THEORIES OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
ECONOMIC THEORIES OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
Social Exchange Theory is the analysis of relationships as transactions in which individuals seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs.
Equity Theory: The importance of fairness and balance in relationships where both partners perceive an equitable distribution of inputs and outcomes.
Rusbult’s Investment Model: A model focusing on commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment as key factors determining relationship persistence
MAINTENANCE OF RELATIONSHIPS:
‘Two men are arrested, but the police do not possess enough information for a conviction. Following the separation of the two men, the police offer them a similar deal. If one testifies against his partner (defects/betrays), and the other remains silent (cooperates/assists), the betrayer goes free, and the cooperator receives the full one-year sentence. If both remain silent, both are sentenced to only one month in jail for a minor charge. If each 'rats out' the other, each receives a three-month sentence. Each prisoner must choose either to betray or remain silent; the decision of each is kept quiet. What should they do?’
If it is supposed here that each player is only concerned with lessening his time in jail, the game becomes a non-zero-sum game where the two players may either assist or betray the other. In the game, the sole worry of the prisoners seems to be increasing their reward. The interesting symmetry of this problem is that the logical decision leads both to betray the other, even though their individual ‘prize’ would be greater if they cooperated.
HOMAN'S SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY (SET) (1959)
A01 THEORY
Social exchange theory suggests that all human relationships are formed by subjective cost-benefit analysis and comparing alternatives. The theory has roots in economics, psychology, and sociology.
The rudimentary assumptions of this theory are that relationships provide rewards (e.g. love, companionship, money) and costs (e.g. investment of time). People try to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs, and these two factors are managed by a person subconsciously. It involves an interaction between two partners with their expectations and needs. The balance between the rewards and costs is the outcome. When there are more rewards than costs, then a person is in ‘profit’, and the relationship is likely to continue. If the costs are greater than the rewards then they are in ‘loss’, which can lead to relationship breakdown.
Costs are the elements of relational life that have negative value to a person, such as the effort put into a relationship and the negatives of a partner. (Costs can be time, money, effort, arguments, boredom, being faithful, being compromised, missed opportunities, obligations, lack of intimacy, etc.)
Rewards are the elements of a relationship that have positive value. (Rewards can be a sense of acceptance, status, emotional support, financial security, sex, friendship, companionship, protection, intimacy, etc.)
The Social Exchange perspective argues that people calculate the overall worth of a particular relationship by subtracting its costs from the rewards it provides.
WORTH = REWARDS - COSTS
According to Laura Stafford (2008), economic and social exchanges have some differences: Social exchanges involve a connection with another person; social exchanges involve trust, not legal obligations; social exchanges are more flexible; and social exchanges rarely involve explicit bargaining.
The concept of Comparison Level (CL) was developed by Thibaut and Kelley’s SET (1959) to explain the contributions that previous experiences and expectations make to determining how satisfied an individual is with a relationship. Individuals come to their relationships with an awareness of societal norms for relationships (from the media, friends, parents, etc.) and a backlog of relationship experiences (romantic and platonic). This information influences the CL and reflects (a) what individuals feel they deserve and are realistically obtainable within relationships and (b) what individuals feel is important for them to experience within a relationship. When the outcomes from an individual’s relationship exceed the CL (particularly highly valued outcomes or ones that are important to individuals), the overall assessment of a relationship is likely to be high.
According to exchange theorists, satisfaction with a relationship alone does not determine the likelihood that a relationship will continue. Thibaut and Kelley (1959) also developed the concept of comparison level of alternatives (CLalt). This is defined as the lowest outcome a person will accept from a relationship in light of available alternatives to explain individuals' decisions to remain in or leave a relationship. In other words, the CLalt is an individual's assessment of the outcomes available in an alternative relationship to their current relationship. When the outcomes in an alternative relationship seem better than those in their present relationship, the likelihood increases that the person will leave the relationship. Costs and benefits will still be weighed, e.g., a new partner might seem a better alternative, but the costs of splitting a family and a house and financial costs might seem too high. The analysis will be subjective.
Hence, staying in or leaving a relationship is not simply a matter of how rewarding that relationship is. Rewarding relationships are more likely to be stable because a high level of outcomes reduces, in terms of expectations, the likelihood of a better alternative existing. Unsatisfactory relationships, in turn, may remain stable for the lack of a better alternative. Relationships where unavailable alternatives have been conceived of as non-voluntary relationships by Thibaut and Kelley (1959). Thus, married individuals who stay in violent relationships can be thought of as participating in a non-voluntary relationship—that is, the relationship stays stable despite the violence because of the absence of better alternatives.
The CLalt is also related to the experience of dependence. Dependence is defined as the degree to which a person believes that he or she is subject to or reliant on the other for relationship outcomes. Dependence is tolerated in highly rewarding relationships.
In short….
The Comparison Level (CL) is a standard representing what people feel they should receive in the way of rewards and costs from a particular relationship based on norms and past relationships. (Thibaut and Kelly)
The Comparison Level for Alternative (CLalt) refers to “the lowest level of relational rewards a person is willing to accept given available rewards from available alternative relationships or being alone.
The assumptions that SET makes about human nature include the following:
• Humans seek rewards and avoid punishments.
• Humans are rational beings.
• The standards that humans use to evaluate costs and rewards vary over time and from person to person.
SUPPORT FOR SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY:
For a comprehensive list of research, please read the A2 level psychology book by Nigel Holt and Rob Lewis page 87 (orange, light blue and black colour). A02 yourself!
Rusbult (1983) - Used heterosexual college students in a 7-month study involving questionnaire completion every few weeks. It was found that people did not care about rewards and costs in the honeymoon period. Still, later, as the relationship evolved, their satisfaction, investment, and alternatives predicted how committed they were to their relationship and whether it lasted. This supports the theory because it shows the importance of rewards in a relationship and comparison levels.
Rusbult and Martz (1995) - The theory can explain why people stay in abusive relationships. When investments are high, and the alternatives are low, it could still be seen as profitable to remain in such a relationship. The investments would be lost if the relationship broke down. This is a good theory because it covers a range of relationships.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES:
Rusbult (1983) –
• Questionnaire therefore vulnerable to social desirability and demand characteristics lowering internal validity.
• Research was done using heterosexual college students, so there are problems with generalisation as they are only one social group/subculture with high mobility and not necessarily focused on maintaining long-term relationships.
• Relationships are generally difficult to study because the extraneous variables lower the studies’ validity, making it difficult to establish cause and effect as the research is mostly correlational.
• This type of research can be ethically problematic and is a socially sensitive topic.
• Difficult to research it any other way than questionnaires, interviews, etc. because it would be unethical and there are too many variables to control
Is psychology a science?
The first criticism is that Social Exchange Theory, in terms of its scientific status, is not testable. One important criterion of a theory is that it is testable and can be proven false. The difficulty with social exchange is that its central concepts—costs and rewards—are not clearly defined/operationalised. As Sabatelli and Shehan (1993) note: ‘It becomes impossible to make an operational distinction between what people value and perceive as rewarding, and how they behave. Moreover, it is impossible to find an instance when a person does not act in ways to obtain rewards. All behaviour can be seen as rewarding. In other words, it is exceptionally difficult to falsify SET because one could argue that even people who choose to stay in abusive relationships do so because it is rewarding. SET suggests, even in extreme cases such as domestic abuse, that a person in such a relationship may have such low self-esteem that they feel they are lucky even to be with their abusive partner and therefore see that as their reward (or the costs of having nowhere else to go or the risk losing their children). Therefore, staying is more rewarding than leaving. If the reward/need theory can apply this kind of logic to all ‘suspect’ relationships, it becomes an impossible theory to falsify/disprove.
Other A03 CRITICISMS and evaluation:
Duck and Sants (1983) - Criticises SET for focusing too much on the individual’s selfish perspective and ignoring the social aspects of a relationship, such as how partners communicate, interact and interpret shared events. This is a problem because, IN REAL LIFE, relationships can be based on these social aspects and can be a significant part of a relationship.
