RELATIONSHIPS
THEORIES OF
RELATIONSHIPS
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIPS
• The next part of the Relationships
module looks at how relationships
develop, are maintained and how and
why they might breakdown.
• Booklet 3 (and this PowerPoint) focus on
what we term ‘Economic’ theories.
• This basically means that relationships
should be viewed in the same way as we
would a business. We need to
contemplate rewards, costs and
investment(s).
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIPS – SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (SET)
• Social Exchange Theory is an ‘economic theory’ - it takes the view
that social relationships are run in a similar way to a business –
people are haggling and negotiating in order to get the best deal.
SET is based on the principles of operant conditioning which suggest
we form and maintain relationships because they are rewarding –
this means they are profitable because the rewards we receive from
the relationship outweigh the costs incurred. This means that if the
relationship stops being profitable because the costs outweigh the
rewards the relationship will end.
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIPS – SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (SET)
• Thibaut & Kelley (1959) proposed social exchange theory. It built
upon the theory that relationships form due to the rewards that we
get from them. They argue that everybody is trying to maximise the
REWARDS from a relationship and to minimise the COSTS.
Therefore, a relationship is seen as a cost-benefit ratio. It’s the
outcome of this cost-benefit ratio which determines our attraction
to another. Only relationships which are seen as being PROFITABLE
will be continued with.
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIPS – SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (SET)
• SET suggests relationships are run like a balance sheet - partners are
always trying to maximise their rewards and limit their costs.
Satisfaction depends on the ‘outcome’ - the balance between
rewards and costs - a successful relationship is a profitable one
because the rewards outweigh costs, although a state of ‘loss’ will
occur if the costs start to outweigh the rewards.
• There are two ways to work out whether a relationship is profitable
and thus worthy of continuing with. We consider the COMPARISON
LEVEL (CL) and the COMPARISON LEVEL OF ALTERNATIVES (CLalt).
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIPS – SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (SET)
• COMPARISON LEVEL (CL) - the amount of reward you feel you
should receive. Your worth. Reflects social norms and takes into
accounts previous relationships.
• COMPARISON LEVEL OF ALTERNATIVES (CLalt) - refers to what you
feel you could gain from being in a relationship with someone else.
The idea that ‘the grass is always greener’. If CLalt is low you will
stay in a relationship.
STARTER – 10 mins
NO BOOKLETS!!!!
• Recap (in pairs) what you can
remember about the Social Exchange
Theory of relationships (5 mins)
• Try and use as many key words as
possible (and define/explain these)
• Try and apply it to both relationship
maintenance and breakdown.
• Swap with another pair and compare
their answer with yours. What did they
include that you didn’t and vice versa?
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIPS – SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (SET)
EVALUATING SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
(SET)
 Practical application for the stages of relationship development
As SET is a ‘stage model’ it has practical, everyday application. For instance
you can ‘plot’ your relationship against it, use it’s idea of costs and rewards
to assess if you are in ‘profit’ or not and can even be used by a counsellor
/therapist to identify problems in relationships which aren’t working. Many
unsuccessful relationships (in therapy) highlight a lack of positive
behavioural exchanges.
 Inappropriate reliance on economic metaphor
Assuming all relationships work the same and applying this ‘business-like’
metaphor to them is overly simplistic. More likely is that work
(colleague/colleague or employer/employee) relationships do operate
according to these principles but romantic relationships probably don’t!
EVALUATING SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
(SET)
We don’t really count the costs and rewards
We don’t go around counting up the rewards and costs, we just get
on with it. Also there is confusion over what exactly a reward or cost
is. They’re highly subjective. This makes it difficult to weigh up ‘profit’.
Argyle states we only start to count the cost when the relationship is
already in trouble.
EVALUATING SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
(SET)
 Culturally relative
SET assumes that we are happy if a relationship is in ‘profit’,
(individualistic ideal), so SET doesn’t consider non-western, collectivist
cultures where the emphasis is on equality, sharing of resources and
fairness or even (Islamic culture) woman (over) benefitting the men.
