theories of romantic relationships Flashcards
what is social exchange theory?
all social behaviour is a series of exchanges where individuals try to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs
what are rewards in a relationship?
being cared for, companionship and sex
what are costs in a relationship?
effort, financial costs and time wasted
what is meant by profit in a relationship?
- rewards minus the costs indicate the outcome and this will either result in ‘profit’ or ‘loss’
- a relationship being maintained depends on the profitability of this outcome
what is comparison level (CL)?
- argued we judge the profit of a relationship, against a comparison level
- this is a product of our experiences in past relationships
- if we judge the profit in a relationship exceeds our CL, the relationship will be judged as worthwhile
-if not the outcome is negative
what is comparison level of alternatives (CLA)?
- people may weigh up potential increases in rewards offered by alternative partners, minus the costs of ending the current relationship
- a relationship may only be maintained if there is no ‘profit’ to be made from such alternative relationships
what are the stages of thibaut and kelley’s model of romantic relationships?
sampling, bargaining, commitment and institutionalisation
what is stage 1 sampling?
we explore the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting with them in our own relationships, or by observing others doing so
what is stage 2 bargaining?
this marks the beginning of relationship formation. romantic partners start exchanging rewards and costs, negotiating, and identifying what is most profitable
what is stage 3 commitment?
as time goes on the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen
what is stage 4 institutionalisation?
the partners are now settled down because the norms of the relationship, in terms of rewards and costs, are now firmly established
what is research support for SET from kurdeck (1995)?
- asked 185 couples to complete questionnaire measuring relationship commitment and set variables
- found greater relationship commitment was associated with: individuals received more rewards than cost (CL) and individuals who viewed alternatives as less attractive than current relationship (CLA)
what did the findings from kurdeck show?
- perceived profitability judged against the CL and the CLA predict relationship commitment independently of each other
- increases validity of SET as it shows how both SET variables are important in the maintenance of a romantic relationships
what do clark and mills (2011) argue in contrast to SET?
- people don’t make rational and calculated decisions about romantic relationships
- partners give and receive without keeping score
- if they did it would suggest a lack of trust and commitment
- SET may not be a valid explanation for romantic relationships
what are the practical applications of SET that can be used to resolve relationship issues?
- christensen (2004) found that integrated behavioural couples therapy (IBCT) which helps partners increase positive exchanges and reduce negative ones is effective at increasing relationship satisfaction
- the effectiveness of IBCT supports the idea that romantic relationships are more likely to be maintained when the rewards outweigh the costs
what is equity theory?
- another economic theory of romantic relationships
- unlike SET, the central assumption of equity is people strive for fairness
- people are most comfortable and satisfied when what they get out of a relationship is roughly equal to what they put in
what does it mean to be truly equitable?
one partners benefits minus their costs should = the other partner’s benefits minus their costs
what happens if inequity is present in a relationship?
- people who give a great deal in a relationship and get little in return (under-benefitted) would perceive inequity would be dissatisfied in the relationship, experiencing resentment, anger and sadness
- same is true for those who receive a great deal and give little in return (over-benefitted), may experience pity, guilt and shame
if inequity is perceived how do people try to restore equity?
restore actual equity and restore psychological equity
what is restoring actual equity?
both partners communicating and actively working towards a balance. usually driven by under benefitted partner
what is restoring psychological equity?
the couple change their cognitions about the perceived imbalance and convince themselves things are perfectly fair as they are. thus, what may have appeared as a cost (eg moving in with partner) is now accepted as the norm
what is the research support for equity theory by stafford and canary (2006)?
- found out of 200 married couples, satisfaction was highest for those who perceived their relationships to be equitable, followed by over-benefitted partners, followed by under-benefitted partners
- this is consistent with the predictions of equity theory
what is a criticism of equity theory?
- huseman (1987) suggested that the existence of benevolent partners who are more tolerant of under-benefitting in a relationship and entitled partners who believe they deserve to be over-benefitting and would be dissatisfied in an equitable/under benefitting relationship show that there are individual differences in equity and relationship satisfication
- thus, the desire for equity is not a universal feature of all relationships as equity theory would suggest
why could equity theory be seen as gender biased?
- steil and weltmaan (1991) found that when husbands earned more than wives, they rated their own career as more important than their wives’ and the wives would generally agree
- however, in couples where the woman’s income was higher, neither partner rated their career as more important
- suggests wives tend to seek less for themselves than husbands and therefore are less likely to perceive inequity
- seems gender biased to assume ‘equity’ is perceived in the same way by men and women
