Theories of romantic relationships Flashcards
Social exchange theory
Thibaut and Kelly, 1959
Individuals perceive a relationship to be satisfactory based on the exchange of rewards gained and costs incurred by being in that relationship
Commitment is dependent on how profitable it is to the individual
Measured on two levels: CL, CL Alt
Comparison level
Level we judge a relationship against
Base on our perceptions of other relationships we have had or seen
If a potential new relationship compares highly to our individual comparison level then we are likely to want to form that relationship
Subjective measure & can be affected by factors e..g. Self esteem, explaining why you may stay in an unhealthy relationship
Comparison level for alternatives
Involves a similar cost benefit analysis, but we compare the costs vs benefits in our current relationship with those of potential relationships
If the potential rewards of being in a new relationship outweigh the costs of current, then we are likely to end current relationship
4 stages of social exchange
Sampling
Bargaining
Commitment
Institutionalisation
Sampling
We experiment with the costs and benefits we receive in different relationships in our lives
Bargaining
At the start of a relationship we begin to negotiate various costs and benefits to maximise our profit
Commitment
A relationship is maintained as we begin to predict what the exchange of our costs vs benefits will be for us
Institutionalisation
A relationship becomes lasting once our costs vs benefits are firmly established
Equity theory
Walster 1978
Assumes that both partners will have a similar level of costs vs benefits (rather than focusing on being in profit)
This balance may not be equal but it should be perceived as equitable
4 principles
Equity theory principles
Profit
Distribution
Dissatisfaction
Realignment
Profit
At the start of a relationship, we may seek to profit by maximising benefits and minimising costs before establishing equitable distribution
Distribution
The distribution (trade-off) of costs and benefits is negotiated to ensure equity
Dissatisfaction
An inequitable (unfair) relationship causes dissatisfaction
The partner who feels they are experiencing inequity may seek to realign the relationship
Realignment
Realignment may occur if the partner experiencing dissatisfaction works hard to re establish equity through a change in their behaviour or their cognitions
Quit relationship or re-establish equity
Strength of SET
Convincing research from
Susan Sprecher (2001) who measured satisfaction in 101 couples at university in the US
Found that when committed to the relationship, there was a higher level of reward in the comparison level compared to the comparison level for alternatives, opposite when deciding to breakup
Limit 1 SET
Treats all relationships the same
This is because it assumes relationships are based on the principles of exchange and reduces the success of a relationship down to its costs vs benefits
This may not apply to relationships which are not maintained in this way. Clarke and Mills (2011) argued SET ignores the ‘communal couple’, who are less concerned with the score keeping as it may be seen as unattractive and assume cost vs benefits balance our overall
Suggests SET may not provide a valid explanation of all relationships
Limit 2 SET
Hard to operationalise
This is because factors such as costs and benefits are subjectively perceived by those in the relationship so it is hard to measure the individual’s CL and CLT Alt before they become dissatisfied in the relationship
Argyle (1987) argues SET ignores the fact that relationships are experienced as being more than the sum of benefits minus costs, and so it ignores the complexity of loving, long-term relationships
In reality we only notice how unfair a relationship is once we become dissatisfied
This suggests that, as SET is difficult to measure, it is hard to support it with valid research findings and may only apply to the part of the relationship where one of the couple becomes unhappy
SET limit 3
Some may argue SET is beta biased
Which is when a theory unfairly minimises the differences between men and women
Prins (1993) found that women place more importance on exchange than men in the maintenance in their relationship, and those who felt under-benefitted were more likely to consider an affair
This suggests SET may not fully explain relationships is everyone
SET strength
A strength is that it has practical applications
Which is when the principles of a theory can be applied to real life
SET has been used to develop integrated behavioural couples therapy (IBCT) which is based on the principles of SET by identifying and encouraging positive exchanges between couples
Christensen (2004) found that 2/3s of couples who used ICBT report a significant improvement in their relationship
This suggests that the principles of SET are useful and valid
Equity strength
Significant evidence for the role of equity in the maintenance of romantic relationships
From Stafford and canary
Who performed a survey of over 200 married couples which measured the strategies used to maintain their relationship
Couples were asked how equitable their relationship was by how they shared tasks, re-assured each other and showed positivity
………
Limit equity 1
Some argue not all individuals are concerned about equity in the same way
This is because some people are more sensitive to equity in relationships than others
E.g. Huseman (1987) suggests 3 different types of partners. Benevolents who are prepared to contribute more than they get out of a relationship .
Entitled who believe they are entitled to be over-benefited.
Equity sensitives who experience tension when faced with inequity
Therefore, equity theory may not consider individual differences within relationships
Limit 2 equity
Not all relationships become equitable over time or can equity predict which relationships will last
This is because some relationships appear to be based on other factors
E.g. Berg and McQuinn (1986) found that equity did not increase in couples within their longitudinal study and was not correlated with whether a relationship would last
Therefore, equity theory alone may not be able to explain the maintenance of relationships
