theories of romantic relationships

social exchange theory

economic proposed by thibault and kelly, the rs is a series of transactions
minimax principles - the aim is to maximise rewards and minimise losses
people are self centred
satisfaction is determined by profit. if the rewards outweigh the costs, there is satisfaction. vice versa, there is dissatisfaction and leads to the dissolution of the rs
the theory suggests we keep a ‘balance sheet’ throughout the relationship
CL - is this relationship better than the previous?
CLalt - is there a better partner or is it better on my own?

sampling - explore rewards and costs in all of our rs or by observing others do so
bargaining - marks the beginning of a rs, partners negotiating what creates the most profit
commitment - sources of cost and rewards become predictable, rs is more stable, costs lessen
institutionalisation - partners settled down because norms are firmly established.

one strength is that there is supporting evidence. kurdek asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples about commitment and SET variables. the most committed couples perceived more rewards, fewer costs and alternatives as relatively unattractive. these findings support the predictions of the SET, increasing its population validity
- however, the equity theory emphasises fairness. so if being in profit is at odds w our partners experience, then we may feel guilty. therefore, being in profit does not guarantee satisfaction.
a limitation of the SET is that it does not explain abusive relationships. the costs clearly outweigh the rewards so one partner is not in profit. therefore, the SET is a limited explanation. a better alternative would be rusbult’s investment theory which emphasises the importance of time, effort and shared experiences when deciding whether or not to leave a partner. therefore, the SET is insufficient and the investment theory has more explanatory power
one limitation is that the theory is culturally biased. thibault and kelly’s research is based on relationships in the west. costs and rewards may look different in cultures which are collectivist. therefore, the SET lacks universality.

economic theory that emphasises the needs for balance rather than minimax principle

walster - what matters most is both partners’ level of profit is the same
when there is a lack of equity, one partner overbenefits while the other underbenefits
- leads to unhappiness and dissatisfaction
- overbenefitting partner - guilt, shame, discomfort
- underbenefitting partner - anger, hostility, resentment and humiliation
problems arise when one partner puts a lot into a relationship but gets very little out of it. a partner who perceives inequity will become distressed and dissatisfied
- theory predicts strong correlation between inequity and dissatisfaction
dealing with inequity - underbenefitted partner is usually motivated to restore equity again as long as they believe it is possible to do so and that the relationship is salvageable
there could also be a cognitive change - they could change their perception of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes. what was once seen as a cost is now seen as the norm

one strength is that there is research support from studies of real world relationships
utne - carried out a survey of 118 recently married couples, measuring equity with self report scales. the ppts were aged between 16-45 and had been together for more than 2 years before marrying
researchers found that couples who had considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as overbenefitting or underbenefitting
this suggests that equity plays a significant role in relationship satisfaction and that equity is a major concern of romantic couples
- CA - while equity may be a feature of satisfaction, berg and mcquinn found that equity did not increase over time. nor did they find that relationships which ended and those which continued differed in terms of equity. other variables like self disclosure could be more important
- this undermines the validity of equity as a factor affecting satisfaction because it undermines the theory

a limitation of the equity theory is that it is culturally biased and, therefore, cannot be applied to all cultures
aumer-ryan - found that there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction. couples from individualistic cultures, like the US, considered their relationship to be most satisfying when it was equitable, whereas couples from collectivist cultures, like jamaica, were most satisfied when they were overbenefitting. this was true for both men and women so it cannot be explained by gender differences
this suggests that the theory lacks validity because it has limited applicability and lacks universality

another limitation of the theory is that every relationship is subject to individual differences and therefore cannot be applied to every couple
huseman - some people are less concerned about equity than the norm. they describe some partners as benevolents (prepared to give more than they get) and some are entitleds (deserves to overbenefit and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty)
in both cases such individuals have less concern about equity than the theory predicts
this shows that a desire for equity varies from one individual to another and is not a universal feature of romantic relationships

committment depends on three factors
satisfaction - based on CL, judged by comparing rewards and costs and is seen to be profitable if it has many rewards and few costs
each partner is satisfied if they are getting more out of the relationship than they expect based on previous relationships and norms
comparison with alternatives (CLalt) - current relationship is compared with the possibility of a relationship with another partner or having no relationship at all.
investment - anything we would lose if the relationship were to ends. rusbult argues there are two types of investment
- intrinsic - resources we directly put into the relationship. they can be tangible ie money and possessions. they can also be intangible resources ie energy, emotion and self disclosure
- extrinsic - resources that did not previously feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it. tangibles include possessions like houses and cars, mutual friends and children. intangible includes shared memories
increased size of investment + less attractive alt + many rewards → high levels of satisfaction
relationship maintenance mechanisms
- accommodation - not engaging in tit for tat retaliation
- willingness to sacrifice - put their partner’s interests first
- forgiveness - forgiving them for serious transgressions
- positive illusions - unrealistically positive about their partner
- ridiculing alternatives - negative about tempting alternatives and other people’s relationships