Exposure increases the opportunity for two people to interact – and thus offers the opportunity for familiarity. There is evidence that increased exposure and familiarity leads to greater liking. Argyle and Argyle state that the more two people interact, the more polarised their attitudes toward each other become, usually in the direction of greater liking. Saegert tested this theory (the Mere Exposure Effect by Zanjonc) in his Taste of Strangers Experiment. They found that the subjects of their experiment’s liking to other subjects was directly proportional to how many interactions they had had with them. The more interactions, the greater the liking.
As physical attractiveness is hard to measure, it is hard to study. But, the idea of physical attractiveness affecting compatability has been measured in the context of initial attraction. Berscheid and Walster found that the enjoyment of a partner’s company in a dance directly correlated with the physical attractiveness of the partner (measured by an objective bystander who scored their attractiveness). Therefore, we could assume that physical attractiveness is a very real reward, and that it would help maintain the quality of the relationship. If one partner became progressively unfit or unattractive, faster than the second partner, then the second partner should become dissatisfied. This could lead to the breakdown of the relationship, if the second partner felt that the comparison level alternative (Thibaut and Kelley) would satisfy them better.
Similarity is rewarding, according to Rubin (1973), because: agreement is likely to provide the opportunity for partners to engage in joint activity; we assume those with similar views to ourselves will like us, so like them in return; communication is easier if we agree on things that matter to us; if our partner agrees with us, this boosts our self esteem about our own oppinions; we are vain enough to believe that those who share our views are sensitive and praise-worthy.
Similarity exists between these two theories in that they both discuss rewards and investment. They both state that relationships require significant investment on the part of both partners for it to work and thus both say that a relationship is likely to fail if one person feels as though they are giving more to the relationship than they are receiving out of it.
Thibaut and Kelley, 1978, criticise both theories for failing to account for the complexity of relationships. They say that not all social interactions reflect a mutual desire for equity and fair exchange and that partners’ motives may clash. This can produce effects such as altruism, competition, capitulation and aggression. This is discussed in their Interdependence Theory, which considers the intersubjective harmony or conflict between two people in their values, motives and attitudes.
The main difference between the two theories is that Social Exchange Theory is concerned with the exchange of rewards between the two partners – and the perceived difference between what one partner gives to the other and vice versa. This does not tend to happen. People surely are not always noting whether their partner owes them for something. Whereas Reward Theory is concerned with how each partner perceives to be receiving rewards in comparison with the level of effort they are putting into the relationship as a whole. The latter theory therefore makes allowance for the idea of synergy, that it is possible for both people to benefit from the relationship to a greater extent than they are putting effort in. I.e. if both people put effort into the relationship, the rewards are greater than the sum of the effort of both. This tends to happen, so seems legitimate.
Another similarity between the two theories is that they are both concerned with people’s cognitions – i.e. what people think about the quality of the relationship and with people’s emotions – i.e. whether they are satisfied emotionally in the relationship. It would be possible for theories to have a sociobiological slant or some kind of neurological slant, but these definitely do not.
Another similarity is that they view people as fundamentally selfish, and are both theoretically limited in this sense. For example, neither take into account whether people might stay together for any ethical reason like for the sake of a child. They assume that people only think about themselves, and it is almost as if the two people are not in love at all. If they were in love, you would think that they would want to help their partner, rather than only doing so in expectation of a reward.
