Theories of Romantic Relationships
Social Exchange Theory
Theories of romantic relationships:
1. Social exchange theory
-> Thibaut + Kelley
2. Equity theory
-> Hatfield, fairness
3. The investment model of commitment
-> Rusbult, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives + investment
This section is about maintaining relationships and is linked to economics
There are different versions of social exchange theory, but underlying all of them is the idea that in
any relationship, both partners are continually giving and receiving items of value to and from
each other and as people are fundamentally selfish, relationships continue only if both
partners feel they are getting more out of the relationship than they are putting in.
The theory sees people as perceiving their feelings for others in terms of profit (rewards
obtained from relationships minus the costs). The greater the rewards and the lower the costs,
the greater the profit and therefore the greater the desire to maintain the relationship.
According to social exchange theory, relationship satisfaction is largely a function of each
individual’s overall costs and benefits in the relationship. This rather selfish way of looking at
relationships doesn’t really match experiences in real life where people tend to report greater
satisfaction if what they get out of a relationship is broadly equivalent to what they put in.
- Rewards that we may receive from a relationship include companionship, being cared
for, and sex
- Costs may include effort, financial investment and time wasted (i.e. missed
opportunities with others because of being in that particular relationship)
Social exchange, in line with other ‘economic theories’ of human behaviour stresses that
commitment to a relationship is dependent on the profitability of this outcome.
Thibaut and Kelley proposed that there are two ways in which we measure the profit in a
romantic relationship. The first, the comparison level (CL) and the second, the comparison level
for alternative relationships (CLalt).
Comparison level Comparison level for alternative
relationships
- Comparison level must be developed – - The second measure of profit provides
a standard against which all our a wider context for our current
relationships are judged relationship
- Do we believe we could gain greater
rewards and fewer costs from
, - CL = product of our experiences in another relationship or by being
other relationships + our general alone?
views/expectations - Could I do better?
- e.g. someone with previous - SET predicts that we will stay in our
unsatisfying relationships = low CL current relationship only so long as we
- Someone with previous rewarding believe it is more rewarding than the
relationships = high CL alternatives
- A romantic relationship is likely to - According to Duck, the CLalt we adopt
have a greater degree of solidarity if will depend on the state of our current
both partners’ outcomes or perceived relationship
profits are above their CL - If the costs of our current relationship
outweigh the rewards, then
Profit > comparison level = stay in alternatives become more attractive
relationship - Satisfying relationship – may not notice
that alternatives are available
Profit < comparison level = end relationship
Current relationship > comparison level for
(Individualistic, selfish viewpoint that every alternative relationships = continue with
individual is out to gain as much profit as they current relationship
can get regardless of what the other person in
the relationship gets) Current relationship < comparison level for
alternative relationships = end current
relationship
A relationship is maintained if rewards exceed costs and the profit level is not exceeded by
possible alternative relationships.
Another feature of Thibaut and Kelley’s social exchange theory concerns the four stages through
which relationships (and the social exchanges which underpin them) develop:
Stage Description
Sampling stage We explore the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting
with them in our own relationships (not just romantic ones), or by
observing others doing so
Bargaining stage This marks the beginning of a relationship, when romantic partners start
exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying
what is most profitable
Commitment stage As time goes on, the sources of costs and rewards become more
predictable, and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards
increase, and costs lessen
Institutionalisation The partners are now settled down because the norms of the
stage relationship, in terms of rewards and costs, are firmly established
A03
Point Evidence Conclusion
, There is evidence to support In a longitudinal study of The findings directly support
social exchange theory and 101 dating couples at a US social exchange theory for
the influence of comparison university, Sprecher found romantic relationships as
level for alternatives by that the presence of the theory predicts that
Sprecher (2001). alternatives was individuals compare the
consistently and negatively current relationship with
correlated with both other possible
commitment and relationships on offer and
relationship satisfaction if the current relationship
for both males and females. compares favourably (or
In other words, in there are no alternatives
relationships where the available), you are likely to
comparison level for be satisfied.
alternatives was high,
commitment to, and
satisfaction with the
current relationship
tended to be low. This is
not surprising as those who
lack alternatives are likely
to remain committed (and
satisfied), but also those
who are satisfied and
committed to their
relationship are more likely
to devalue alternatives.
Further evidence from They found that women This supports social
Rusbult and Martz who had been physically exchange theory as even
supports social exchange assaulted by their partners though women were in
theory’s economic and were living in a abusive relationships, the
approach to relationships. women’s refuge were likely profits were seen to
to return to their abusive exceed the costs an as the
partners, as they did not theory predicts: the greater
have better alternatives, the profit, the greater the
often due to low levels of desire to maintain the
education, no job relationship.
prospects and little
access to money.
