Theories Of Romantic Relationships

• Thibault and Kelly (1959) suggested that relationships are like business transactions and involve making a profit
• Rewards - Cost = Profit
• For a relationship to work the rewards must outweigh the costs that are involved
• Individuals try to maximise their benefits/ rewards and minimise the costs (Known as the minimax strategy)
• Examples of rewards include affection, intimacy and company
• Examples of costs include effort, time and money

Ways of developing a standard of which our relationships are judged:

• Comparison Level (CL)= Compairing the current level of profit in a relationship to the level of profit in previous relationships. If the profit is greater that the CL the relationship is likely to be seen as worthwhile.
• Comparison Level for Alternatives (CL alt)= Compairing the current level of profit to the level of profit in possible alternatives. If alternatives are seen as more appealing, there will be more temptation to leave the relationship.

Supporting Evidence

• Sprecher (2001)
• Longitudinal study of 101 dating couples at a US university
• They found that the exchange variable most associated with commitment was comparison level for alternatives
• In relationships where the CL alt was high, commitment and satisfaction tended to be low
• Suggesting a negative correlation
• This adds validity to the theory 

Measuring the concept is difficult to do

• Hard to objectively define what is a cost and what is a reward
• As what one person may see as a reward may be a cost to another. For example children
• Also, what is seen as a reward at the start may be a cost later on
• These problems challenge the validity

Many researches do not accept the economic metaphor

• Clark and Mills have argued that in relationships we give and take rewards without keeping a score
• Also, if someone monitored profit it would make use question the commitment out partner wanted

Overemphasises costs/ benefits and ignores other factors

• A persons views/ beliefs may make them more tolerant to not being in 'profit'
• For example people in India dont value profit but have the lowest divorce rate (1%)
• Therefore individual differences must also be considered

Walster

• He suggested that what matters most is that both partners level of profit is roughly the same
• Any relationship that is equitable/ fair will be more satisfying
• A relationship that is inequitable can result in dissatifaction and is less likely to be maintained

Consequences of inequity/ unfairness

• Over benefitted= If a person has a high level of profit (rewards outweigh the costs) they may feel guilty
• Under benefitted= If a person has a low level of profit (costs outweigh the rewards) they may feel like thay are being taken for granted

Dealing with inequity

• Resore actual equity= Voluntarily set things right or urge partner to do so
• Restore psychological equity= Distort reality and convince yourself things are fair
• Leave relationship= Divorce or no longer have feelings for the partner

Supporting evidence

• Utne studied 118 recently married couples using a survey
• They found that satifaction was linked to equity and dissatisfaction was linked to being over/ under benefitted

Supporting evidence

• Brosnan found that fairness was also shown in primates
• Monkeys became angry when playing a game and being denied a 'prize' of grapes by another non participating monkey taking it
• Suggesting inequity has ancient roots

Equity Sensitivity

• Everybody's tolerance of inequity is different (Huseman)
• Benevolents= Tolerant of being under rewarded and are 'givers' in a relationship
• Equity Sensitives= Experience tension with inequity
• Entitleds= Are dissatisfied with being under rewarded

Causality Problems

• Research makes cause and effect difficult to establish
• Dissatisfaction may be the cause of inequity not the result
• However, research found that people in inequitable marriages become less satisfied over the course of a year (Van Yperen)

Gender Differences

• Men and women are affected by inequity differently (De Maris et al 2010/ Sprecher 1992)
• Women see themselves as under-benefitted and feel more guilt when over-benefitted.
• Women may be more aware of inequity in modern day so are more vigilant

• This model was devised to address the weaknesses of the social exchange theory
• Rusbult created the model to put emphasis on the importance of commitment

Model

• Satisfaction, Alternatives, Investment = Commitment Level = Future stay or leave decision
• Satisfaction= The extent partners feel the rewards of the relationship exceed the costs
• Alternatives= The judgement that partners make about whether alternative relationships would provide more reward. An individual may stay in a relationship because of a lack of better options
• Investments= Resources associated with a relationship which would be lost if it ended. More of them increase connections with the partner that would be costly to break
• Commitment level= The desire to continue the relationship. It's the product of high satisfaction, high investment and low quality of alternatives

Supporting evidence

• Le and Agnew (2003)
• Meta- analysis of 52 studies from 5 different countries
• Across all studies satisfaction, altnatives and investment were highly correlated with commitment
• The relationships with the most commitment were most stable and laster longer
• This adds population validity

May explain why people stay in an abusive relationship

• Victims of abuse experience low satisfaction yet still stay
• This may be because they have a high level of investment / low quality of alternatives
• This demonstrates the validity in terms of its real life applications

Methodological Issues

• The research is mainly correlational / no experiment
• This means that no variable has been manipulated
• Meaning that you cant say for sure what causes commitment as cause and effect cant be established

The original model oversimplifies investment

• There is more to investment than just resources you have put into the relationship
• For example in the early stages of a relationship there are very few investments made
• Goodfriend and Agnew suggested that investment should also include any plans that have been made as it may also influence commitment
• This means that the original model may be limited