Maintenance of Relationships

PSYA3: Relationships

Economic theories of relationships

• Social Exchange theory and Equity Theory are referred to as economic theories of relationships

• Based on the principles of operant conditioning which suggest we form and maintain relationships because they are rewarding

• They focus on how partners monitor and regulate their relationships

i.e.. how and why they decide to form a relationship, and stay in it, and why and when they may terminate it

2

Social Exchange Theory (SET)

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

• SET suggests relationships are run like a balance sheet - partners are always trying to maximise their rewards and limit their costs.

• Satisfaction depends on the ‘outcome’ - the balance between rewards and costs

• A successful relationship is a profitable one because the rewards outweigh costs, although a state of ‘loss’ will occur if the costs start to outweigh the rewards

Social Exchange Theory

Rewards V Costs

Rewards Costs

Calculate how rewarding a current relationship (or friendship) is by assigning a unitary value to the rewards received and the costs

incurred from

Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley 1959)

• This makes the basic assumption that all social behaviours are a series of exchanges in which something is given and something gained

• It argues that partners wish to maximise rewards from a relationship (e.g.. love, sex, companionship, support) and minimise costs (time, effort, money spent, opportunities lost, risk involved)

6

• The goal is to achieve a situation of profit: where rewards exceed the costs

• The extent of profit can be calculated from subtracting the costs from the rewards

• Where a situation of profit occurs, the person will commit to that relationship

Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley 1959)

• To judge how one partner compares to another potential one on the profitability front, partners use a comparison level – a standard against which all relationships are compared

• The comparison level is based on memories of past experiences combined with expectations of what we want and can expect in the future

• When we meet a new partner, he/she is compared with the comparison level, and if the profit of this new relationship is thought to exceed the comparison level, a relationship will be formed

• Then if the person meets someone else, the comparison level for alternatives is referred to

• This is where the potential rewards from the new partner are greater than the costs of ending the existing relationship

• If the rewards are greater, the existing relationship may be terminated and a new one formed

Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley 1959)

Comparison Level

Potential relationship

Current relationship

ProfitComparison

levelNew

relationship

“What could I have?”

“What have I got

now?”

Profit Comparison

levelCurrent

relationship

Evaluation

• Rusbult and Martz (1995) use the profit and loss concept to explain abusive relationships. If investments are high (children, financial security, etc.) and alternatives are low (nowhere to live, no money, etc.) – this will still be a profit situation and therefore women will stay with an abusive partner

• SET does not explain why people leave relationships despite having no alternative

• It does not quantify how great the disparity in CL has to be to be unsatisfactory

• SET assumes that people spend considerable time monitoring their relationships. Both Argyle (1987) and Duck (1994)- people only consider alternatives once they are dissatisfied with their own one

• Moghaddam (1998) – ‘economic’ theories only apply to short-term, high mobility, Western relationships, i.e. University students

Evaluation

• SET is reductionist. This theory breaks down relationships into a number of basic social interactions that are focused on the hedonistic (selfish) rewards of a single individual. e.g. wanting to receive gifts and attention.

• It also fails to take account of the notion of fairness between the two individuals leading to equity, rather than a constant seeking of profits.

• This suggests that social exchange theory isoversimplified in its explanation of the formation/maintenance of relationships.

Evaluation

Equity Theory

• This is an extension of SET

• Equity theory states that people strive to achieve fairness in their relationship and become distressed if they perceive unfairness (Messick and Cook)

• If you give a great deal but receive a little then this results in inequality and therefore dissatisfaction (and vice-versa)

• Equity does not mean equality

• You could give or receive very different amounts and the relationship could still be equitable

• What is considered ‘fair’ is subjective for each partner

e.g. one partner puts less in, it is still equitable if they get less out of the relationship

Equity Theory

• An equitable relationship according to the theory is:

• If there is inequity, we are motivated to restore equity which can be done by changing how much input a person puts in or the amount demanded

• Also, using our own CL, we may assess whether it is worth continuing a current relationship

Equity Theory

Evaluation

• Van Yperen and Buunk (1990) carried out a longitudinal study with 259 couples (86% of whom were married)

1. 65% of men and women felt that there was equity

2. 25% of men felt over-benefitted3. 25% of women felt under-benefitted• A year later the same couples were asked about

their satisfaction with their relationships – Group 1 were most satisfied and group 3 were least satisfied

• Dwyer (2000) found lesbians put a considerable value on equity – support for women being more concerned about it

• De Maris (2007) investigated marital equity (1500 couples) and found that the only significant aspect was women’s sense of being under-benefitted

Evaluation

• Clark and Mills – relationships are not based on economics. There is a difference between exchange relationships (colleagues at work) and communal relationships (friends/lovers)

• Exchange relationships – assessment of rewards/costs, but communal relationships are about responding to needs. Partners tend to be more long-term – things will work out in the end

Evaluation

Investment Model

• Carly Rusbult (1983) found that when people were deciding whether to end a relationship, not only did they weigh up the rewards and the costs of the relationship and possible alternatives available to them, but they also considered how much they had invested in the relationship.

• She defines investment as ‘anything a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if they leave it’. This may include things such as possessions, children’s welfare and emotional energy.

• To test this hypothesis, Rusbult asked college students in heterosexual relationships to complete questionnaires over a 7 month period.

• They kept notes about how satisfactory their relationship was, how it compared with others and how much they had invested in it.

• Students also noted how committed they felt to the relationship and whether it had ended.

Investment Model

From the graph it can be seen that satisfaction, comparison for alternatives and investment all contribute to commitment and to the relationship breaking down. High satisfaction and investment are important in committed relationships. The existence of an attractive alternative is a significant contributory factor in deciding whether to end the relationship.

• More recently Rusbult and Martz (1995) applied the investment model to abusive relationships.

• They asked women living in refuges why they had stayed with their abusive partners instead of leaving them as soon as the abuse began.

• As predicted by the model, women had felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when their economic alternatives were poor and their investment was great.

Investment Model

Evaluation

• Impett, Beals and Peplan – prospective study of a large sample of married couples over 18 months. They found commitments by both partners predicted relationship stability

• Rhahgan and Axsom – studied a group of women living in a refuge. They found that each of the three strands of the Investment Model (satisfaction,

comparison level alternatives, investments) contributed to women staying with their partner

• Jerstad (2005) found that investments (time and effort) were the most important predictor of whether to stay with a violent partner.

• The victims of violent partners are often the most committed as previous experiences were investments which would be worthless if the relationship dissolved

Evaluation

Question

What are some of the methodological problems and limitations that arise when conducting research on romantic relationships? (5 marks)

Essay

Describe and evaluate two or more theories of the formation and the maintenance of romantic relationships

(8 + 16 marks)