A problem for social What might be considered This suggests that it is
exchange theory is the rewarding to one person difficult to classify all
confusion of what may be punishing to events in such simple
constitutes a cost and a another. In addition, what terms as ‘costs’ or
benefit within a relationship might be seen as a benefit ‘benefits’ and challenges
at one stage of the the view that all romantic
Social Exchange Theory
Theories of romantic relationships:
1. Social exchange theory
-> Thibaut + Kelley
2. Equity theory
-> Hatfield, fairness
3. The investment model of commitment
-> Rusbult, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives + investment
This section is about maintaining relationships and is linked to economics
There are different versions of social exchange theory, but underlying all of them is the idea that in
any relationship, both partners are continually giving and receiving items of value to and from
each other and as people are fundamentally selfish, relationships continue only if both
partners feel they are getting more out of the relationship than they are putting in.
The theory sees people as perceiving their feelings for others in terms of profit (rewards
obtained from relationships minus the costs). The greater the rewards and the lower the costs,
the greater the profit and therefore the greater the desire to maintain the relationship.
According to social exchange theory, relationship satisfaction is largely a function of each
individual’s overall costs and benefits in the relationship. This rather selfish way of looking at
relationships doesn’t really match experiences in real life where people tend to report greater
satisfaction if what they get out of a relationship is broadly equivalent to what they put in.
- Rewards that we may receive from a relationship include companionship, being cared
for, and sex
- Costs may include effort, financial investment and time wasted (i.e. missed
opportunities with others because of being in that particular relationship)
Social exchange, in line with other ‘economic theories’ of human behaviour stresses that
commitment to a relationship is dependent on the profitability of this outcome.
Thibaut and Kelley proposed that there are two ways in which we measure the profit in a
romantic relationship. The first, the comparison level (CL) and the second, the comparison level
for alternative relationships (CLalt).
Comparison level Comparison level for alternative
relationships
- Comparison level must be developed – - The second measure of profit provides
a standard against which all our a wider context for our current
relationships are judged relationship
- Do we believe we could gain greater
rewards and fewer costs from
, - CL = product of our experiences in another relationship or by being
other relationships + our general alone?
views/expectations - Could I do better?
- e.g. someone with previous - SET predicts that we will stay in our
unsatisfying relationships = low CL current relationship only so long as we
- Someone with previous rewarding believe it is more rewarding than the
relationships = high CL alternatives
- A romantic relationship is likely to - According to Duck, the CLalt we adopt
have a greater degree of solidarity if will depend on the state of our current
both partners’ outcomes or perceived relationship
profits are above their CL - If the costs of our current relationship
outweigh the rewards, then
Profit > comparison level = stay in alternatives become more attractive
relationship - Satisfying relationship – may not notice
that alternatives are available
Profit < comparison level = end relationship
Current relationship > comparison level for
(Individualistic, selfish viewpoint that every alternative relationships = continue with
individual is out to gain as much profit as they current relationship
can get regardless of what the other person in
the relationship gets) Current relationship < comparison level for
alternative relationships = end current
relationship
A relationship is maintained if rewards exceed costs and the profit level is not exceeded by
possible alternative relationships.
Another feature of Thibaut and Kelley’s social exchange theory concerns the four stages through
which relationships (and the social exchanges which underpin them) develop:
Stage Description
Sampling stage We explore the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting
with them in our own relationships (not just romantic ones), or by
observing others doing so
Bargaining stage This marks the beginning of a relationship, when romantic partners start
exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying
what is most profitable
Commitment stage As time goes on, the sources of costs and rewards become more
predictable, and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards
increase, and costs lessen
Institutionalisation The partners are now settled down because the norms of the
stage relationship, in terms of rewards and costs, are firmly established
A03
Point Evidence Conclusion
, There is evidence to support In a longitudinal study of The findings directly support
social exchange theory and 101 dating couples at a US social exchange theory for
the influence of comparison university, Sprecher found romantic relationships as
level for alternatives by that the presence of the theory predicts that
Sprecher (2001). alternatives was individuals compare the
consistently and negatively current relationship with
correlated with both other possible
commitment and relationships on offer and
relationship satisfaction if the current relationship
for both males and females. compares favourably (or
In other words, in there are no alternatives
relationships where the available), you are likely to
comparison level for be satisfied.
alternatives was high,
commitment to, and
satisfaction with the
current relationship
tended to be low. This is
not surprising as those who
lack alternatives are likely
to remain committed (and
satisfied), but also those
who are satisfied and
committed to their
relationship are more likely
to devalue alternatives.
Further evidence from They found that women This supports social
Rusbult and Martz who had been physically exchange theory as even
supports social exchange assaulted by their partners though women were in
theory’s economic and were living in a abusive relationships, the
approach to relationships. women’s refuge were likely profits were seen to
to return to their abusive exceed the costs an as the
partners, as they did not theory predicts: the greater
have better alternatives, the profit, the greater the
often due to low levels of desire to maintain the
education, no job relationship.
prospects and little
access to money.
A problem for social What might be considered This suggests that it is
exchange theory is the rewarding to one person difficult to classify all
confusion of what may be punishing to events in such simple
constitutes a cost and a another. In addition, what terms as ‘costs’ or
benefit within a relationship might be seen as a benefit ‘benefits’ and challenges
at one stage of the the view that all romantic
