Theories of Romantic Relationships

1. SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY

• Thibault and Kelley (1959)
• Economic theory - views relationships as worthwhile based on their relative costs and benefits.
• Suggests we all aim to profit from a relationship, rewards exceeding what we invest (eg. time, money)
• In order to assess potential profits, we use:
  • 1. Comparison Levels (CL) - our perception of our worth and so what we can deserve or expect to get out of a relationship. This perception arguably becomes more sophisticated and accurate with experience as we have a greater number of relationships to compare to. Also influenced by social and cultural factors, such as what media and friends depict as a good or bad relationship.
  • 2. Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt) - refers to a person's judgement of if they could be recieving greater rewards for fewer costs frm another alternative relationship with another partner. Duck suggested a person's CLalt is dependent on the level of reward and satisfaction in their current relationship - if the CL is positive, then a person may not consider any alternatives.

AO3:

• Difficult to operationalise rewards and costs, hugely subjective, making research difficult. Most research is done using artificial procedures in laboratory settings, meaning they lack ecological validity.
• May serve as a retrospective explanation as to why relationships break down, rather than an explanation of their initial development.
• Ignores social equity (equity theory)

2. EQUITY THEORY

• Also an economic theory: extension of SET but suggests that rather than trying to profit, individuals desire equity and thus striking a balance between each individual's costs and rewards is the key to a successful relationship.
• If one partner is benefitting more (greater reward:loss ratio) they are likely to experience guilt and shame, while a partner underbenefitting may feel anger or resentment.
• Partners may respond to a large difference in ratio by working hard to make the relationship more equitable, or by shifting their own perception of costs and rewards to justify the relationship continuing. This could include accepting messiness, tardiness, abuse and infidelity as normal costs.

AO3:

• Utne et al - in a sample of 118 couples, satisified couples valued equity as a key component to the success of their relationship and preferred this balance to one partner benefitting more. This suggests that equity theory has greater ecological validity than SET because it can explain quaolity and satisfaction associated with real life couples. However, may be prone to social desirability bias.
• Huseman et al (1987) found influence varies based on the individual and if they are happy to disproportionately…