if someone feels like they arent getting enough out of the relationship, then the re lationship is more likely to break down, but this the Exchange Theory suggests that the relationship will breakdown straight away which is not true to reality as it is likely that the match would discuss things before a decision is made on the future of the relationship. This is outlined in Ducks theory. Also, the Exchange Theory suggests that macrocosm are selfish as the theory seems to say that humans are fixated on getting the rewards from a relationship.In 1988, Duck demonstrated how a relationship should typically end. In order to do this, he developed a four stage model of dissolution. Stage one, the Intra-psychic phase, states that at to the lowest degree one member of the couple will start to feel worried and will start to focus on the behaviour of their first mates. They will last reach the threshold and will voice their concerns. The second stage, the dyadic phase, states that the couple will take use in discussions and some may go to counselling others may r ach t he next threshold.This is the third stage, the social phase, where friends may offer support or take sides. It is this stage, according to Duck, where a break up is inevitable. The final stage is the grave dressing phase. This is when both people involved put across their opinion of what happened during the breakup and each partner will create their own version of who was to blame in the situation. It is ordinarily a face saving situation. This approach address issues that the other approaches, the Exchange Theory especially, ignores.Ducks approach addresses that couples are likely to take part in discussions about the relationship and where they think it is heading. The theory shows the different stages that should be considered when going through a break up however, considered is the operative word. The theory suggests that these stages happen in all break ups however this is not the fiber for all situations. Although the stages should be considered, it is likely that some coupl es may get stuck in a stage or even miss one out meaning that it does not follow the approach to every letter.