Theories Of Relationships Flashcards
(36 cards)
What is the basic assumption of Social Exchange Theory in romantic relationships?
Thibaut and Kelley (1959) proposed that romantic relationships operate like an economic exchange, where individuals aim to maximise rewards and minimise costs. This is known as the min-max principle. People evaluate relationships in terms of profits (rewards – costs) and seek to maintain those that offer the best outcomes.
What are examples of rewards and costs in a romantic relationship, according to Social Exchange Theory?
Rewards can include increased self-esteem, emotional support, financial security, friendship, entertainment, and sex. Costs might involve time investment, emotional distress, stress, loss of financial security, or opportunity cost. Different individuals may value these rewards and costs differently.
What is the Comparison Level (CL) in Social Exchange Theory?
The Comparison Level (CL) is a personal standard of what we expect from a relationship, based on past experiences, social norms, or media portrayals. If a current relationship meets or exceeds this level, it’s likely to be seen as satisfying. CL can change over time and is influenced by self-esteem.
What is the Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt) in Social Exchange Theory?
CLalt refers to the assessment of whether a person could achieve greater rewards and fewer costs with someone else. If the potential profit with an alternative partner is higher than in the current relationship, the individual is likely to consider leaving. This mechanism helps explain relationship breakdown.
How does Sprecher (2001) support Social Exchange Theory?
A strength of SET is that it is supported by research from Sprecher (2001), who conducted a longitudinal study of 101 dating couples in a US university. She found that individuals with a high comparison level for alternatives were less committed and less satisfied with their current partner. This supports the idea that relationship commitment depends on the perceived availability of better alternatives, as SET predicts. Because these results were found across both genders, the study provides strong validity to the theory’s central concepts, particularly CLalt.
What does Kurdek (1995) suggest about the generalisability of Social Exchange Theory?
Further support comes from Kurdek (1995), who studied gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples using self-report measures of commitment and SET variables. He found that greater commitment was linked to more perceived rewards, fewer costs, and unattractive alternatives. Importantly, these predictors were independent of each other and applied across different types of relationships. This supports the theory’s population validity, suggesting its principles are generalisable beyond just heterosexual couples and across different sexual orientations.
What conceptual problem challenges the validity of SET?
A key limitation of SET is the difficulty in defining what counts as a cost or a benefit. What is rewarding to one person (such as frequent praise) may be annoying to another, and something seen as a benefit early in a relationship may later be reinterpreted as a cost. Also, psychological rewards are far harder to quantify than financial ones. This raises doubts about whether people really evaluate relationships through such a measurable cost-benefit analysis. These issues reduce the internal validity of the theory by questioning whether its key concepts can be objectively applied.
How does SET explain why some people stay in harmful relationships?
A strength of SET is that it can account for individual differences in relationships, including why people sometimes stay in seemingly harmful ones. For example, someone may remain in an abusive relationship if their comparison level for alternatives is low — they may fear financial hardship, losing children, or have low self-esteem. In such cases, the perceived costs of leaving are higher than the costs of staying. This explanation gives SET high explanatory power, especially in situations that other theories struggle to address.
Why might the assumptions of SET not apply to romantic relationships?
A major limitation of SET is that its core assumption — that individuals monitor relationships like economic exchanges — may not apply to close romantic relationships. Clark and Mills (2011) argue that romantic partners don’t keep track of individual rewards and costs, as doing so would undermine emotional intimacy and trust. This suggests SET may be more relevant to casual or transactional relationships than genuine emotional bonds. Therefore, the validity of the theory is challenged, as its economic model may oversimplify how real romantic relationships operate.
What is Equity Theory and how does it relate to Social Exchange Theory?
Equity Theory is an economic model of relationships that builds on Social Exchange Theory. It agrees that individuals seek to maximise rewards and minimise costs, but adds the key concept of fairness. According to Hatfield (1979), people are more satisfied when the balance between partners’ inputs and outcomes feels fair, not necessarily equal.
What does ‘balance’ mean in Equity Theory?
In Equity Theory, balance means that both partners’ ratio of rewards to costs should be similar, even if the actual inputs and outcomes differ. One partner may invest more and receive more, while the other invests and receives less, but as long as the perceived fairness is equal, the relationship is seen as equitable.
What are the consequences of over-benefiting or under-benefiting in a relationship?
A partner who over-benefits may feel guilt, shame, or pity, while one who under-benefits is likely to feel resentment, anger, or dissatisfaction. Both imbalances create stress in the relationship and may lead to breakdown if perceived inequity is not addressed.
How does the importance of equity change over time in relationships?
Equity may be less important in the early stages of a relationship, where passion or attraction may matter more. Hatfield (2011) notes that in long-term relationships, successful couples are less likely to “keep score,” suggesting that perceptions of fairness can evolve, and mature relationships may tolerate some degree of imbalance.
What did Stafford and Canary (2006) study?
They studied over 200 married couples using questionnaires on equity and relationship maintenance. Satisfaction was highest for those perceiving equity.
This supports Equity Theory’s claim that perceived fairness strongly influences relationship satisfaction.
What are the three types of individuals identified by Huseman et al. (1987)?
Benevolents (tolerate under-reward), equity sensitives (distressed by inequity), and entitleds (prefer over-reward).
These differences challenge the assumption that equity is equally important for everyone.
What cultural differences did Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007) find regarding equity?
US couples (individualist culture) reported highest satisfaction with equitable relationships, while Jamaican couples (collectivist culture) were most satisfied when over-benefitting.
This suggests Equity Theory is ethnocentric and not universally valid across cultures.
What argument did Grote and Clark (2001) present about dissatisfaction?
They argued that dissatisfaction may cause partners to monitor contributions and notice inequities, rather than inequity causing dissatisfaction.
This challenges the theory’s causal explanation and questions its overall validity.
How does Investment Theory develop Social Exchange Theory (SET)?
Investment Theory adds that when deciding whether to continue a relationship, more than just current satisfaction is considered. Potential alternative relationships and the amount already invested also influence commitment.
What distinguishes investments from rewards and costs in Investment Theory?
Investments are resources put into a relationship that cannot be easily recovered or divided if the relationship ends, unlike rewards or costs.
What are the two categories of investment in Investment Theory?
Intrinsic investments are resources directly put into the relationship (e.g., emotional work, time, self-disclosures). Extrinsic investments are resources originally outside the relationship but become connected to it (e.g., shared friendships, memories, possessions, shared activities/events).
How do investments affect relationship commitment?
Commitment increases with the amount of investment because ending the relationship would mean sacrificing these invested resources. Investments can be rewarding (e.g., shared friendships) or costly (e.g., money invested).
What research by Le and Agnew supports Rusbult’s Investment Model?
A meta-analysis of 52 studies (late 1970s–1990s) with over 11,000 participants from the US, UK, Netherlands, Israel, and Taiwan found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment size all predicted commitment. Satisfaction was the strongest predictor. The link between commitment and ‘stay/leave’ behaviours was also significant.
Why does Le and Agnew’s study strengthen Rusbult’s model?
The study used a large, cross-cultural sample, and found the model’s predictions held across genders and sexual orientations, including heterosexual and homosexual relationships. This adds strong population validity and supports the universality of Rusbult’s model.
What is a limitation of research into the investment model in terms of causality?
Most supporting studies, including Le and Agnew’s, are correlational, so causation cannot be established. High commitment may lead to increased investment, rather than investment causing commitment. This weakens the model’s explanatory validity.
