Social exchange theory (Thibault and Kelly 1955):
We perceive (not necessarily reality) relationships to be satisfactory based on the exchange of
benefits (companionship etc) received and costs (spending time/money etc) incurred;
commitment to the relationship is dependent on the profitable it is. Profitability is measured
through two types of cost benefit analysis .
1) Comparison level- how we judge our relationship based on our perceptions of
relationships we've had or seen. If a potential relationship compares highly to our CL
we’re likely to form it. Its subjective and affected by things like self esteem which may
show why we stay in unhealthy relationships
2) Comparison level for alternatives- comparing our relationship with the perception of
other potential relationships and if their benefits outweigh the current ones, we are likely
to leave.
The outcome of this analysis is known as the payoff matrix and it needs to be positive to form
and maintain relationships, else we’ll quit.
P) E) evidence from Sprecher who measured satisfaction in 101 couples at a US university.
E) she found that its maintained if it remains satisfied compared to our CL and CLALT and is
likely to break down if its less satisfying in comparison to the CL and CLALT
L) this shows we do make comparisons both within and between our relationships and that
theses are a strong predictor of satisfaction within a relationship
P) E) treats all relationships the same by assuming they're all based on exchange principles and
reduces their success to cost vs benefit
E) Clarke and Mills say SET ignores the communal couple who are less concerned with score
keeping (see it as unattractive) but just assume it overall balances out
L) not valid to explain all relationships
P) E) hard to operationalise as cost/benefits are subjectively perceived so it's hard to measure
the CL and CLALT before it reaches dissatisfaction
E) Argyle says SET ignores that relationships are more than the sum of benefits minus costs, so
it ignores the complexity of long term loving relationships. Realistically, we only realise how unfair
a relationship is once we are dissatisfied.
L) SET is difficult to measure so hard to support with valid research findings, it may only apply
once we reach dissatisfaction
P) E) SET has beta bias, when a theory inappropriately minimises gender differences.
E) Prins found women value fairness more than men so were more likely to consider an affair
when under benefited.
L) SET is a better explanation of how women experience relationships than men
Equity theory (Walster 1978):
Assumes that both partners will have a similar level of costs and benefits; this may not be equal
but it must be perceived as equitable.
1) Profit- At the start of a relationship we seek this
2) Distribution- the cost benefit trade off is negotiated equitably eg cook or clean
3) Dissatisfaction- caused by inequitable relationships
4) Realignment- dissatisfied partner seeks to reestablish equity by changing their behaviour
or cognitions eg changing their perception of a cost so it seems fair
Therefore they either establish equity or quit the relationship
, P) E) evidence from Stafford and Canary
E) in a survey of 200 married couples, couples who perceived it as equitable reported being
the most satisfied and using positive maintenance strategies but those who underbenefitted
were the least satisfied and used the least maintenance strategies
L) therefore the fair distribution of costs is likely to lead to maintenance of relationships as
satisfaction depends on the equitable distribution of costs
P) E) culturally universal, a behaviour is the same across all groups
E) Aumer-Ryan found that although equity levels vary across the globe (US most, Jamaica
last), equity was important in all cultures studied
L) therefore explains relationships across the world
P) E) not all individuals are concerned about equity in the same way, as some people are
more sensitive to it than others
E) Huseman says partners are Benevolents (give more) Entitleds (get more) and Equity
sensitives (feel tension when faced with inequity)
L) Does Not consider individual differences
P) E) not all relationships become equitable over time so equity can't predict whether
relationships will last, as some seem to be based on other factors
E) Berg and McQuinn did a longitudinal study and found that equity did not increase over
time and was not correlated with how long a relationship lasts
L) so equity theory alone does not explain relationship maintenance
Rusbult investment model of commitment:
We maintain relationships we are committed to and commitment is based on
1) Satisfaction- does your partner meet your needs
2) Comparison level for alternatives- do other potential relationships outweigh this one?
3) Investment- what would you lose if you left eg house or kids
4) Equity- is your relationship fair?
5) Social support- do your friends/family support this relationship?
P) E) evidence from rusbult
E) found that in a series of studies with students, same sex and married couples, there's a
positive correlation between satisfaction and commitment and commitment with investment
size. There's a negative correlation between commitment and the quality of CLALT
L) suggests that, as the model predicts, commit when we’re satisfied etc
P) E) evidence from Le and Agnew
E) meta analysis of 52 studies showed satisfaction/CLALT/investment all predict
commitment and committed couples last longest regardless of sexuality gender and culture
L) suggests that, as the model predicts, satisfaction etc indicate how long a relationship will
last and applies to a range of relationships
P) E) inappropriately simplistic explanation of relationships (simple terms)
E) Goodfriend and Le and Agnew say it ignores the role of future plans (house/baby) that
motivates them to stay together
L) therefore, the model ignores the true complexity of long term relationships
We perceive (not necessarily reality) relationships to be satisfactory based on the exchange of
benefits (companionship etc) received and costs (spending time/money etc) incurred;
commitment to the relationship is dependent on the profitable it is. Profitability is measured
through two types of cost benefit analysis .
