9. Relationships
Social exchange theory:
Behaviour in relationships reflects economic exchange; we judge satisfaction based on profit (Thibault &
Kelly – 1959)
Rewards/costs: balance judges satisfaction in a relationship
Rewards = beneficial in nature (e.g., companionship, sex etc).
Costs = sacrifices made to maintain relationship (e.g., time, money, compromise etc).
Subjective; what is judged to be more/less rewarding varies person-to-person.
Value of rewards change over course of the relationship; what may be highly rewarding in the
beginning may become the less valuable/an expectation.
Relationships incur an opportunity cost, meaning because we are investing time, money etc into
a relationship, we cannot invest it elsewhere.
Measuring profit: CL, CLalt
1. Comparison level (CL): how much reward we think we deserve from a relationship
o Developed from past experience and social norms (e.g., media).
o Changes as we gain more experience.
o High CL = relationship is worth pursuing.
o CL is linked to self-esteem. Low self-esteem = low CL; believe we deserve less and are
satisfied with less profit.
2. Comparison level with alternatives (CLalt): reward available in other relationships compared to
that present in current one
o If there is more potential satisfaction elsewhere, it can lead to relationship breakdown.
o Dependent on the state of the relationship; we begin to consider alternatives when
costs outweigh rewards.
Stages of relationship development: (and underpinning social exchange)
1. Sampling:
o Partners consider potential costs/benefits of a new relationship through direct and
indirect interaction.
o Compare to other available relationships.
2. Bargaining:
o Partners exchange costs and rewards.
o They identify which are the most profitable.
3. Commitment:
o Relationship is stable.
o Rewards are predictable.
4. Institutionalisation:
o Partners settle because costs and rewards are fully established.
, EVALUATION:
+ Research support
o Kurdek (1995): gave questionnaires to heterosexual and LGBTQ+ couples to assess SET variables.
Found couples that were most satisfied perceived the rewards to outweigh the costs and found
alternatives unappealing.
o Therefore, increases validity of SET.
HOWEVER: - Ignores role of equity
o Relationship maintenance is not just about balance of rewards/costs but whether
this balance is viewed as fair by both partners.
o Therefore, limited explanation.
- Confusion over development of dissatisfaction
o Argyle (1987): dissatisfaction may cause us to consider rewards/costs, rather than being the
result of considering them.
o Therefore, SET may be a misleading explanation; lack of clarity over cause and effect lowers
internal validity.
- Use of vague concepts
o In economics, rewards and costs are quantifiable, whereas in relationships they are
psychological, making them subjective and hard to define.
o Therefore, SET is unclear and difficult to test. Lowers scientific credibility.
Equity theory:
Equity: fairness
If a relationship becomes unfair, it will cause dissatisfaction; one partner’s rewards minus costs
should equal the other partner’s.
Overbenefitting = guilt, shame, discomfort.
Underbenefitting = anger, hostility.
About the balance/ratio of rewards and costs between the two partners, rather than the number
of them compared to one another (i.e., if someone puts in a lot but gets out a lot also, they will
be satisfied; satisfaction comes from perceived fairness).
Satisfying relationships include negotiations to ensure equity; rewards must be distributed fairly,
meaning there will be inevitable trade-offs.
Consequences of inequity: dissatisfaction
When one partner puts in a lot to the relationship but gets little out of it, problems arise because
inequity is perceived. Greater perceived inequity = greater dissatisfaction (strong +ve
correlation).
Equity changes over time; it is normal to put in more than you may get out at the start of a
relationship, however if this continues, inequity (and therefore dissatisfaction) arises.
Dealing with inequity: behavioural, psychological
1. Behavioural:
o Underbenefitting partner is motivated to make the relationship equitable if it still feels
salvageable.
Social exchange theory:
Behaviour in relationships reflects economic exchange; we judge satisfaction based on profit (Thibault &
Kelly – 1959)
Rewards/costs: balance judges satisfaction in a relationship
Rewards = beneficial in nature (e.g., companionship, sex etc).
Costs = sacrifices made to maintain relationship (e.g., time, money, compromise etc).
Subjective; what is judged to be more/less rewarding varies person-to-person.
Value of rewards change over course of the relationship; what may be highly rewarding in the
beginning may become the less valuable/an expectation.
Relationships incur an opportunity cost, meaning because we are investing time, money etc into
a relationship, we cannot invest it elsewhere.
Measuring profit: CL, CLalt
1. Comparison level (CL): how much reward we think we deserve from a relationship
o Developed from past experience and social norms (e.g., media).
o Changes as we gain more experience.
o High CL = relationship is worth pursuing.
o CL is linked to self-esteem. Low self-esteem = low CL; believe we deserve less and are
satisfied with less profit.
2. Comparison level with alternatives (CLalt): reward available in other relationships compared to
that present in current one
o If there is more potential satisfaction elsewhere, it can lead to relationship breakdown.
o Dependent on the state of the relationship; we begin to consider alternatives when
costs outweigh rewards.
Stages of relationship development: (and underpinning social exchange)
1. Sampling:
o Partners consider potential costs/benefits of a new relationship through direct and
indirect interaction.
o Compare to other available relationships.
2. Bargaining:
o Partners exchange costs and rewards.
o They identify which are the most profitable.
3. Commitment:
o Relationship is stable.
o Rewards are predictable.
4. Institutionalisation:
o Partners settle because costs and rewards are fully established.
, EVALUATION:
+ Research support
o Kurdek (1995): gave questionnaires to heterosexual and LGBTQ+ couples to assess SET variables.
Found couples that were most satisfied perceived the rewards to outweigh the costs and found
alternatives unappealing.
o Therefore, increases validity of SET.
HOWEVER: - Ignores role of equity
o Relationship maintenance is not just about balance of rewards/costs but whether
this balance is viewed as fair by both partners.
o Therefore, limited explanation.
- Confusion over development of dissatisfaction
o Argyle (1987): dissatisfaction may cause us to consider rewards/costs, rather than being the
result of considering them.
o Therefore, SET may be a misleading explanation; lack of clarity over cause and effect lowers
internal validity.
- Use of vague concepts
o In economics, rewards and costs are quantifiable, whereas in relationships they are
psychological, making them subjective and hard to define.
o Therefore, SET is unclear and difficult to test. Lowers scientific credibility.
Equity theory:
Equity: fairness
If a relationship becomes unfair, it will cause dissatisfaction; one partner’s rewards minus costs
should equal the other partner’s.
Overbenefitting = guilt, shame, discomfort.
Underbenefitting = anger, hostility.
About the balance/ratio of rewards and costs between the two partners, rather than the number
of them compared to one another (i.e., if someone puts in a lot but gets out a lot also, they will
be satisfied; satisfaction comes from perceived fairness).
Satisfying relationships include negotiations to ensure equity; rewards must be distributed fairly,
meaning there will be inevitable trade-offs.
Consequences of inequity: dissatisfaction
When one partner puts in a lot to the relationship but gets little out of it, problems arise because
inequity is perceived. Greater perceived inequity = greater dissatisfaction (strong +ve
correlation).
Equity changes over time; it is normal to put in more than you may get out at the start of a
relationship, however if this continues, inequity (and therefore dissatisfaction) arises.
Dealing with inequity: behavioural, psychological
1. Behavioural:
o Underbenefitting partner is motivated to make the relationship equitable if it still feels
salvageable.