Indeed, Clark and Mills (1979)- Identify two types of couples: exchange couples, where equity is important as a benefit is given but presumably a debt is incurred and must be reciprocated and ‘communal couples’ where concern for the other partner’s welfare is of greater importance over the possible benefit for themselves. The Equity Theory doesn’t take this into account which limits it as it should be able to explain all different types of relationships to make it credible.
A second problem concerns SET’s notion that humans are rational calculators who come up with numerical equations to evaluate their relationships. Many people object to this understanding of humans, asking whether people really rationally calculate the costs and rewards when engaging in behaviour or pursuing a relationship. Some critics wonder if people are as self-interested as Social Exchange Theory assumes. Steve Duck (1994) argues that applying a marketplace mentality to understanding relationships vastly misrepresents what goes on in relationships. He suggests that it is wrong to think about personal relationships as we think about business transactions, like buying a house or a car. The marketplace analogy is appropriate for some people, but for others, it is not and may be highly offensive.
Like many theories, Social Exchange assumes a great deal of cognitive awareness, which several scholars have questioned. There are huge individual differences in how people evaluate their relationships. Firstly, some people may not evaluate their relationships or rewards/costs very much. They are easily pleased. Secondly, different social contexts and periods may make people more self-aware than others. As people mature, they may think about their relationship more than they did when they were younger. Secondly, individual and gender differences might affect how people process information and assess relationships. Research on stress has shown that females become anxious about problems with their partners, and evolutionary theory also suggests strong gender differences in empathy. SET is beta-biased and may benefit from examining gender differences in relationship evaluation. Lastly, some people are just more self-aware than others. As researchers continue to work with this theory, they must account for these individual differences relative to the calculating nature of humans.
Others critique the individualism of social exchange; social decisions are not just individual choices but decisions affected by a society's norms.
The theory cannot explain why we may remain single or leave even when there is no alternative. This is a problem because this occurs in real life. A good theory should be able to explain all individual differences and aspects so its credibility is lowered.
The theory cannot explain why some individuals remain single or leave relationships even when there is no alternative. This is a problem because, IN REAL LIFE, this occurs. A good theory should be able to explain all individual differences and aspects so its credibility is lowered.
Moghaddam (1998)- Suggests that economic theories can only be applied to Westernised individualistic cultures where there is a greater focus on the welfare of an individual, opposite to collectivist cultures, showing CULTURAL BIAS. The big problem as most of the world is collectivist. Should it be studied emically, therefore?
REDUCTIONIST- it reduces our relationships down to a simple mechanism for receiving rewards when, in fact, it could be criticised by the equity theory as Hays (1984) found that friends valued giving as much as receiving and that, therefore, a balance between the two is necessary for a relationship to be maintained. Needs a more eclectic view.
Operationalising rewards and costs is hugely subjective, making comparisons between people and relationships in controlled settings difficult. Most studies that support social exchange theory account for this by using artificial procedures in laboratory settings, reducing the external validity of the findings.
Michael Argyle (1987) questions whether it is the CL that leads to dissatisfaction with the relationship or dissatisfaction that leads to this analysis. It may be that Social Exchange Theory serves as a justification for dissatisfaction rather than the cause of it.
Social Exchange Theory ignores the idea of social equity explained by the next relationship theory concerning equality in a relationship – would a partner feel satisfied in a relationship where they received all the rewards and their partner incurred all the costs?
Real-world application—Social Exchange Theory is used in Integrated behavioural Couples Therapy, where couples are taught how to increase the proportion of positive exchanges and decrease negative exchanges. This shows high mundane realism in terms of the theory's practical, real-world application; therefore, SET is beneficial at improving real relationships.
Walster’s Equity Theory (1978)-
A01 Theory
Walster’s Equity Theory (1978) - Another economic theory. Unlike Social Exchange Theory, where individuals are seen as trying to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs, equity theory is the inequality in relationships that is seen as having the potential to create dissatisfaction. Equity Theory suggests that people expect their relationship to be fair. Couples subconsciously keep an eye out on what both of them are putting into and getting out of the relationship. If the balance is equal, then there is satisfaction for both partners. If the balance is unequal, the relationship is described as inequitable. The ‘winner’ i.e. the person getting more out of the relationship than they are putting into it will feel guilty and the ‘loser’ i.e. the person putting more into the relationship than what they are getting out of it will feel dissatisfied.