EVALUATING SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
(SET)
 Pessimistic view of human nature as it ignores EQUITY
Even within western culture its quite a negative point of view to
consider we only form and maintain a relationship based on what we
can get out of it. Surely some people like giving and just want to make
their partner happy?
• Hatfield (1979) questioned newlyweds(53 couples) and found….
that they were more satisfied with their relationship if they felt the
relationship was equitable rather than being over or under benefitted.
(Thus challenging SET)
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY (SET)
Complete the SET tasks on p.5 and p.6 of
your booklets
EQUITY THEORY
• Equity theory has the central assumption that people strive to
achieve fairness in their relationships and feel distressed if they
perceive unfairness. Any kind of inequity has the potential to create
distress. People who give a great deal in a relationship and get little in
return would perceive inequity, but the same is true of those who
receive a great deal and give little in return. The greater the perceived
inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and the greater the distress.
EVALUATION OF EQUITY THEORY
•  Supporting research evidence such as Hatfield (1979) and Van
Yperen and Buunk (1990).
• Most of this research comes from real life accounts made by people
in a relationship. What might some positives and negatives be of this
kind of method (think reliability and validity)?
This may be prone to social desirability bias as not only is it self report
but it is asking about potentially sensitive issues (i.e. how good/bad is
your relationship) and so people may not be entirely truthful when
answering, thus leading to a lack of validity (accuracy/truthfulness)
EVALUATION OF EQUITY THEORY
 Moghaddam (1998) suggests that such 'economic' theories only
apply to Western relationships, and even then only to certain shortterm relationships. One group of people who fit this are Western
students. They are typically very mobile and experience many shortterm romantic relationships. When there is little time to develop longterm commitment, it makes sense to be more concerned with give and
take. Long-term relationships within other population groups are more
likely to value security than personal profit.
EVALUATION OF EQUITY THEORY
 Men and women might judge the equity of a relationship differently.
Steil and Weltman (1991) found that among married working couples,
husbands who earned more than their wives rated their own careers as
the most important, and their wives tended to agree. In couples where
the woman's income exceeded the man's, neither partner rated their
career as more important.
EVALUATION OF EQUITY THEORY
 Type of relationship. The type of relationships researched can also
be criticised for focusing on heterosexual relationships and not gay or
lesbian relationships. Even in cohabiting or dating couples, there can be
differences in the perception of profit and loss and the relationships
economics. The relationships used are often not representative of the
general population, particularly in Western cultures where homosexual
relationships are widely accepted
Rusbult’s Investment Theory
• Rusbult et al.’s (2011) model of commitment in a romantic relationship builds
upon the Social Exchange Theory.
• Satisfaction and Comparison with Alternatives are considered and contribute to
how much a partner feels a relationship is worthwhile for them when comparing
other possible relationships and their investment against the rewards offered by
the pairing.
• The third factor is an addition to the SET, investment size, which explains why
relationships do not all breakdown when the CL or CLalt are low.
• Investment in relationships can be measured as a combination of intrinsic and
extrinsic investments which have been made over the course of the relationship.
Intrinsic investments are those which have been added by a single partner such
as money towards a date or a gift, time spent with the person and any selfdisclosures which have been made. Extrinsic investments are those which have
been created or developed over the course of the relationship which are shared
by both partners, such as large purchases (a house or car) or even children.
Rusbult’s Investment Theory
 Le and Agnew’s (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of studies relating to similar
investment models found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and
investment were all strong indicators of commitment to a relationship. This
importance was the same across cultures, genders, and also applied to homosexual
relationships.
 Many of the studies relating to investment in relationship rely on self-report
technique. Whilst this would be perceived as a less reliable and overly-subjective
method in other areas, when looking at the amount an individual feels they are
committed to a relationship, their own opinion and the value that they place on
behaviours and attributes is more relevant than objective observations.
 Investment models tend to give correlational data rather than causal, it may be
that a commitment established at an earlier stage leads inevitably to the partner
viewing comparisons more favourably and investing more into the relationship.