Psychology

The Maintenance of Romantic Relationships

The Maintenance of Romantic Relationships 

Seriously why are you reading this...

Enjoy ^^

* * * 

AO1:

Social Learning Theory (SLT)

One theory of relationship maintenance is Social Learning Theory (SET) proposed by Thibaut and Kelly. At the centre of this theory is the assumption that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges where individuals attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs. Rewards we may receive from a relationship include being cared for, companionship and sex. Costs may include effort, financial commitment and time wasted (i.e. missed opportunities with others due to being in that relationship).

Rewards minus the costs indicate the outcome, and this will either result in a 'profit' or a 'loss. Social exchange, like any other 'economic' theories of human behaviour, stresses that the likelihood of a relationship being maintained is dependant on the profitability of this outcome.

In order to judge the profit of a relationship, it is argued that we develop a 'comparison level' (CL) against which all our relationships are judged. This CL is a product of our experiences in past relationships. If we judge the profit in a relationship exceeds our CL, the relationship will be judged as worthwhile and will be maintained but not if the outcome is negative.

People may also weigh up the potential increase in rewards offered by alternative partners, minus the costs of ending the current relationship. A relationship may only be maintained if there is no 'profit' to be made from such alternative relationships. This is called the CL for alternatives.

AO2:

Evidence to support SET comes from Gottman and Levenson; they found successful marriages had a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative exchanges but in unsuccessful marriages, this ratio was much lower at 1:1 or less. This suggests that there is a link between a reward and the maintenance of a relationship which supports SET.

However one problem with SET is that it doesn't state the amount of 'loss' there has to be for a relationship to become unsatisfactory. For example, there are likely to be individual differences in terms of how much lower than the CL a relationship has to be before the relationship can be maintained. This suggests SET might be difficult to empirically test.

Nonetheless, the SET may be criticised for suffering from cultural bias, this means that because the theory was proposed by western researchers who live in an individualist culture, that emphasises the needs of the individual over the group unlike collectivist cultures where the reverse is true, the theory may only explain relationship maintenance in this type of culture. For example in many cultures people are more concerned for the needs of others rather than their own perception of 'profitability' in their personal relationships. This suggests that this theory is not a universal explanation on relationship maintenance and therefore is biased towards those cultures for whom 'profitability' is seen as an important part of the relationships.

Nonetheless SET might have practical applications such as Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT) helps partners to break negative patterns of behaviour that may be perceived as 'costs' in a relationship in order to make relationships more positive. Research has found that IBCT has resulted in significant improvements to about two thirds of relationships analysed. This suggests there are real-world benefits to this research.

Furthermore, SET can explain why some women stay in abusive relationships; Rusbult and Martz argue that when a large amount of investment has been made in a relationship (E.g. children) and alternatives are low (e.g. no alternative relationships and nowhere else to live), this could still be considered a profit situation and a woman might choose to remain in such a relationship. This suggests that SET can be generalised to a range of relationships.

AO1:

Equity Theory (SLT)  

Equity Theory (Walster et al) is an extension of the notion of rewards and costs proposed by SET. The central assumption of equity theory is that people strive to achieve fairness in their relationship and feel distressed if they perceive unfairness. People who give a great deal in a relationship and get little in return would perceive inequality and therefore would be dissatisfied in the relationship. However the same is true for those who receive a great deal and give little in return. 

This is also an inequitable relationship, with the same  consequence for both parties - dissatisfaction. An equitable relationship should, according to the theory, be one where one partner's benefits minus their costs equals their partner's benefits less their costs. If we perceive inequality in a relationship, we are then motivated to try and restore that equity. However if this fails, the relationship may breakdown.

AO2:

Evidence to support equity theory comes from Stafford and Canary; they found that out of 200 married couples, satisfaction was highest for those who perceived their relationships to be equitable (fair), followed by over benefitted partners (partners who believed their relationship is unfair but to their advantage) followed by under benefitted partners (who felt they gave more than they received). This is positive as it is consistent with the predictictions of the equity theory.

However equity theory may be seen as gender biased; Stell and Weltmaan found that when husbands earned more than their wives, they rated their own career as more important than their wives careers and the wives generally agreed. However in couples where the woman had the higher income, neither partner rated their career as more important. This suggests that wives tend to seek less for themselves than husbands and therefore are less likely to perceive inequality. As a result, it seems gender biased to assume 'equity' is perceived the same way by men and women.

However Clark and Mills disagree with the economic ideas of equity theory and SET, they distinguished between 'exchange relationships' (e.g. between colleagues or business associates) and 'communal relationships' (between friends and lovers). Although exchange relationships may involve keeping track of rewards and costs, it is argued that communal relationships are governed more by the desire to respond to the needs of the partner. There may still be some concern for equity but many partners tend to believe that the inequity will balance out in the long-run. This is a problem as it suggests these theories may be more appropriate explanations of non-romantic relationships and other theories are needed to explain romantic relationship maintenance.

Overall, despite many problems with these theories, there is certainly support fir the idea that more profitable and fair relationships are generally happier relationships. However there is clearly much more research to be done to understand why romantic relationship maintenance works differently from one relationship to the next and from one culture to the next and to understand what these differences tell us about the people in those relationships.

* * *

I still don't understand why anyone would read this voluntary but if you did:

Vote

Comment

Follow Me

Love Ya <3