Describe and evaluate two theories for the maintenance of relationshipsSocial Exchange Theory & Equity Theory

Social exchange theories exist in various forms but the underlying theme is that people may be selfish.Social exchange theories argue people may view relationships in a “profit” or “loss” way.Thibaut & Kelley believed people will look to see how rewarding a relationship is and then how much it costs to be in the relationship. If there is a profit left over (rewards – costs = profit) then that may encourage them to continue the relationship where as if there is a loss – this may motivate them to end the relationship.Blau argued that interactions are “expensive”, as they take time, energy and commitment and may involve unpleasant emotions and experiences. Therefore what we get out of a relationship must exceed what goes in.Walster et al believed that social interactions involve an exchange of rewards, like affection, information, status. The degree of attraction or liking reflects how people evaluate the rewards they receive in relative to those given.SET is therefore an economic theory explaining relationships in terms of maximising benefits and minimising costs. The “Social exchange” is the mutual exchange of rewards between partners; like friendship, sex and the costs of being in the relationship may be freedoms given up, time, effort.A person may make their assessment of their rewards by using two comparisons:The comparison level (CL) – where rewards are compared to costs to judge profits. This may be based on past experiences and relationships as well as what we expect to get from a relationship.The comparison level for alternative relationships (CLalt) – Where rewards and costs are compared against perceived alternative relationships and how they compare.A relationship is maintained if profit is perceived in both these two comparisons.Thibaut & Kelley proposed a four-stage model setting how relationships could be maintained, predicting that over time people develop a predictable and mutually beneficial pattern of exchanges assisting the maintenance of relationships;Sampling – Rewards and costs are assessed in a number of relationshipsBargaining – A relationship is “costed out” and sources of profit and loss are identifiedCommitment – Relationship is established and maintained by predictable exchange of rewardsInstitutionalisation – Interactions are established and the couple “settle down”.Mills et al identified two kinds of intimate relationships; (a) The communal couple where each partner gives out of concern for the other and (b) The Exchange couple who keep mental records of who is ahead and who is behind.This indicates that there are different types of relationships and SET may apply to some of them but not universally to all.Rusbult asked participants to complete questionnaires over a 7-month period concerning rewards and costs and found that SET did not explain the early “honeymoon” phase of the relationship when balance of exchanges was ignored. However later on relationship costs were compared with degree of satisfaction which suggests that the theory is best applied to the maintenance of relationships.Rusbult found that costs and rewards from a relationship were weighed up in comparison to possible alternative relationships when deciding whether they should be maintained which supports that social exchange models idea that people assess rewards by making comparisons.However a third element of investment (Commitment) was also a factor in this in which people compared how much they had invested into the relationship and what they stood to lose – which SET does not fully recognise suggesting it does not explain such things. Rusbults Investment model looks at this however and better explains this.Hatfield looked at people who felt over or under-benefited. The under-benefitted felt angry and deprived while the over-benefited felt guilty and uncomfortable. This supports SET theory by suggesting that regardless of whether individuals benefitted, they do not wish to maintain a relationship which is unfair.Equity Theory may better explain this however and how it may that that theory is better suited to explain such as if, as SET proposes, it is all about profit – then surely when people feel they are over-benefiting they are more inclined to maintain the relationship.Rubin believed that although people are not fundamentally selfish – attitudes towards others are determined to a large extent by how rewarding we think they are for us supporting the theory.Argyle criticised methodologies that evaluate SET as being contrived and artificial with little relevance to real life relationships.Sedikides claimed that people are capable of being completely unselfish in relationships and do things for others without expecting anything in return – which is most evident in relationships with those emotionally close to us. Sedikides believed that individuals could bolster their partners self-esteem when faced with failures or stress and therefore SET’s theory of humans being out for what they can get is simplistic and inaccurate.Fromm argued against the theory also arguing that true “love” was about giving as opposed to false love where people expect to have favours returned.

Most research has tended to concentrate on short-term consequences of relationships rather than the long-term maintenance and what drives them.This theory may apply to those that keep “score”. Mustein et al devised the exchange orientation tool, identifying such scorekeepers; who are suspicious and insecure suggesting that the theory only suits relationships lacking confidence and mutual trust.

