Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory, proposed by Thibaut and Kelley in 1959, views relationships as a process where individuals aim to gain the most benefits while keeping drawbacks to a minimum.

Key principles of social exchange theory

• Maximising rewards - Individuals seek positive outcomes from relationships, such as attention, self-esteem, or happiness.
• Minimising costs - People try to reduce negative aspects, including the time invested, effort, or emotional support required.
• Profit calculation - A relationship persists if the rewards are not outweighed by the costs, leading to an overall gain; otherwise, it may end.
• Potential for inequality - The drive to receive more while contributing less can create imbalances, resulting in an unequal relationship.

Limitations of social exchange theory

Defining rewards and costs is challenging, as these vary greatly between individuals.

Equity theory and supporting research

Equity theory builds on the idea of fairness in relationships, suggesting that partners strive for a balanced exchange where contributions and benefits are proportionate. Unequal dynamics can lead to tension for both involved parties.

Core ideas of equity theory

• Expectation of fairness - Partners anticipate that the rewards they receive should be in balance with what they provide, creating a sense of equality.
• Consequences of inequality - Imbalances cause discomfort and distress in both partners, even for the one receiving more and giving less.
• Efforts to restore balance - The disadvantaged individual may try to make things fairer if it seems possible.
• Example of equitable relationships - Partners who equally share household responsibilities and support each other's career goals often find this balance essential to maintaining relationship satisfaction.

Research supporting equity theory

Several studies have examined how equity influences relationship satisfaction, highlighting differences in perceptions of fairness.

Hatfield et al (1979) study on newlyweds:

• Participants - Newly married couples who evaluated their own and their partner's contributions to the relationship.
• Procedure - Participants rated their input and satisfaction levels in the marriage.
• Results - Those who felt under-benefited reported the lowest satisfaction; over-benefited individuals were somewhat dissatisfied, perhaps feeling guilty; equitable relationships showed the highest contentment.
• Conclusions - Equity plays a key role in marital happiness, with imbalances leading to discomfort.

Argyle (1988) study on sex differences in equity:

• Participants - Men and women in relationships assessed for satisfaction based on benefit levels.
• Results - Over-benefited men were almost as content as those in balanced relationships, while over-benefited women experienced much lower satisfaction compared to women in equitable partnerships.
• Conclusions - Gender influences reactions to inequality.

The investment model of commitment

The investment model, developed by Rusbult in 1980, explains why relationships endure, emphasising commitment as the key to long-term stability.

Factors influencing commitment in the investment model

• Satisfaction level - Determined by how well the relationship fulfills an individual's needs.
• Quality of alternatives - Involves evaluating whether needs could be better fulfilled in another relationship or by not being in a relationship.
• Investment size - Refers to how much the person feels they've put into the relationship, such as emotionally or in terms of time.

Research evidence for the investment model

Le and Agnew (2003) meta-analysis:

• Method - Analysed data from 52 studies with 11,582 participants across various relationship types.
• Results - A significant correlation existed between commitment to a relationship and satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment.
• Conclusions - Commitment level was found to be a significant predictor of whether participants stayed in their relationship.

Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown

Duck's phase model, introduced in 1988, outlines the stages through which relationships typically dissolve, providing a framework for understanding the progression from dissatisfaction to separation. An updated version added a fifth phase.

Phases in Duck's model

• Intra-psychic phase - One partner privately recognises dissatisfaction.
• Dyadic phase - The dissatisfied partner communicates problems, leading to discussions.
• Social phase - The breakdown becomes public, involving friends and family; implications like child custody are discussed, and reconciliation remains possible.
• Grave-dressing phase - Partners fully end the relationship, reorganising their lives and developing narratives about the break-up.
• Resurrection phase (added by Duck and Rollie in 2006) - Individuals reflect on the experience for personal growth, preparing for future relationships.

Progression through the initial phases can be stopped with good mediation.

Criticisms of theories of romantic relationships

Theories explaining relationship formation, maintenance, and breakdown often face scrutiny for oversimplifying complex human interactions and overlooking key influences.

Key criticisms of relationship theories

• Oversimplification - Many models portray relationships as straightforward processes, ignoring the complex nature of real-life dynamics.
• Neglect of cultural and gender factors - Theories frequently fail to adequately consider how cultural factors and gender influence how people approach relationships.
• Nomothetic approach in Duck's model - It assumes a universal sequence of breakdown phases, without considering individual differences.

Research highlighting complexities in relationship breakdown

Rusbult and Zembrodt (1983) study:

• Results - Some individuals actively lead the breakdown process, while others are passive, believing things will resolve themselves.
• Conclusions - Breakdown processes vary, challenging uniform models like Duck's.

Akert (1992) study:

• Results - Initiators of breakups reported less emotional distress or physical symptoms compared to those being left.
• Conclusions - Personal agency affects post-breakup outcomes, adding layers to descriptive models.

Further limitations of Duck's model

It describes the stages of breakdown but does not explain underlying causes, limiting its explanatory power.