Relationships - Theories of romantic relationships Flashcards
Social exchange theory - Thibaut & Kelley
Economic theory that the key to maintaining a relationship is to ensure that it is mutually beneficial.
Minimax principle: assumes that people try to maximise the rewards they obtain from a relationship and minimise the costs. (Rewards = companionship/sex, Costs = time/money)
Measures of profit in romantic relationships - Comparison Level (CL)
How satisfied individuals are with rewards and costs depends on what they expect from previous relationships. If the current relationship compares favourably then we are motivated to stay. It is also influenced by social norms.
CL is linked with self-esteem (someone with low self-esteem will have low a CL and therefore will be satisfied with gaining small profit or a loss)
Measures of profit in romantic relationships Comparison level for alternatives (CL-ALT)
he level of satisfaction also depends on the rewards and costs that would be involved of they formed a relationship with someone else.
If the costs of the current relationship outweigh the rewards then alternatives become more attractive however being in a satisfying relationship means that available alternatives are not even noticed.
Strength of the social exchange theory
Scientific theory that proposes generalisable laws
Explains that individuals minimize their costs and maximizes their rewards within a relationship. Since it is a timely and systematic approach, it is applicable in nearly all all situations and therefore representative of the wider population
Limitations of social exchange theory - Direction of cause and effect
SET argues that dissatisfaction set in when we suspect that costs outweigh the rewards or alternatives are more attractive.
Argyle points out we dont measure costs and regards in a relationship or consider alternatives until we are dissatisfied.
Miller’s research shows how dissatisfaction comes first: found that people who rated themselves as being in a highly committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people so people in committed relationships ignore even the most attractive alternatives
Limitations of social exchange theory - Measuring SET concepts
SET deals in concepts that difficult to quantify so rewards and costs have been defined superficially (e.g money) but psychological rewards and costs are more difficult to define.
The concept of comparison level is problematic as it is unclear how attractive CL and CL-ALT needs to/must be before it threatens a relationship
This operationalisation of rewards and costs therefore reduces the validity of the theory
Limitations of social exchange theory - SET ignores equity
There is much research for the role of equity in relationships and the view that this is more than just the balance of rewards and costs.
Neglect of this factor means SET is a limited explanation which cannot account for a significant proportion on research findings on relationships.
Limitations of social exchange theory - Clark and Mills
Clark and Mills argue that the theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationships.
They suggest that exchange relationships (e.g between work colleagues) do involve social exchange as SET predicts but communal relationships (between romantic partners) are marked by giving and receiving rewards without keeping score.
This kind of exchange monitoring would result in questioning the kind of commitment our partner wanted so SET is therefore based on faulty assumptions that cannot account for the majority of romantic relationships/
Equity theory - Walster et al
Assumes that most people try to achieve fairness in their relationships and feel distress if they perceive unfairness.
An equitable relationship should be one where one partner’s benefits minus their costs equals their partner’s benefits minus their costs
It is inequity in relationships that is seen as having the potential to create dissatisfaction.
Consequences of inequity: Actions of the partner
Behavioural outcome: The ‘put-upon’ partner will work hard to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe its possible to do so (the more unfair a relationship feels, the harder they will work to restore equity)
Cognitive outcome: A partner will revise their perceptions of rewards + costs so the relationship feels more equitable to them, even of nothing actually changes (e.g a cost of untidiness/thoughtless is accepted as the norm)
Equity theory - Utne et al
Utne et al carried out a survey recently-married aged couples who had been together for more than two years measuring equity with two self-report scales.
The researchers found that couples who say their relationships as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as overbennefitting or underbennefitting.
This research confirms a central prediction of equity theory thus increasing its validity
Equity theory - Aumer-Ryan et al
Aumer-Ryan et al - found the there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction
Couples from the individualist culture considered the relationship to be most satisfying when it was equitable whilst partners in the collectivist culture were more satisfied when they were overbenefitting.
So the claim equity is fundamental feature of human behaviour is unwarranted as the theory does not account for individual differences
Equity theory - Huseman et al
Huseman et al suggests not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
Some partners are benevolents (prepared to contribute more to the relationship than what they get out of it) whilst others are entitled (believe they deserve to be overbenefitted and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty).
This shows equity is not necessarily a global feature of all romantic relationships and not a universal law of social interaction.
Rusbult’s investment model
Economic theory
Suggests that the maintenance of a relationship is determined by commitment. In this context commitment refers to the likelihood that the relationship will persist.
Rasbult: commitment depends on three factors
Investment size -strengthens commitment
Satisfaction level -
strengthens commitment
Comparison with alternatives - presence weakens commitment
