Theories of Romantic Relationships

• Theories of Romantic Relationships

  1. Social Exchange Theory
  2. Equity Theory
  3. Investment Theory
• Social Exchange Theory - Thibaut & Kelly 1959
• The Social Exchange Theory states that individuals perceive a relationship to be satisfactory based on the exchange of rewards gained and costs from being in that relationship. Commitment to a relationship is dependent on how profitable it is.
• According to the Social Exchange Theory we measure profitability of a relationship on two levels:

  1. Comparison Level
  2. Comparison Level for Alternatives
• The comparison level is the level we judge a relationship against and is based on our perceptions of other relationships. If a new relationship compares highly to our comparison level we are likely to form that relationship.
• Comparison level for alternatives involves comparing the costs vs benefits in out current relationship with other potential relationships
• Outline of social exchange theory analysis is known as the Payoff Matrix. We will form and maintain a relationship in an event of a positive payoff matrix and will quite a relationship if it is too costly
• Four Stages of Social Exchange:

  1. Sampling
  2. Bargaining
  3. Commitment
  4. Institutionalisation
• 1. Sampling

  Before forming a relationship, we experiment with the costs + benefits we receive in different relationships
• 2. Bargaining

  At the start of a relationship we negotiate costs + benefits to maximise out profit
• 3. Commitment

  Relationship is maintained as we begin to predict what the exchange of our costs vs benefits will be
• 4. Institutionalisation

  A relationship becomes lasting once our costs vs benefits are firmly established allowing a development of a pattern of mutually beneficial exchanges
• Evaluation of social exchange theory:

  (p) supporting research evidence

  (e) Sprecher (2001) measured satisfaction from 101 couples at a University

  (e) she found that a relationship will maintain as long as it remains satisfying when compared to CL and not perceived as rewarding when compared to CL Alt

  (l) suggesting individuals make comparisons and these are a strong indication of how satisfied we are in a relationship
• Evaluation of Social exchange theory:

  (p) :( SET states that all relationships are the same

  (e) Clark + Mills (2011) argued that SET does not apply to all couples

  (e) they identified two types of couples, 'Communal' and 'Exchange' and stated that SET only applies to 'Exchange'

  (l) suggesting SET may not provide a valid explanation
• communal couple - less concerned with score keeping which could be seen as unattractive
• exchange couple - keeps score of costs and benefits
• evaluation of social exchange theory:

  (p) :( beta biased

  (e) when a theory unfairly minimises the differences between men and women

  (e) Prins (1993) found that women place more importance on equity than men in the maintenance of their relationship

  (l) suggesting the differences are not highlighted and therefore does not give a valid explanation for both genders
• Equity Theory - Waltser 1978
• Equity theory states that both partners will have a similar level of costs vs benefits and this balance may not be equal but should be equitable
• 4 Principles of Equity Theory:

  1. Profit
  2. Distribution
  3. Dissatisfaction
  4. Realignment
• Profit - at the start of a relationship we seek to profit from a relationship by maximising the benefits and minimising the costs before establishing a more equitable distribution
• Distribution - costs and benefits are negotiated to ensure equity
• Dissatisfaction - an inequitable relationship causes dissatification which may cause realignment or quitting the relationship
• Realignment - may occur if the partner experiencing dissatisfaction works hard to reestablish equity through a change in their behaviour or cognitions. They may change their perceptions of rewards + costs, so the relationship is fair
• Evaluation of Equity:

  (p) supporting research evidence for the role of equity in the maintenance of relationships

  (e) Stafford + Carnay

  (e) in a survey of 200 married couples participants who percieved their relationship as equitable reported being most satisfied and those who under-benefitted reported the lowest satisfaction levels.

  (l) suggesting the fair distribution of costs in a relationship is likely to be used in the maintenance of relationships
• Evaluation of Equity:

  (P) culturally universal

  (E) when the findings from research can be applied to many different cultures

  (E) Aumer-Ryan (2006) found that although levels of equity varies across the globe, in all cultures people considered equity an important part of relationships

  (L) meaning equity is established world wide, increasing the validity of the theory
• Evaluation of Equity:

  (P) :( does not consider other factors

  (E) The theory assumes relationships become more equitable over time

  (E) Berg + McQuinn (1986) found equity did not increase in couples with their longitudinal study and was not correlated with whether a relationship lasts

  (L) therefore, equity theory alone may not be able to explain the maintenance of relationships
• Investment Model - Rusbult 2011
• Rusbult proposes that the level of commitment an individual puts into a relationship is based on investment, comparison with alternatives and satifaction
• Satisfaction will increase the more an individual thinks their partner meets their needs (e.g. emotional, sexual) so relationship is more beneficial
• Low comparison level for alternatives will increase commitment when compared to potential relationships
• the more invested into a relationship the more committed we feel
• Committed partners use maintenance behaviours to keep a relationship going: promoting the relationship (accommodation), putting partners interests first (willingness to sacrifice), forgiving them for serious transgressions, unrealistically positive (positive illusions) & negative about other people's relationships (derogation of alternatives)
• Supporting Research Evidence - Investment Model:

  Rusbult (1998) found that when same sex couples and married couples were given the investment model scale questionnaire, commitment was positive, negatively correlated with comparison to quality alternatives & positively correlated with investment size.
• Supporting Research Evidence - Investment Model:

  Le & Agnew (2003) found that in a meta analysis of 52 studies, from 1970-1999 covering 11,000 participants over 5 countries, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investments predicted commitment with the most committed lasting the longest. Valid explanation in all cultures
• Oversimplifies Investment - Investment Model:

  Goodfriend + Agnew (2008) argues the model over exaggerates the role of investments & ignores future plans. In the early stages couples have few actual investments and maintain relationships to see future plans. Model ignores complexity of long term relationships
• Intrinsic investments are resources that are put directly into the relationship, e.g. money and energy
• extrinsic investments do not feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it, e.g. house, children, memories