Thibaut and Kelly proposed we develop a comparison level (CL), a standard of which all our relationships are judged upon – this is supported by Bowlby’s internal working model. Our CL is a product of our experiences in other relationships together with general views of what we might expect from a particular exchange. If we judge that the potential profit of a new relationship is higher than our CL, the relationship will be judged as worthwhile and the person is then deemed attractive within a romantic relationship. Another concept which is related is the comparison levels for alternatives, in which the person weighs up potential increases in rewards from a different partner against any costs associated with ending their current relationships. Simpson et al (1990) study supports the idea of CL. He asked participants to rate the opposite sex in terms of attractiveness; those in relationships gave lower ratings. This may because their current partner meets or exceeds their CL and so therefore does not find it necessary to look elsewhere. However Social Exchange theory does not, on the other hand explain why some people leave a relationship though having no alternative, nor does it suggest how great the disparity in CL has to be for it to become unsatisfactory. In support of this theory it is able to generalise its proposals to all kinds of relationships including friendships, work colleagues, family etc. This suggests a more ample theory and therefore may be more credible against other theories. Some argue that this theory does not account for individual or gender differences- in my opinion is does, because it does not claim a monopoly of the truth of what profit and loss is, therefore leaving it as a subjective concept which can be perceived and defined as desired by each individual. Finally, social exchange theory has been criticised for ignoring an essential component of relationships: fairness in exchange rather than seeking a profit. Equity theory was developed to extend the social exchange theory and takes this into account.
This brings us onto another major economic theory on the maintenance of relationships – the Equity theory proposed by Walster (1978). This argues people look for fairness in a relationship with giving and receiving. This theory states that people feel unhappy if unfairness is part of their relationship at any one time and that inequity has the potential to create distress, this idea is also supported by Messick and Cook (1983). If one partner is giving more than they are receiving, the relationship will be viewed as inequitable. Stafford and Canary (2006) carried out a survey measuring equity and relationship satisfaction with 200 married couples. Scores were highest for spouses who perceived equity, substantiating the view that if a relationship is viewed as fair, contentment is more likely to occur.
If inequity is perceived in a relationship, we are motivated to restore equity, suggesting that we endeavour to gain all rewards possible. This is made possible by changing our input so we can potentially gain a greater output or changing our demands so we feel like we are asking for less. Alternatively we can try and restore psychological equity. We may do this by convincing ourselves that equity does not really exist. For example, if a guy is always taking his girlfriend out and buying her expensive gifts whilst she pays for nothing, she may claim she is not taking advantage because he has a better paid job and that he wants to take her out.
Van Yperen and Buunk (1990) carried out a longitudinal study using 259 couples. 86% were married and the remainder were cohabiting. They obtained a score for equity in the relationship using Hatfield’s Global Measurement of satisfaction and found that 65%of men felt that their relationship was equitable, about 25% of men felt over-benefited, and about the same number of women felt under-benefited. One year later, the couples were asked about the satisfaction. Those who felt their relationship was equitable at stage 1 were the most satisfied, the over-benefited was next followed by the under benefited. The fact that this was a longitudinal study enables the researchers to provide a more detailed analysis rather than a snapshot of relationships which adds validity to the study. Like the Stafford and Canary study this again supports the idea of the equity. De Maris (2007) assessed the importance of equity in relation to marital dissatisfaction and later breakdown using a sample of 1500 American couples, he found that a women’s sense of being under-benefited was most important in predicting later disruption. This raises the issue of gender issues in the perception of inequity, as more men found their relationships over-benefiting in comparison to women.
Other research has shown the importance of equity in gay and lesbian relationships. Dwyer (2000) argues that lesbians put a considerable value on equity with a relationship.
Miell and Croghan (1996) argue that the equity principle is more important in Western, individualistic cultures and less important in collective cultures. This concept is also supported by the study carried out by De Maris as the couples were American – westernised and therefore may not be pertinent to a collectivist culture.
Other critics argue that truly intimate relationships do not involve calculating inputs and outputs.
In conclusion, the evidence advocates that relationships are maintained primarily on a reward/loss bases. Even though social exchange theory and equity theory have minute differences their general ethos remains the same – that one would not maintain a relationship if they felt short changed and would try to restore that balance immediately. However, neither of the theories explains why women may stay in an abusive and/or oppressive relationships were they are clearly in a state of ‘loss’. This brings to our attention that there must be something more to the maintenance of relationships than a means of gain… but what?
by
nadiamondesir (student)
