Compare the explanations for relationship breakdown given by exchange and equity theory. Which do you consider the most convincing and why?

by tanya20 (student)

The social exchange theory was suggested by Thibaut and Kelley in 1959 who said that people exchange resources with the expectation or the hope that they will earn a “profit”. Rewards we may receive from a relationship includes being cared for, companionship and sex. Costs may include financial investment, effort and time wasted. The social exchange theory stresses that commitment to a relationship is dependent on the profitability of the outcome. To see how profitable the relationship would be, we use “comparison level” where the person uses past experiences to have general views on what we expect from future partners. If we judge that the potential profit in a new relationship exceeds our comparison level then the relationship is seen as worthwhile and there the person is seen as more attractive. However, if the profit is less than the comparison level, then we will be dissatisfied with the relationship and therefore the person would be seen as less attractive.

Another explanation for relationship breakdown was given by Walster eta al 1978 called the equity theory. Messick and Cook (1978) suggested that people strive to achieve fairness in their relationship and feel distressed if they perceive unfairness. People who give a great deal into a relationship and gets very little in return would perceive inequity and therefore dissatisfied in the relationship. However, the same applies for those who give very little in relationship but receive a great deal in return. This is also an inequitable relationship with the same consequences for both partners- dissatisfaction. An equitable relationship is one where one partner’s benefits minus their cost equals their partner’s benefits less their costs. If we perceive inequity in our relationship we are motivated to restore it and this can be done in several ways. Firstly, change how much we put into the relationship and demand more out of it. Secondly, we compare our relationship to comparison level to see whether the relationship is worth continuing with or to find a new one.

In my opinion the social exchange theory is the most convincing as there is sufficient evidence for both components of the theory. A study which supports the “comparison level” was done by Simpson et al (1990), who asked participants to rate members of the opposite sex in terms of attractiveness. Those participants who were already involved in a relationship gave lower ratings. This is supportive of the social exchange theory as it indicates that we do have a “comparison level” of which we judge or compare against.

According to the behaviourist approach, we learn all behaviours through operant and classical ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

According to the behaviourist approach, we learn all behaviours through operant and classical conditioning. Operant conditioning is when you learn through the reinforcement and receipt of rewards. For example, we are more likely to be attracted to someone whom directly rewards us by meeting out psychological needs for friendship, love and sex. Classical conditioning is when we learn through association (indirect reward) of pleasant circumstances. For example, if we associate people with being in a good mood, or removing a negative mood, we are more likely to find them attractive.

This approach directly links with the social exchange theory as they both engage the components of reward. The behaviourist approach supports this theory in that we do base our decisions on the rewards we get, which can be linked with operant conditioning where we learn through reinforcement. Further to this, the social exchange theory also takes into account of past experiences through “comparison level” which can be explained using classical conditioning. This is when we learn through association. Through these explanations we can conclude that if there is no reward or reinforcement, or if we find someone else who exceeds our comparison level to our current partner, it can lead to the break own of the relationship.

However, this theory can be seen as culturally biased as many non-western cultures feature relationships without regard for receiving rewards or prioritising selfish needs. Moghaddam (1998) suggests this theory can only be applied to western relationships and even then only to certain short term relationships among individuals with high mobility. In addition, the social exchange theory cannot account for gender differences. Women often focus more on the emotional needs of others and males and females tend to find different things rewarding, suggesting that the explanation is gender biased.

Furthermore the notation of exchange can be used to explain why some women stay in abusive relationships. Rusbult and Martz (1995) argue that when investments are high and alternatives are low, this can be considered as a profitable situation and therefore the woman chooses to stay in the relationship.

On the other hand, the equity theory is highly criticised. For example, Ragsdale and Brandau-Brown (2007) reject the claim that equity is key determinant of relationship satisfaction. They argue that this represents “an incomplete rendering of the way in which married people behave with respect to each other”, and that equity theory is, therefore, an insufficient theory to explain marital maintenance.

Likewise to the social exchange theory, the equity explanation is also culturally biased. Moghaddam et al (1983) found that IS students prefer equity, but European students prefer equality, suggesting that the theory reflects the values of US society. Moreover, equity seems more important to females, suggesting that the theory is not applicable to both genders. Hoschchild and Machung (1989) found that women do most of the work to make relationships equitable. Although in counter evidence, Yum et al (2009) looked at different types of heterosexual relationships in six different cultures. As predicted by the equity theory, maintenance strategies differed and he found that cultural factors had little effect, suggesting that the equity theory can be applied to relationships across cultures.

Although there is some evidence for supporting the equity theory, the social exchange theory is far more thorough and has sound supporting research.