Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red- AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Social Exchange Theory (SET)
Proposed by Thibaut + Kelley, this economic theory views relationship behaviour as a series of exchanges, and suggests that everyone is innately selfish, looking for the most profitable relationship that offers the most reward for the least cost. Rewards include emotional fulfilment, sex, and companionship. The theory suggests that people will only stay in a relationship if it the rewards outweigh the costs in terms of time, effort and finances. Therefore, commitment to a relationship is dependent on its profitability - we assign behaviours a subconscious numerical value, either positive or negative, indicative of their status and magnitude as either a cost or a reward.
Thibaut and Kelley also proposed that we have "comparison levels" (CL) that form the standards against which we judge our own relationships. Media, parents, family, peers and ex-partners all function as these points of comparison with which we weigh up the costs and benefits of our relationship, as well as looking to internal schemas of how a relationship should be in order to come to a judgement about the value of our relationship. Alternative comparison levels (CL Alts) are other prospective relationships with which we compare our own, evaluating the costs and benefits of leaving our partner and forming a new relationship - if the benefits of the alternative relationship are better than our current one, we are more likely to leave and start a new one. If the benefits of our CL Alts are not as good, we will stay in our current relationship.
Mills and Clark (1980) provided conflicting evidence for social exchange theory with their identification of two types of romantic relationship - the "communal couple", giving out of altruism and concern for their partners, and the "exchange couple", where each keep mental records of who is ahead and who is behind in terms of social exchange. Their suggestion that there are two types of couple challenges the degree to which SET can be applied to real-world relationships - SET only really explains the relationship dynamic between the exchange couple, not the communal couple.
Hatfield (1979) provided further evidence that challenged the validity of SET. Looking at people in romantic relationships who felt over or under-benefitted, they found that those who gave more than they received felt angry and deprived, whereas those who received more than they gave felt guilty and uncomfortable. This challenges the theory that both partners of the relationship are intrinsically selfish and aiming for maximum reward - even though the over-benefitted were getting much more out of the relationship, they felt uncomfortable and unhappy because of this, and sought to equalise the balance.
However, research by Rusbult (1983) supports the central concepts of SET. Participants completed questionnaires over a 7-month period concerning rewards and costs associated with relationships. SET did not explain the early "honeymoon phase" of a relationship where balance of exchanges was ignored, but later on, relationship costs and benefits were significantly correlated with the degree of satisfaction, suggesting that this theory can help explain maintenance of long-term relationships quite well.
An issue with SET is that it could be considered overly reductionist, seeking to explain one of the most complex human behaviours as the result of a series of simple cost/reward analyses. It focuses only on the relationship in the present, ignoring past events and future rewards and commitments, oversimplifying the process of relationship maintenance in an attempt to numerically quantify different aspects of relationship behaviour. A more holistic explanation that takes into account factors such individual differences such as the degree to which someone desires a "profitable" relationship rather than an equal one might better explain relationship maintenance in economic terms.
Another issue with SET is that it suffers cultural bias through ethnocentricity, seeking to globally apply the emic construct of desire for individual reward, imposing it as an etic. Western, individualist cultures such as those of the UK and the USA are likely to place more emphasis on the advancement of the individual in society than Eastern, collectivist cultures such as China, which are more likely to emphasise communal interest rather than individual gain. Therefore, this theory cannot necessarily be applied on a cross-cultural level, limiting its application.
A problem with SET is that it relies on two key assumptio ns: firstly, that people constantly monitor their relationship's costs/rewards and compare them with alternative relationships. However, research has suggested that it is not until dissatisfaction with the relationship that people weigh up costs/rewards and compare them to CL Alts, so this theory may be more applicable to the breakdown of relationships than it is to maintenance. Secondly, it assumes that everyone is intrinsically selfish, motivated purely through a desire for personal gain, when this may not be true - Sedikides (2005) suggested that most people are unselfish, doing things for others without expecting anything in reward.
Equity Theory
Another economic theory, this one challenges the suggestion that each partner in the relationship is only aiming for personal rewards, suggesting that fairness is more important than profit. It claims that the person who gets less in a relationship feels dissatisfied, and the person who gets more feels guilty and uncomfortable. CL and CL Alts are still valid - comparing the relationship to schemas or alternatives that might offer a fairer deal.
Walster et al suggested a 4 stage model of equity.
- People try to maximise their profit in the relationship.
- Trading rewards occurs to bring about fairness - e.g. a favour or privilege is repaid by the partner.
- Inequality occurs, producing dissatisfaction - the partner who receives less experiences a greater degree of dissatisfaction.
- The loser endeavours to rectify the situation and bring about equity - the greater the perceived inequity, the greater the effort to equalise.
Stafford and Canary (2006) provide supporting evidence for equity theory. Asking 200 couples to complete measures of relationship equity and marital satisfaction. Satisfaction was highest in couples who perceived their relationships to equitable, and lowest for partners who considered themselves to be relatively under-benefited by their relationship. The findings are consistent with the key principles of equity theory - that people are most satisfied in a relationship where the balance of rewards/costs are fairly even and consistent.
However, research does not support the assumption that equity is equally important in all cultures. Aumer-Ryan et al interviewed men and women in Hawaiian (individualist) and Jamaican (collectivist) universities, and found equity to be less important in Jamaican relationships. This suggests that the theory is culturally biased and cannot be applied equally to both individualist and collectivist cultures, and seeks to impose desire for equity as an etic construct rather than the emic that it actually is.
This theory has real-world application to marital therapy. Attempts to resolve compatibility issues between spouses require issues associated with inequity dissatisfaction to be resolved first, because inequity indicates incompatibility in women's eyes. In research, wives reported lower levels of compatibility than husbands when the relationship was inequitable - suggesting that there are gender differences in how equity is perceived, and the theory is not equally applicable to either gender.
Another issue with this theory is that it assumes everybody wants equality. This is not always the case - as some partners may be perfectly happy to give more than they receive in a relationship without feeling dissatisfied, suggesting equity theory cannot fully explain every type of relationship.
Investment Model
The final economic theory of relationship maintenance is based around long-term return on investments, looking for the best possible outcome. The number and importance of long-term investments decides whether a relationship will be maintained or whether it will break down. Investments such as houses, children, time, holidays, and assets serve as barriers to dissolution. Commitment to staying in a relationship is based on three factors:
- Satisfaction: feeling that the rewards it provides are unique
- A belief that the relationship offers better rewards than any CL Alts.
- Substantial investments in the relationship.
Impett et al provide supporting evidence for the investment model. Testing the model using a prospective study of married couples over 18 months, they found that the commitment to the marriage by both partners predicted relationship stability and success, suggesting that substantial investment in relationships helps to maintain and steady them.
Jerstad provides further supporting evidence - he found that investments, most notably time and effort put into the relationship were the best predictor of whether or not somebody would stay with a violent partner. Those who had experience the most violence were often the most committed.
The investment model is more long-term than the other economic theories of relationship maintenance, looking at past and future commitments in a relationship, rather than focusing solely on short-term cost and reward analysis.
However, an issue with the investment model is that it reflects an ethnocentric bias as an explanation of relationship maintenance. Cross-culturally, satisfaction, quality of CL Alts, and investment are not always factors that influence commitment .There may be cultural or religious pressures to stay in an unsatisfactory relationship, and in some cultures, relationship break up, especially of a marriage, is not socially acceptable. Alternatively, some cultures may have more a stigma towards one gender initiating a breakup than the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment