Study Guide – Theories of Romantic Relationships

1. Summarize the main points that describe social exchange theory using research evidence (SET)

The theory sees people as perceiving their feelings for others in terms of profit (the rewards obtained from relationships minus the costs). The greater the rewards and the lower the costs, the greater the profit and therefore the greater the desire to maintain the relationship.

Interactions between partners can be ‘expensive’, as they take time, energy and commitment and may involve unpleasant emotions and experience. Therefore, for a relationship to be maintained, individuals must feel they are receiving more than they put in. The theory also sees social interactions as involving an exchange of rewards, such as affection, intimate information and status. The degree of attraction or liking between partners reflects how people evaluate the rewards they receive relative to those given.

Thus, the social exchange theory is an economic theory explaining relationships in terms of maximizing benefits and minimizing costs. The ‘social exchange’ is the mutual exchange of rewards between partners, like friendship and sex, and the costs of being in the relationship, such as freedoms given up. A person assesses their rewards by making two comparisons:

1. The comparison level (CL) – where rewards are compared against costs to judge profits
2. The comparison level for alternative relationships (CLalt) – where rewards and costs are compared against perceived rewards and costs for possible alternative relationships.

Rusbult (1983) asked participants to complete questionnaires over a seven-month period concerning rewards and costs associated with relationships, finding that social exchange theory did not explain the early ‘honeymoon’ phase of a relationship when balance of exchanges were ignored. However, later on, relationship costs were compared against the degree of personal satisfaction, suggesting that the theory is best applied to the maintenance of relationships.

2. Describe Thibaut & Kelley et al’s four stage model

Thibaut & Kelley et al (1959) proposed a four-stage model of the social exchange theory, setting out how relationships could be maintained. It perceives that over time people develop a predictable and mutually beneficial pattern of exchanges, assisting the maintenance of relationships.

1. Summarize the main points that describe equity theory using research evidence (ET)

Equity in relationship theory does not mean equality; instead it believes individuals are motivated to achieve fairness in relationships and to feel dissatisfied with inequity (unfairness). Definitions of equity within a relationship can differ between individuals.

Maintenance of relationships occurs through balance and stability. Relationships where individuals put in more than they receive, or receive more than they put in, are inequitable, leading to dissatisfaction and possible dissolution (ending of the relationship). The recognition of inequity within a relationship presents a chance for a relationship to be saved- that is, maintained further by making adjustments so that there is a return to equity.

Relationships may alternate between periods of perceived balance and imbalance, with individuals being motivated to return to a state of equity. The greater the perceived imbalance, the greater the efforts to realign the relationship, so long as a chance of doing so is perceived to be viable.

2. Describe the four principles of equity

Walster et al (1978) saw equity as based on four principles, as set out in Table 3.2.

3. For Rusbult’s investment model of commitment, explain what is meant by

• Satisfaction level
• Quality of alternatives
• Investment size

Rusbult’s theory attempts to identify the determinants of relationship commitment and is comprised of three factors positively linked with commitment: satisfaction level, the comparison with alternatives and size of investment.

1. Satisfaction Level refers to the positive v. negative effect experienced in a relationship. Satisfaction is influenced by the degree to which a partner meets an individuals needs, for example the extent to which a partner meets one’s emotional and sexual needs.
2. Comparison with alternatives refers to the perceived desirability of the best alternative to the current relationship and is based upon the extent to which an individuals needs could be met within that alternative relationship, for example the extent to which a potential alternative partner could meet ones emotional and sexual needs. If such needs could be better met elsewhere then the quality of alternatives is high. If such needs are best met within the current relationship, then commitment is stronger.
3. • Equity is the degree of ‘fairness’ within a relationship. Inequity (perceived unfairness) leads to distress and lack of satisfaction with a relationship and thus less commitment to it. Such distress can be relieved by ending the relationship.
   • Social support is the degree of care and assistance available from others, such as from family and friends. If such others approve of a relationship it produces a positive influence that increases commitment to the relationship.Investment size refers to the amount and importance of the resources associated with a relationship and such resources would decline in value or be lost if the relationship was to end. Partners invest directly into relationships, such as the time and effort put into the relationship, as well as indirect investments, such as shared friends, children and co-owned material possessions. After investments have occurred, commitment is heightened as ending a relationship would then become more costly.
     1. For Rusbult’s investment model of commitment explain how equity and social support are linked to commitment

     There are also two variables linked to commitment:

   2. Outline:
   • The general reasons Duck gives for relationship dissolution
   • Other contributory factors for dissolution
   • The four phases of dissolution

   Duck (2001) proposed three general reasons for why relationships break up:

   1. Pre-existing doom – incompatibility and failure are fairly much guaranteed from the start of the relationship
   2. Mechanical failure- two compatible, well-meaning people grow apart and find that they cannot live together any longer (this is the most common cause)
   3. Sudden death -the discovery of infidelity (cheating) or the occurrence of a traumatic incident (such as a huge argument) leads to immediate ending of a relationship.

   Duck proposed several other factors as contributing to relationship dissolution:

   • Predisposing personal factors – for example, individual’s bad habits or emotional instabilities
   • Precipitating factors – for example, exterior influences, such as love rivals, process features, such as incompatible working hours, emergent properties, such as lack of relationship direction, and attributions of blame, such as perceiving that someone else is to blame
   • Lack of skills – for example, being sexually inexperienced
   • Lack of motivation – for example, perceiving inequity
   • Lack of maintenance – for example, spending too much time apart

   Duck (1982) sees dissolution as a personal process, but one where partners regard how things will look to friends and social networks. Duck therefore suggested an amount of dissolution involving four sequential phases. This explanation begins where one partner is sufficiently dissatisfied with the relationship over a long enough period of time to consider ending it.

   The four phases are:

   1. Intrapsychic – one partner privately perceives dissatisfaction with the relationship
   2. Dyadic – the dissatisfaction is discussed. If it is not resolved, there is a move to the next stage.
   3. Social – the breakdown is made public. There is negotiation about children, finances and so on, with wider families and friends becoming involved.
   4. Grave dressing – a post relationship view of the break up is established, protecting self-esteem and rebuilding life towards new relationships.

   Research

   Kassin (1996) found that women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, while men blame lack of sex. Women wish to remain friends, while males want a clean break, suggesting gender differences that Duck’s model does not consider

   Akert (1992) found that the person who instigated the break up suffers fewer negative consequences than the non-instigator, suggesting individual differences in the effects of dissolution that the model does not explain.

   Argyle (1988) found that women identified lack of emotional support as a reason for dissolution, while men cited absence of fun, again suggesting gender differences that the model does not explain.

   Evaluation

   The theory has face validity as it is an account of relationship breakdown that most people can relate to their own and/or others experience.

   The theory does not take into account why dissatisfaction occurred in the first place; its starting point is where dissatisfaction has already set in. Therefore, it fails to provide a complete picture of dissolution.

   The model does not usually apply to homosexual relationship which may not involve some of the decisions over children that heterosexuals have to consider. Additionally, it does not apply to heterosexual couples who decide not to have children.

   The model is simplistic as it does not account for relationships such as casual affairs and friendships.

   .