If it’s a short-term relationship and inequitable, then relationship breakdown may take place immediately as little has been invested in the relationship overall; however, if a long-term relationship becomes inequitable, they may try to resolve the problem as much has already been invested into it so breakdown may not be justifiable. Note that Equity does not necessarily mean equality; rather it refers to balance and stability. Furthermore, equity may be
Equity theory consists of four principles:
1. Individuals seek to maximize their outcomes (where outcomes are defined as rewards minus costs).
2. The distribution of rewards is negotiated to ensure fairness. This may be achieved through tradeoffs or compensations (i.e., a ‘favour for a privilege’ for one person is paid back by an equivalent favour or privilege).
3. Individuals become distressed when they participate in unfair or inequitable relationships. The more inequitable the relationship, the more distress individuals feel. According to equity theory, the person who gets “too much” and the person who gets “too little” feel distressed. The person who gets too much may feel guilt or shame, while the person who gets too little may feel angry or humiliated.
4. Individuals who perceive that they are in an inequitable relationship attempt to eliminate their distress by restoring equity. The greater the inequity, the more distress people feel and the more they try to restore equity. (Walster, Traupmann and Walster, 1978)
A01 SUPPORT FOR EQUITY THEORY:
Hatfield, Utne and Traupmann (1979) - Looked at people who felt under-benefited and over-benefited in a relationship and found that those who felt under-benefited felt angry, deprived and resentful and that those who felt over-benefitted felt guilty and uncomfortable, supporting equity theory as it showed that when inequality was present, there was dissatisfaction which often led to relationship breakdown. When a relationship isn’t equitable it isn’t maintained.
Van Yperen and Buunk (1990) - Conducted a longitudinal study with 259 couples, 84% married and 16% cohabiting, and volunteers recruited through a local paper. They obtained a score of equity using the Hatfield global measurement of satisfaction. 65% of men felt their relationship was equitable, 25% of men felt over-benefited, and 25% of women under-benefited. One year later, couples were asked about their satisfaction. Those who were equitable at stage 1 were the most satisfied, followed by those who were over-benefited and those who were under-benefited. Shows that equality is necessary for a relationship to be maintained and for satisfaction.
A02 CRITICISMS: A lot of the A02 is similar to that in SET theory, so rather than write it twice and give you more to read, apply it yourself.
METHODOLOGY OF SUPPORT:
Van Yperen and Buunk (1990)- It was a longitudinal study, which is good as the results provide a more detailed analysis reflecting the continuity of relationships rather than just a ‘snapshot’ of them. On the other hand, recruitment was carried out using a local paper, making the sample biased to that area, and the results cannot necessarily be generalised over the entire population, so it lacks external validity. The use of questionnaires makes it vulnerable to social desirability.
Self-selection population bias/generalisation bias. Socially sensitive research
Psychology as science: Experiments not possible, the reasons as before
Clark and Mills (1979) Define two types of couples: exchange couples, where equity is important as a benefit is given, but presumably, a debt is incurred. It must be reciprocated, and ‘communal couples,’ where concern for the other partner’s welfare is of greater importance than the possible benefit for themselves. The Equity Theory doesn’t consider this, which limits it, as it should be able to explain all different types of relationships to make it credible.
Lujanksy and Mikula (1983) - Can criticise equity theory for CULTURAL BIAS. Most research on equity theory has taken place in North America. They found no effect of equity on relationships in Austria, limiting the theory, which is shown not to be universal. Meill and Croghan (1996)- state that economic theories only apply to Western individualistic cultures, not collectivist cultures, where they may not be free to leave relationships due to social norms or laws. An etic approach or applying them in other cultures would be inappropriate.