Equity TheoryEquity does not mean equality; instead it perceives individuals as motivated to achieve fairness in relationships and to feel dissatisfied with inequity (unfairness). Definitions of equity within a relationship can differ between individuals.Maintenance of relationships occurs through balance and stability. Relationships where individuals put in more than they receive or receive more than they put in are inequitable, leading to dissatisfaction and possible dissolution.The recognition of inequity within a relationship presents a chance for a relationship to be saved – that is, maintained further by making adjustments so that there is a return to equity.Relationships may alternate between periods of perceived balance and imbalance, with individuals being motivated to return to a state of equity. The greater the perceived imbalance, the greater the efforts to realign the relationship, so long as a chance of doing so is perceived to be viable.Walster et al saw equity as based on four principles;

Profit – Rewards are maximised and costs minimised by both parties Distribution – Trade-offs, compensations and rewards are negotiated to achieve fairness in a

relationship. Dissatisfaction – The greater the degree of perceived unfairness, the greater the sense of

dissatisfaction. The “loser” feels this more acutely however.

Realignment – If restoring equity is possible, maintenance will continue with attempts made to realign equity. The greater the inequity the greater the effort required to restore balance.

Yum et al looked at different types of heterosexual romantic relationships in six different cultures. As predicted by equity theory, maintenance strategies differed with individuals in perceived equitable relationships engaging in the most maintenance strategies, followed by those in perceived over-benefitted and under-benefitted relationships. Cultural factors had little effect suggest that equity theory can be applied to relationships across cultures and cultural bias may not be as big an issue with this theory.

Canary and Stafford devised the Relationship Maintenance Strategies Measure (RMSM) using it to assess degree of equity in romantic relationships. A link was found between degree of perceived equity and the prevalence of maintenance strategies implying that equitable relationships are those that are maintained.

Dainton studied 219 individuals in romantic relationships, finding that those in relationships of perceived inequity had low relationship satisfaction, but were motivated to return to an equitable state to maintain the relationship suggesting that equity is a main factor in relationship satisfaction and maintenance.

Argyle found that people in close relationships do not think in terms of rewards and costs unless they feel dissatisfied, implying that equity, at least in a conscious fashion, is not a valid explanation in relationship maintenance.

Murstein and MacDonald supported Argyle, finding that conscious concern with “getting a fair deal”, especially in the short term makes compatibility hard to achieve, especially between married couples.

Equity theory still portrays people as selfish. Many researches such as Duck prefer to see people as concerned with an equitable distribution of rewards and costs for themselves and their partners.Thibaut and Kelley proposed interdependence theory, which suggests that not all social interactions reflect a mutual desire for equity and fair exchange. Intimate relationships are both diverse and complex and partner’s motives can clash as well as converge, producing many outcomes, including aggression, altruism, competition, capitulation, cooperation and intransigence (digging your heels in). Interdependence theory goes beyond individual partners, considering the harmony or conflict between attitudes, motives, values or goals of people in social relationships.Such theories can also be argued to be deterministic as they ignore important factors such as “free will” and why people may still remain in relationships that are deemed to be quite costly. An example of this is domestic abuse cases where despite heavy costs a person may still claim to “love” their partner.Therefore “love” itself is not factored into this and what this really means. Love can be argued to be difficult to measure and so such theories may be ignoring an important variable.

