theories of romantic relaltionships - SET

• social exchange theory:

  • assumes that romantic partners act out of self-interest in echanging rewards and costs
  • satissfied + commited relationship: rewards outweigh costs and potential alternatives are less attractive than curren relationship
• Comparison level:

  • based on person's idea on how much reward they deserve to receive in relationships
  • subjective - depends on previous romantic experiences + culture norms
  • reinforced by books/films/tv-shows
  • linked to person's self-esteem: someone with high self-esteem would have higher expectations in rewards
  • people consider relationships worth pursuing if CL is equal to or better than previous relationship
• Comparison level for alternatives:

  • person's perception of whether other potential relationships would be more rewarding than current
  • set: people stick to current relationship as long as they find them more profitable than alternatives
  • psychologists like duck: if people consider themself to be content in current relationship, they may not notice that there are available alternatives
• stages of relationship development:

  • 1 - sampling stage: costs and rewards associating with others explored
  • 2 - bargaining stage: process of negotiation in which rewards and costs agreed upon
  • 3 - commitment stage: exchange of rewards and cost stabilize
  • 4 - instituitionalisation stage: norms and expectations firmly established
• AO3: weakness of SET

  • ignores equity in relationships
  • eg: research support for role of equity in relationships + view that this is more important than balance of rewards and costs
  • therefore: set can't account for everyone's views on costs and rewards (subjective)
  • therefore: set isn't applicable to all
• AO3: weakness of SET

  • suggested to be based on inappropiate assumptions
  • eg: found people who rated themselves as being ina highly commited relationship, spent less time looking at images of attractive people
  • weakness: based on faulty assumptions of what relationships consist of
  • therefore: set is limited, can't account for majority of relationships, making it difficult to generalise
• theories of romantic relationships - equity theory

  • proposed by hatfield et al - viewed as extension of SET
  • suggests people are content in their relationships if the benefits are roughly equal to the costs
  • equity: when the distribution of rewards and costs is fair for both partners in relationships
• equity and equality

  equity: doing the same thing

  equality: equals the same
• role of equity:

  • what matters most with equity is that both partners' level of profit is roughly the same
  • when there's a lack of equity, one partner over-benefits and one under-benefits
• consequences of inequity:

  • theory states a positive correlation between inequity and satisfaction.
  • greater the inequity: greater the diassatisfaction
  • could lead to two things:
  • 1 - changes in perceived equity
  • 2 - dealing with inequity
• 1 - chnages in percieved equity

  • partners can change equity over time
  • decide to make a change to make it more equitable
  • can bo both way, may go lower or higher overtime
• 2 - dealing with inequity

  • the more inequitable the relationship is, the more harder the overbenfitter would have to work to make it more fair
  • cognitive change: change their thoughts on what was previously a cost, as a norm
• AO3: strength of equity theory

  • research suport
  • eg: survey of 118 recently married couples and measured equity of self-report scale
  • found: those who considered their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who were under-benefitted
  • supports that equity is more important in maintaining a relationship than equality
• AO3: weakness of equity theory

  • can't be applied to all cultures
  • eg: found there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction
  • individualistic culture: considered relationship more satisfying when it was equitable
  • collectivist culture: more satissfied when over-benefitted
  • cannot apply to all cultures + not generalisable + lacks cultural relativism
  • therefore: limited to explaining individiualistic cultures
• AO3: weakness of equity theory

  • not all partners are concerned about achieving equity
  • eg: suggests some people are less sensitive to equity than othrs
  • known as 'benevolents' - who are okay with giving mroe
  • 'entitleds' - overbenefitters
  • individuals have less concern about equity than suggested in theory
  • therefore: varies from relationship to relationship