Prins et al. (1993) - Interviewed Dutch couples and found that inequity was one of the main reasons a woman would consider or have (more than men) an affair. The theory does not consider these gender differences, showing GENDER BIAS. The research is Beta-biased.
Katherine Miller outlines several major objections to or problems with the social exchange theory as developed from early seminal works.
• The theory favours openness in relationships, as it was updated in the 1970s when ideas of freedom and openness were preferred. Still, there may be times when openness isn’t the best option.
• The theory assumes that the ultimate goal of a relationship is closeness when this might not always be the case.
• The theory places relationships in a linear direction when some relationships might skip steps or go backwards regarding how they develop and evolve.
Huseman et al. (1987) suggested that individual differences are an important factor in equity theory. They distinguish between entitled people, who feel that they deserve to gain more than their partner in a relationship, and benevolent people, who are more prepared to invest by working harder to keep their partner happy.
Clark and Mills (2011) argue that we should differentiate between the role of equity in romantic relationships and other types of relationships, such as business or casual, friendly relationships. They found in a meta-analysis that there is more evidence that equity is a deciding factor in non-romantic relationships, the evidence being more mixed in romantic partnerships.
Social Equity Theory does not apply to all cultures; in a study conducted by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), couples from collectivist cultures (where the group needs are more important than those of the individual) were more satisfied when over-benefitting than those from individualistic cultures (where the needs of the individual are more important than those of the individual).
Some cultures have traditions and expectations that one member of a romantic relationship should benefit more from the partnership. The traditional nuclear family, typical in the early to mid-20th century, was patriarchal, and the woman was often expected to contribute to more tasks, such as housework and raising the children than the man for whom providing money to the family was perceived to be the primary role.
Rusbult’s Investment Model
Rusbult et al.’s (2011) model of commitment in a romantic relationship builds upon the Social Exchange Theory discussed above and proposes that three factors contribute to the level of commitment in a relationship.
Satisfaction level: The total number of positive and negative emotions experienced and how much each partner fulfils the other’s needs (financial, sexual, etc.).
Investment size. This relates to the number of investments made in the relationship to date in terms of time, money, and effort, which would be lost if the relationship stopped. Investments increase dependency on the relationship due to the costs caused by losing what has been invested. Therefore, investments are a powerful influence in preventing relationship breakdown.
Commitment level. This refers to the likelihood the relationship will continue. In new romantic relationships, partners tend to have high levels of commitment as they have (i) high levels of satisfaction, (ii) they would lose a lot if the relationship ended, (iii) they don’t expect any gains, (iv) they tend not to be interested in alternative relationships. However, as the relationship continues, these factors may change, resulting in lower levels of commitment.
AO3
Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis of studies relating to similar investment models found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment were all strong indicators of commitment to a relationship. This importance was the same across cultures and genders and also applied to homosexual relationships.
Many studies on relationship investment rely on self-report techniques. While this method would be perceived as less reliable and overly subjective in other areas, when looking at the amount an individual feels they are committed to a relationship, their opinion and the value they place on behaviours and attributes are more relevant than objective observations.
Again, investment models tend to give correlational data rather than causal data. A commitment established at an earlier stage may inevitably lead to the partner viewing comparisons more favourably and investing more in the relationship.
Rusbult’s investment model has important real-world applications in that it can help explain why partners suffering abuse continue to stay in abusive relationships – although satisfaction may be very low, investment size (for example, children) may be very high, and they may lack alternative potential partners.
Rusbult (1995) found that for women living in a shelter for abused women, lack of alternatives and high investment were the major factors underlying why women returned to abusive relationships. Topic Three:
Essay notes
Outline and evaluate two or more theories of the maintenance of romantic relationships (8+16 marks)
AO1 – Social exchange theory
One theory of the maintenance of romantic relationships is the social exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley)
It is based on the assumption that behaviour is a series of exchanges where relationships aim to maximise profits and minimise costs.
It suggests that the level of profitability determines commitment to the relationship.
AO1 – Comparison levels
It further suggests that comparison levels determine if effort should be put in to maintain the relationship.
