Theories of Romantic Relationships Flashcards
Social Exchange Theory
• uses concepts from economics and from operant conditioning
• we form a relationship if it is rewarding
• we attempt to maximise our rewards and minimise our costs
• the rewards minus the costs equals the outcome
• we commit to the relationship if the outcome is profitable
Rewards-Cost=Outcome
Thibaut and Kelley (1959)
• the exchange comes from the assumption that when people receive rewards from others they feel obliged to reciprocate
• rewards and costs are subjective, therefore there is a wide variety of outcomes and these rewards and costs can lose or increase their value as the relationship progresses
Minimax Principle
• Rewards: companionship, sex, praise, emotional support
• Costs: missed opportunities, time, stress, money
Blau (1964)
• relationships can be expensive- time, cost, energy, stress
• opportunity cost can be incurred
-time and energy invested in your relationship means using resources you cannot invest elsewhere
Comparison Level
• the amount of reward you believe you deserve to get
• based on experiences in previous relationships which feeds into the expectations of our current one
• influenced by social norms: determined within a culture, a reasonable level of reward
• CL changes as we acquire more data from experiences, based on social norms when we have no experience
Comparison Level for Alternatives
• in your current relationship, you consider whether you could gain greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship or from being single or whether you could do better
• SET predicts that we will stay in our current relationship only as long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternative
• Duck (1994)- plenty more fish in the sea
Relationship Development (Long Term Relationships)
- sampling
-we consider the potential rewards and costs of a relationship and compare it with other relationships available at the time
-we do this in non-romantic relationships as well - bargaining
-we give and receive rewards to test whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile
-negotiate what is most profitable - commitment
-the relationship increases in predictability so each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other, which lowers costs - institutionalisation
-the relationship norms and expectations are firmly established
What does the SET predict in terms of CL and CLalt?
• rewards you believe you deserve- develops from experience in previous relationships
• influenced by social norms
• greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship make it more attractive
• more attractive if costs are higher in current relationship
Clark and Mills (2011)
-argue that SET fails to distinguish between two types of relationships
-they suggest that exchange relationships, such as between work colleagues, does involve social exchange as the SET predicts
-communal relationships do not keep tabs on rewards and costs
-SET claims that reciprocal activities are monitored and weighed up
(evaluation of SET) direction of cause and effect
-Argyle (1987) argues that we do not measure costs and rewards in a relationship, nor do we constantly consider the attractiveness of alternatives- The dissatisfaction comes first
-Miller (1997) found that people who rated themselves as being in a highly committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people- less time spent looking was a predictor of the relationship continuing two months later
(evaluation of SET) ignores equity
• Central concern of SET is comparison level- ratio of perceived rewards
and costs
• Ignores fairness or equity (we will discuss in more detail soon)
• Fairness is more important than rewards and costs in relationships
(evaluation of SET) measuring SET concepts
• Concepts are difficult to quantify
• Rewards and costs are defined superficially in order to measure them
• What about psychological rewards and costs?
• What is the value of CL and CLalt before dissatisfaction threatens a
relationship?
• Can we do this in a valid and reliable way?
(evaluation of SET) artificial research
• Supporting research of SET use artificial tasks in artificial conditions.
• Game-playing scenario- two strangers work together and rewards and
costs are distributed.
• The two partners know nothing about each other and their so-called
relationship depends on the task they are performing together.
• Research using real partners have been less supportive of SET
(evaluation of SET) explanatory power
The Cl-alt helps to explain why somebody would terminate a relationship
they were not satisfied with (in that the alternative partner can offer even
more!)
It could help explain why people may stay in an abusive relationship. If
someone has put a lot into the relationship and there is no Cl-alt then they
may stay in that relationship
Rusbult’s investment model (1980)
stability of a relationship over time is determined by how committed the individuals are to the relationship, and that commitment depends on:
• satisfaction- does the relationship fulfil the person’s needs
• comparison of alternatives- could their needs be better fulfilled in another relationship
• investment- how much has the person put in to the relationship, emotionally, for example
-quality of alternatives
• attractive alternative=they may leave the relationship
• no alternative exists=they may maintain the relationship (increases satisfaction)
• however, sometimes having no relationship is a more attractive alternative than being in an unsatisfactory one
Investments
anything that a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if it ends
• intrinsic investments: what we put directly in: time, personal information, money, self disclosure, energy, emotions
• extrinsic investments: resources associated with the relationship: shared things that may lost, like pet, friends, children, memories
