Maintenance of romantic relationships Flashcards
What are the two theories that explain the maintenance of romantic relationships?
Two theories that explain the maintenance of romantic relationships are Social exchange theory and Equity theory.
What is Social exchange theory and how does it explain the maintenance of romantic relationships?
Social exchange theory views relationship behaviour as a series of exchanges based on rewards, costs and profit. Each person attempts to maximise their rewards while minimising their costs. The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate. Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, whereas costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship. The costs subtracted from rewards equals in a loss or profit. This theory proposes relationships are maintained with further commitment as long as the individual perceives a profit occurring. This theory proposes individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges. This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available. This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the gains of that (e.g. less arguments, more time with friends, freedom etc) If a person judges the current relationship offers poor value based on this comparison level they may be motivated to end it or maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
What is Equity theory and how does it explain the maintenance of romantic relationships?
The theory sees behaviour within relationships as a series of exchanges with people trying to maximise their rewards and minimise costs however the goal is not for profit but to achieve perceived fairness (equity). This theory proposes under-benefiting or over-benefiting both cause inequity within the relationship leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution. The greater the perceived inequity the greater the dissatisfaction and distress. Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity. This is provided the “loser” feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship. This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (Input), changing the amount taken from the relationship (Output) or changing their perception of Inputs and Outputs. (Practical applications in counselling) Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable. If someone puts in little they may get little while those who put in more may get more in return. Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios. People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.
What did Mills and Clark find?
Mills & Clark found there was a lack of consistent support for Social exchange theory and there were two types of couples. The communal couple where each partner gave out of concern for the other and the exchange couple where each kept a mental record of “point scoring”. This shows there are different types of relationships and that SET may lack external validity applying to some but not all relationships.
What did Rusbult et al find?
Rusbult et al studied relationship maintenance over a 7 month period and found Social Exchange Theory could not explain the “honeymoon” period however later relationship satisfaction related to costs suggesting the theory is better suited to explaining longer term maintenance. Rusbult also found support for Social exchange theory and the existence of a comparison level with people gauging the costs and rewards of their relationship in comparison to alternative potential relationships. This lends support to people viewing and maintaining relationships on the basis of benefits and costs supporting such social exchange theories.
What did Hatfield et al find?
Hatfield et al looked at people who felt they over-benefited or under-benefitted from their relationships. Those underbenefiting felt angry while those over-benefiting felt guilty with neither wishing to maintain a relationship that is not balanced or fair supporting both Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory.
What did Yum et al find?
Yum et al looked at various heterosexual relationships in 6 different cultures and found people in perceived equitable relationships engaging in the most maintenance strategies. Cultural factors had little effect lending support to Equity theory and its ecological validity and wider generalisation across cultures.
What is the criticism of Yum et al’s study?
The main criticism for this study was that it focused only on heterosexual relationships and findings may not be consistent across homosexual relationships. Also the study can still be argued to suffer from cultural bias as 6 different cultures is still a small sample and may not apply across a wider scale.
What did Dainton et al find?
Dainton et als studied 219 romantic relationships and found those in inequitable relationships to be unhappy but wanting to return to an equitable state suggesting equity was important in maintenance.
Why could the theories be considered reductionist?
Because they assume maintenance is purely down to profit or equity. Relationships are far more complex with women who are abused by husbands still choosing to remain in the relationship despite high losses or inequity and these economic theories cannot account for this. The role of “love” is also not factored in either theory and therefore these theories are too simplistic, over-simplified and incomplete in their explanations.
What has Kahn et al found?
Kahn et als study showed gender bias from such theories that is not accounted. Females were more concerned with equality and receiving equal amounts regardless of input while men were more concerned with equity and benefits proportionate to input. Therefore neither theory appropriately applies to both genders showing a preference over one.
What did Moghaddam find?
Moghaddam found evidence for cultural bias with US students in relationships prefering equity while Europeans preferred equality suggesting further cultural differences and limited application of each theory dependant on cultures. However the results and findings from this study may limit the results to younger adults and students rather than long-term relationships as is common with older individuals.
Name all the researchers in this section.
- Moghaddam
- Kahn
- Dainton
- Yum
- Hatfield
- Rusbult
- Mills and Clark
