Theories of Romantic Relationships

• Social Exchange Theory:

  :) RTS Kurdeck

  > asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring commitment and rewards/costs of the relationship

  > those who were most committed perceived more rewards and fewer costs, and viewed alternative relationships as unattractive - profit is important

  > increases validity
• Social Exchange Theory:

  :( correlational research

  > cause and effect cannot be established between lack of profit and dissatisfaction in relationships

  > other research has found that couples do not monitor costs and rewards or consider alternatives until after they become dissatisfied, rather than these things causing dissatisfaction

  > limits the internal validity
• Social Exchange Theory:

  :( subjective

  > SET states that rewards and costs involve money and time, which are considered superficial - real world costs and rewards are harder to define e.g. some may regard loyalty as being a reward

  > reduces the validity as the concepts are vague and difficult to test or measure
• Social Exchange Theory:

  :( cultural relativism

  > individualistic cultures are independent and strive for personal success, whereas collectivist cultures may not keep track of rewards and costs

  > SET does not take into account the values of collectivist cultures when explaining satisfaction due to profit

  > may not be a useful theory
• Equity Theory:

  :) RTS Utne

  > questionnaire of 118 recently married couples who had been together for more than 2 years, measuring equity

  > couple who considered their relationship more equitable were more satisfied than those who felt they were overbenefitting or underbenefitting

  > supports the equity theory
• Equity Theory:

  :( correlational research

  > cause and effect cannot be established between inequity and dissatisfaction in relationships

  > could be another intervening factor affecting dissatisfaction such as communication

  > lowers the internal validity
• Equity Theory:

  :( cultural relativism

  > couples from individualistic cultures (USA) considered their relationship to be most satisfying when it was equitable, whereas couples from collectivist cultures (Jamaica) were most satisfied when they were overbenefitting

  > limits external validity
• Rusbult's Investment Model:

  :) RTS Le and Agnew

  > meta-analysis of 52 studies (11,000 participants from 5 countries) - found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size predicted commitment

  > committed relationships = stable and long-lasting

  > found to be true for men and women, across cultures and for homosexual and heterosexual couples - increases validity (the features are universally important)
• Rusbult's Investment Model:

  :( correlational research

  > cause and effect cannot be established between investment size and commitment - it could be that the more committed someone feels, the more investment the are willing to make, rather than the other way around

  > limits internal validity
• Duck's Phase Model:

  :) practical applications

  > the theory's principles, that relationships break down after the intra-psychic and dyadic phases, has led to a prevention model for relationship counselling to prevent break up

  > counsellor encourages open and calm discussion in the dyadic phase, and focuses on positive aspects of their partner in the intra-psychic phase

  > important part of applied psychology
• Duck's Phase Model:

  :( phases are too rigid

  > not every person goes through each phase in order (not linear) - a person can skip from the intra-psychic phase to grave dressing (a person may be happy in their relationship but then it immediately breaks down due to infidelity)

  > may not be an effective explanation
• Duck's Phase Model:

  :( cultural relativism

  > most of the research is carried out in Western cultures, where relationships are usually voluntary and easier to end (divorce)

  > relationships in collectivist cultures are more likely to be harder to end and involve wider family e.g. they will speak to their family about a problem before their partner

  > lowers external validity