1) Comparison level- how we judge our relationship based on our perceptions of
relationships we've had or seen. If a potential relationship compares highly to our CL
we’re likely to form it. Its subjective and affected by things like self esteem which may
show why we stay in unhealthy relationships
2) Comparison level for alternatives- comparing our relationship with the perception of
other potential relationships and if their benefits outweigh the current ones, we are likely
to leave.
The outcome of this analysis is known as the payoff matrix and it needs to be positive to form
and maintain relationships, else we’ll quit.
P) E) evidence from Sprecher who measured satisfaction in 101 couples at a US university.
E) she found that its maintained if it remains satisfied compared to our CL and CLALT and is
likely to break down if its less satisfying in comparison to the CL and CLALT
L) this shows we do make comparisons both within and between our relationships and that
theses are a strong predictor of satisfaction within a relationship
P) E) treats all relationships the same by assuming they're all based on exchange principles and
reduces their success to cost vs benefit
E) Clarke and Mills say SET ignores the communal couple who are less concerned with score
keeping (see it as unattractive) but just assume it overall balances out
L) not valid to explain all relationships
P) E) hard to operationalise as cost/benefits are subjectively perceived so it's hard to measure
the CL and CLALT before it reaches dissatisfaction
E) Argyle says SET ignores that relationships are more than the sum of benefits minus costs, so
it ignores the complexity of long term loving relationships. Realistically, we only realise how unfair
a relationship is once we are dissatisfied.
L) SET is difficult to measure so hard to support with valid research findings, it may only apply
once we reach dissatisfaction
P) E) SET has beta bias, when a theory inappropriately minimises gender differences.
E) Prins found women value fairness more than men so were more likely to consider an affair
when under benefited.
L) SET is a better explanation of how women experience relationships than men
Equity theory (Walster 1978):
Assumes that both partners will have a similar level of costs and benefits; this may not be equal
but it must be perceived as equitable.
1) Profit- At the start of a relationship we seek this
2) Distribution- the cost benefit trade off is negotiated equitably eg cook or clean
3) Dissatisfaction- caused by inequitable relationships
4) Realignment- dissatisfied partner seeks to reestablish equity by changing their behaviour
or cognitions eg changing their perception of a cost so it seems fair
Therefore they either establish equity or quit the relationship
, P) E) evidence from Stafford and Canary
E) in a survey of 200 married couples, couples who perceived it as equitable reported being
the most satisfied and using positive maintenance strategies but those who underbenefitted
were the least satisfied and used the least maintenance strategies
L) therefore the fair distribution of costs is likely to lead to maintenance of relationships as
satisfaction depends on the equitable distribution of costs
P) E) culturally universal, a behaviour is the same across all groups
E) Aumer-Ryan found that although equity levels vary across the globe (US most, Jamaica
last), equity was important in all cultures studied
L) therefore explains relationships across the world
P) E) not all individuals are concerned about equity in the same way, as some people are
more sensitive to it than others
E) Huseman says partners are Benevolents (give more) Entitleds (get more) and Equity
sensitives (feel tension when faced with inequity)
L) Does Not consider individual differences
P) E) not all relationships become equitable over time so equity can't predict whether
relationships will last, as some seem to be based on other factors
E) Berg and McQuinn did a longitudinal study and found that equity did not increase over
time and was not correlated with how long a relationship lasts
L) so equity theory alone does not explain relationship maintenance
Rusbult investment model of commitment:
We maintain relationships we are committed to and commitment is based on
1) Satisfaction- does your partner meet your needs
2) Comparison level for alternatives- do other potential relationships outweigh this one?
3) Investment- what would you lose if you left eg house or kids
4) Equity- is your relationship fair?
5) Social support- do your friends/family support this relationship?
P) E) evidence from rusbult
E) found that in a series of studies with students, same sex and married couples, there's a
positive correlation between satisfaction and commitment and commitment with investment
size. There's a negative correlation between commitment and the quality of CLALT
L) suggests that, as the model predicts, commit when we’re satisfied etc
P) E) evidence from Le and Agnew
E) meta analysis of 52 studies showed satisfaction/CLALT/investment all predict
commitment and committed couples last longest regardless of sexuality gender and culture
L) suggests that, as the model predicts, satisfaction etc indicate how long a relationship will
last and applies to a range of relationships
P) E) inappropriately simplistic explanation of relationships (simple terms)
E) Goodfriend and Le and Agnew say it ignores the role of future plans (house/baby) that
motivates them to stay together
L) therefore, the model ignores the true complexity of long term relationships
