Discuss explanations of the maintenance of relationships

Despite the fact that many of the main assumptions of exchange theory were supported by research, it soon became clear that, for most people, profit was less important than fairness in relationships. This resulted in a modified version of the exchange theory, namely the equity theory (Walster et al 1978). The equity theory holds that it is inequality in relationships that has the greater potential to create dissatisfaction. People who contribute a great deal in a relationship and receive little in return would perceive inequality, as would those who receive a great deal and give little in return. The greater the inequality in the relationships, the greater the dissatisfaction would be. This theory would describe an equitable relationship as one where one partner’s benefits minus costs equals the other partner’s benefits minus costs. Perceived inequality would motivate a person to either restore a relationship or end it.

These explanations of the maintenance of relationships are arguable culture biased. Research does not support the view that equity is equally important in all cultures, implying that the equity theory represents a culturally biased view of the factors that are important in relationship satisfaction. Aumer-Ryan et al (2007) interviewed men and women at the University of Hawaii (a relatively individualistic culture) and the University of the West Indies in Jamaica (a relatively collectivist culture). They found a cultural difference in how men and women from these different cultures perceived inequalities in their relationships. The Hawaiian sample were most satisfied when they perceived their relationships as equitable whereas the Jamaican sample were most satisfied when they perceived themselves to be over benefiting from their relationship. For both men and women in the Jamaican sample, equity was of less importance in determining relationship satisfaction. In a similar wary, the social exchange theory is also culturally biased. Moghaddam (1998) suggests that ‘economic’ theories such as the social exchange theory only apply to Western cultures and even then, only to certain types of relationships among individuals with high social mobility. Less mobile groups and members of many non-Western cultures would be more likely to value security in a relationship than personal profit. This once again demonstrates that these theories are culturally biased.

The explanations of the maintenance of relationships are reductionist. These ‘economic’ theories seem to state relationships are maintained for reasons that appear void of emotion and focus purely on benefits and costs in a relationship. This is reductionist because despite the fact that this may be the case with some couples not all couples apply the principle of equity. This would show this explanation as reductionist as clearly other factors involved else those relationships would, by this explanation, not be maintained. Feeney et al (1994) argue that equity is not as important in real-life relationships as this theory suggests. Relationships in the modern world are most sophisticated, and a simple cost/benefit analysis is too simplistic. Research by Clark and Mills (1979) suggested that some couples also work ‘communally’. This means that they want to love and care for each other; they do not see their relationship as a situation were they have to give and receive in equal amounts. It seems that such couples do not keep count of investment and cost, but have the underlying conviction that it will all be even in the end. They are therefore, happy to accept there may be times when one partner needs more support and does less. There could be other important factors involved such as Bowlby’s continuity hypothesis that links back to the internal working model and suggests there is consistency between early emotional experiences and later relationships. This has been supported by research by Hazan and Shaver (1987) as findings showed that those with a secure attachment to their parents had lower rates of divorce. Therefore a relationship could be maintained because two people have secure, happy relationships due to their internal working model.

It should be taken into account that there is conflicting research into this topic that is arguably subjective. For example research by Stafford and canary supports the equity theory. They surveyed 200 married couples about equity and satisfaction and satisfaction was lowest for those who perceived themselves as most under benefited. Yet research by Steil and Waltman found women generally rated a husband’s career as more important as their own. Therefore as women were found to seek less for themselves, this makes equity a less relevant explanation of relationship and satisfaction. Having conflicting research therefore makes this an unreliable field of psychology. In addition, the data obtained from such research is self-reported and due to the personal nature of questions, social desirability bias could be relevant. On an ethical level such research is arguably intrusive and could potentially risk participants to undue harm as realisation that they were perhaps putting more into their relationship than their partner could result in their unhappiness or anger.