Individuals normally have expectations of what to expect in a relationship. Individuals find their partner attractive and feel satisfied if they are met, so they maintain the relationship.
If expectations are not met, they are more likely to leave the relationship. If there is another potential partner, they will compare the possible benefits/costs with their current partner and possibly leave if the alternative is more beneficial.
AO2/3 – Support – Simpson et al. (1990)
Research by Simpson et al. (1990) provides support for this theory
They found that when asked to rate the attractiveness of members of the opposite sex, participants in a relationship rated lower than those not in a relationship
This is indicative of comparison levels being used, where a way to overcome the potential threat to a relationship is to alter perceptions of the attractiveness of other people
AO2/3 – Explain abusive relationships – Rusbult and Martz (1995)
Rusbult and Martz suggest this theory can be used to explain why women may decide to stay in an abusive relationship
This may be because the profits of staying in the relationship are higher than the costs of leaving the relationship (e.g. not being able to see children or support them)
This suggests that the reason for staying is due to profit and loss
AO2/3 – Challenge Clark and Mills (1979)
Clark and Mills (1979) reject the assumption that relationships are based on economics.
They suggest that such economic theories are only applicable to exchange relationships where rewards and costs are tracked (e.g. work colleagues)
In communal relationships (e.g. partners and friends), people are governed by the desire to respond to the needs of others rather than incur profits.
AO1 – Equity
An alternative theory of the maintenance of relationships which addresses this issue is the equity theory proposed by Walster et al (1978)
It suggests that individuals strive to achieve equity and fairness in relationships and feel distress and dissatisfaction if unfairness is perceived.
For example, if someone received a lot but gave a little, they would feel distressed and may not wish to maintain the relationship.
AO1 – Ratio of inputs and outputs
According to this theory, equity does not mean objective equality. Instead, equity is measured by a person’s perceived ratio of inputs and outputs and contributions to outcomes.
For a relationship to be equitable, partners’ profits minus their losses must be equal.
If the relationship is inequitable, people are motivated to restore it by either changing the amount that is demanded or contributing to maintain it or comparing the relationship with others to see if it is worth maintaining.
AO2/3 – Support – Stafford & Canary
Supports the assumption that equity is the foundation for successful relationships
I asked 200 married couples to complete measures of equity and relationship satisfaction.
Found that satisfaction is highest for those perceiving equity and lowest for under-benefited partners
These findings are consistent with equity theory and the assumption that mutually satisfying relationships are equitable.
AO2/3 – Gender differences – DeMaris (2007)
Using couples in the US National Survey of Families and Households, investigated whether marital inequity is associated with later marital disruption.
Found that the only subjective measure of inequity associated with disruption is the woman’s sense of being under-benefited
This suggests that inequity can lead to relationship breakdown. These findings further suggest that there are gender differences in the perception of equity, where it may only be a consideration to women and not men, so the theory not applicable to men
IDA – Real-life applications
Research on this has real-life applications; it has been found that the ratios of positive and negative exchanges affect the maintenance of relationships; therefore, by increasing the proportion of positive exchanges, relationship satisfaction should increase.
This has prompted the formation of Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT), where the aim is to increase the proportion of positive exchanges.
The effectiveness of this therapy has been demonstrated by Christensen et al (2004), where over 2/3 of 60 distressed couples reported significant improvement in the quality of relationships.
AO2/3 – Cultural bias
Moghaddam suggests that economic theories like this only apply to Western relationships, specifically to individuals with high social mobility and short-term relationships (e.g. students)
There is little time to develop commitment in these relationships, so it makes sense to be concerned with give-and-take.
In long-term relationships in less mobile cultures, security is valued over profit, meaning that equity theory is inadequate to explain the maintenance of romantic relationships in all cultures.
IDA – Reductionist
Both theories can, therefore be criticised for being reductionist
Ragsdale and Brandau-Brown claim that equity theory is insufficient as it is an “incomplete rendering of the way married couples behave and respect each other.”
This implies that marital relationships are more complex than equity theory suggests, which reduces complex behaviours due to the motivation to maintain equity.
