In addition we are not as selfish as this and do not necessarily need to gain anything in order to gain pleasure from the relationship. Equally we do not necessarily consider the benefits of it merely that we want to be with that person at that time, perhaps however the consideration of rewards and costs has a more important role in the continuation of relationship after the ‘rose tinted’, ‘first flush’ of love has passed. However plausible this is it still does not consider those relationships that continue despite the significant costs of it. Rusbult supports the belief that we continue based on the strength, or not, of the initial relationship. He found that in the first three months of a relationship the focus is on the rewards of a relationship and that those relationships which were sustainable were those relationships that suffered fewer costs and were thus more mutually beneficial. Therefore this suggests that many relationships are based upon the strengths in which they have at the beginning and perhaps relationships which were strong in the beginning despite what happens later in the relationship are sustained because of this. Therefore the model is predictive and as such has a valuable point in its favour. However it does not consider those who remain in long term relationships because the prospect of a single life commands too much uncertainty to be a sound alternative, and once in the relationship it is harder to leave. Therefore indiviual differences play a role in the continuation of the relationship and this is not considered as this would vary with the person and thus how strong they are depends on how likely they are to make a break if they believe they are gaining little form the relationship.
An explanation of why we remain in a relationship is the level of investment we have already placed in the relationship and may explain why people continue in a relationship that has long been stagnant. Importantly though it does not consider how a once good relationship changes over time and why a relationship becomes unsatisfactory or stagnant. These investments may be anything we would lose if we left, such as a house, car or time and energy. Rusbult believed the greater the investment the less likely the personwas to leave, therefore this offers a more plausible explanation of how and why relationships break down, those who have invested less or see the waste of their investment find it easier to leave. This explanation is supported by research condcuted by Rusbult and Marz who researched the dissolution of abusive relationships. They found that those women who returned were those who had the most to lose financially and had invested heavily in it, such as having children. This suggests that long term relationships do not continue based on rewards and costs but on the level of investment in the relationship and the alternative, such as less money or loneliness that is offered.
Walster proposed the equity theory as an extension of the Social Exchange Theory. This suggests that people expect the rewards they gain form a relatonship to be in proprtion to the amount they have invested in the relationship. Which suggests that we consider our relatinships in the same manner an accountant would our finances and this is flawed as commitment and the value of a kiss aries between people and terefe it is difficult to determine what is a fair exchange or what is equal. When we see a young atractive girl and an old man together and we believe the relationship to be unequal it is likely that the man is very rich and therefire the relationship has equality, with both parties offering something of similar value to the relationship. However how do we know whether that is a fair exchange to either desire for the sake of lookks or money? Equally we expect partners to have a certain level of equality in the roles they fulfill whether it be in or out of the home. Therefore this suggests that happiness in a relationship can only be reached if there is equity within the relationship. However there are many examples of uneven relationships where one partner fulfills more roles within the relationship than the other does and yet the relationship continues for many years. However this is an out of date concept now and this is less likely to occur as we expect a much higher level of equality from our partners. Hatfield supports this idea he found that those who were underbenefitted in a relationship are likely to be angry and resentful and who are over benefitted guilty, which suggests that for a harmonious relationship equlaity is necessary. Further support comes from Buunk who found that those marriages, which were perceived to be equitable, were happier than those relationships were not balanced and those who were underbenefitted were the least happy. Therefore it suggests that in order for both spouses to be equally satisfied it necessary for a balance and equal relationship be it, time energy or financial.
Conversely Hill found that some relationships were not concerned with equity, he found that it does not play a role within families. Parents invest a great deal in to their children and have no expectation of reward from their children, they simply take pleasure in watching them grown and become their own person. Therefoe in this situation investment is based on the child’s need of the parent rather than exchange or reward. Equally this may be the case in other relationships, Cate believed that is the absolute level of rewards rather than fairness which determines the satisfaction which we gain rather than Perfect equity. This may offer a more plausible explanatiuon for why an abusive relationship may continue as they gain pleasure from the high’s and thus consider these when evaluating the reasons to remain in the relationship.
The culture from which we come may also affect the value of this model. Berman researched this possibility and asked participants to decide who tey should give a job to the needy or the excellent worker. He found that given the opportunity to decide whom they should give a job those who came from an individualistic culture placed higher value on excelling in their job and those form the collectivist culture the needy. Which corresponds with their culture as value is placed on need or achievement therefore this suggests that equity can not give us a universally accepted explanation. It applies to those who base their life on investment, be it education and achievement etc and therefore cannot explain the continuation of a relationship universally merely one culture.
In conclusion it is important to note that both explanations have valuable points to consider and yet neither is able to give a universal explanation of relationships. The equity theory seems more plausible than the exchange theory as it considers the partner and the individual. However even this gives little weight to reasons other than economic reasons and therefore although there may be a little of each in every relationship it is not the only force governing relationships and these are the more important factors to consider.
