Economic Theories for Romantic Relationships

• Thibaut and Kelly - 1959
• reflects economic assumptions of exchange - we want to maximise rewards against costs (minimax principle)
• comparison levels - measures of profit
• rewards - costs = profit/loss
• if we have a profit, we will maintain the relationship
• if we have a loss, we will end the reationship
• self-interest

Comparison Level (CL)

• amount of reward you believe you deserve
• standard based on prior experience (past relationships)
• those with higher self-esteems will have higher comparison levels (harder to please)

Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt)

• weigh up possible rewards from potential alternative partners
• may not even be romantic partners
• based on social norms and experience

Sampling Stage

• explore rewards and costs that come with relationships
• romantic and non-romantic ones

Bargaining Stage

• marks the beginning of a relationship
• partners exchange rewards and costs
• negotiating what is most profitable

Commitment Stage

• sources of costs and rewards becomes predictable
• relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen

Institutionalisation Stage

• rewards and costs are firmly established and partners are settled

For

• Sprecher - studied couples at uni; presence of alternatives is negatively correlated with commitment and satisfaction
• Christensen - application to IBCT - Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy - increase postivite exchanges - 2/3 of 40 couples improved

Against

• Denton - unable to quantify value of rewards and costs due to subjectivity
• deterministic - selfish theory that does not account for love or equity
• much supportive research has been from 'snapshot studies' that assess task-based SET, and not entire relationships that include love, trust, etc.
• Argyle - people only compare with alternatives (assess costs) AFTER dissatisfaction
• Clark and Mills - theory doesn't distinguish between exchange and mutual relationships - exchange (e.g work colleagues) count 'scores' of exchanges - mutual (partners) do not

• Walster
• perceived fairness
• ratio between partners is more important than the size of the rewards
• inequity is when one partner overbenefits and one underbenefits
• overbenefitter is likely to feel shame and discomfort
• underbenefitter is likely to feel hostility and the most dissatisfaction
• consequences
• dealing with equity
• equity should continue in a relationship with time, with institutionalisation

Dissatisfaction

• correlation between greater perceived inequity and greater dissatisfaction

Time

• perceptions of inequity may shift over time
• leads to dissatisfaction
• partner may not meet new demands

Dealing With Inequity

• Behavioural - shift in behaviour of one or both partners
• Cognitive - shift in perceptions of fairness

For

• Hatfield - looked at under and overbenefitters and found that the expected traits appeared in great amounts in both
• Schaffer and Keith - found that most wives were underbenefitters during child rearing, but partners were more equal during the honeymoon and empty-nest phases - supports that perception can shift
• Utne - survey of 118 couples found that greater perceived equity resulted in greater satisfaction

Against

• Huseman - found that not all couples mind inequity (some like to 'spoil' their partner) - benevolents and entitleds
• Collectivist cultures are more satisfied with inequity and so the individualist ideals are not generalisable everywhere
• Berg + McQuinn - equity did not increase in their longitudinal study

• Rusbult - 2011
• commitment depends on satisfaction, investment size and alternative comparison
• satisfaction is based on comparison level
• comparison with alternatives may be non-romantic
• investment size accounts for why couples stay together during losses (dissastifaction)
  • intrinsic investments are tangible and intangible things such as money and self disclosure that you - one partner - has directly put into the relationship that you do not want to lose 'control' over
  • extrinsic investments are shared things such as friends, children and shared memories that you share with your partner that you do not want to lose the connection to
• maintenance mechanisms to keep up the relationship during losses

Accomodation

• promote the relationship instead of retaliating during arguments

Sacrafice

• put their partner's intrests first

Forgiveness

• moving past major transgressions

Positive Illusions

• unrealistically thinking that the relationship is better than it is

Ridiculing Altneratives

• being negative about other couples/partners to make you feel better about your own

• Rusbult + Martz - explains Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) - found that 'battered wives' in shelters were more likley to be commited to their partners and return to them if they had a greater investment
• self-report evidence takes subjective exprience in to account (on satisfaction/investment)
• Le + Agnew - 11,000 people over 5 countries (any couple type); found that greater commitment lead to longer and more stable relationships with more investments

• Goodfried + Agnew - future plans are also an important factor for a stable and commited relationship (especially in the beginning as there are few investments)
• factors of correlation are non-quantifiable and are not causation