The investment model by Rusbult may be a better measure of the maintenance of relationships in the long-term as studies in this respect have shown that “commitment” and what a person has invested into the relationship (children, possessions, emotions) can be a better predictor than Equity in some relationships.This could actually also explain why partners may remain in abusive relationships; due to the fear of losing what they have invested and committed to.Sprecher believed that close relationships are too complex to allow for precise assessment of various rewards and costs involved in establishing equity. Quantifying every perceived reward and cost is subjective to individuals and different from one person to another and far too difficult.Mills and Clark believed that it was not possible to assess equity in loving relationships as much input is emotional and therefore also unquantifiable – and to do so would diminish the quality of love.The theories could be argued to be reductionist as they are attempting to simplify the complexities of human interactions into a simple profit-loss understanding and humans are more complicated than that.Equity also seems to be more important to females than males suggesting gender bias as the theory may not apply to both genders. Hoschchild et al found that women do most the work to make relationships equitable.Culture bias may also be a factor as research by Moghaddam et al found that US students prefer equity while European students prefer equality suggesting that the theory may reflect the values of more western cultures and US society.Also the samples were that of students and during these younger years the motivation in maintaining a relationship may be more short-term and down to simple profit/loss scenarios however this may change in long-term relationships.Therefore such theories may lack external validity and not apply to the whole general population and only be related to younger individuals and not perhaps older couples who may see things differently.The theories may also lack internal validity if conclusions are drawn from such small samples of one group of people (students here in Moghaddams study) and this may not actually be measuring what it intends to measure which is what contributes to the maintenance of relationships overall in the general population.Such Social Exchange theories may be based more on western cultures and this may not necessarily be true of eastern cultures or cultures where arranged marriages occur where families may be involved. Thus some individuals may be maintaining relationships that they may perceive themselves to have more losses than benefits and Social exchange theories are unable to explain this.Modern Social Exchange TheoryLike most rational choice theorists, social exchange theory's advocates sometimesmake proposals for resurrecting the "species of homo economicus" Ironically, such an actorconcept seems closer to homo sociologicus that exchange and other rational choice theoristsreject than to homo economicus in the strict sense, as an assumed embodiment of perfectrationality and driven by the ingrained propensity to exchange for maximum gain.Admittedly, following Pareto and Weber, homo sociologicus is "an advance over homooeconomicus.The remainder of the paper presents outlines of an alternative social exchange. It alsodiscusses the possible relevance of such social exchange theory for group processes andintergroup relations. A key argument is that groups just as individuals represent exchangeagents as well as that economic exchanges, particularly market transactions, are only one of the multiple forms and facets of within-group processes and between-group relations.Toward AN Alternative Theory OF Social ExchangeThis section of the paper outlines a different and more satisfactory multilevel socialexchange theory predicated on the perspective of a sociological social psychology (Cook,2000; Markovsky, Smith and Berger, 1984; Stolte et al., 2001), or psycho-sociology. Thisperspective stresses the macro-social or structural underpinnings of micro-level or individualbehaviors, including exchange relations (Blau, 1994), and the overall co-determinationbetween structure and agency.Explanation of Theory:The Communication Theory of Social Exchange is a theory based on the exchange of rewards and costs to quantify the values of outcomes from different situations for anindividual. Peoplestrive to minimize costs and maximize rewards and then base thelikeliness of developing a relationship withsomeone on the perceived possible outcomes.When these outcomes are perceived to be greater, we disclose more and develop a closerrelationship with that person.Metatheoretical Assumptions:This is a humanistic theory because it has intuitive credibility, it makes sense and isrelative to actual communication practice. It has a systematic approach and is timely. Thereare multiple truths. It also has heuristic value because it is easily applicable to situations.Critique:This is a scientific theory. It has explanatory power in that it predicts individualsminimize costs and maximize rewards within their relationships. This theory has predictivepower in that it predicts that when outcomes are perceived to be greater individuals self disclose more. It also simple and capable of being proved false. The theoretical propositionswith the theory are consistent with each other. This theory generates new hypothesestherefore expanding the range of potential knowledge and also organizes existing knowledge.

Ideas and Implications:The viability of social exchange rests on the assumption that human beings recognizeeach other's life situations, notice each other's needs, and in some ways are likely to engagein reciprocity - a condition in which a response is correlated to the worth of the originalmessage. In other words, humans act with other humans in full recognition that their acts willbe noticed and in some way reciprocated (i.e., that they will receive a return on theircommunicative investment).Basic ConceptsThe basic concepts addressed in social exchange theory are: Cost, Benefit, Outcome.Comparison Level, Satisfaction, and Dependence. Benefits include things such as materialor financial gains, social status, and emotional comforts. Costs generally consist of sacrifices of time, money, or lost opportunities. Outcome is defined to be the differencebetween the benefits and the costs:

OUTCOME = BENEFITS COSTSNote that because individuals have different expectations of relationships, anindividual's satisfaction with a relationship depends on more than just the outcome. For anytwo people with the same outcome, their level of satisfaction may differ based on theirexpectations. One person may not expect very large outcomes, and therefore would be moreeasily satisfied in relationships than someone who expects more.SATISFACTION = OUTCOME - COMPARISON LEVELSatisfaction is not enough to determine whether a person stays within a relationshipor leaves for an alternative. That is to say, there are people who stay in unhappyrelationships as well as those who leave happy relationships. What determines whether anindividual stays in a relationship or leaves is the set of alternate relationships available. If there are many alternatives available to an individual, than that individual is less dependenton the relationship. This notion of dependence is formalized as the difference between theoutcome and the "comparison level of alternatives":ConclusionThe preceding discussion suggests that exchange and related concepts borrowed fromorthodox economicsviz., non-economic (marriage, political, religious, intellectual)markets, social capital, psychic income, profit, cost-benefit, investments-are metaphors oranalogies at best. Yet, in its rational choice (and behavioral) rendition, "social exchange"becomes an empty concept or pseudo-mathematic trick emptied of any substantive content.Such an economistic-behaviorist conceptualization of social action and societysuggests that omni-potent (in terms of scope) market concepts, such as exchange or rational(including public) choice, do not represent always theories of the market, A theory of markets performs description and explanation of the character and operation of marketvariables, processes and structures like prices, demand, supply, exchange, competition,monopoly, etc. in their economic and societal framework rather than construing non-market categories as "markets", human interaction as "exchange" of rewards or economiccompetition, as does social exchange (and other rational choice) theory.