Learning Table 2 The maintenance of romantic relationships
Economic Exchange Theories
Maintenance of relationships (A01)
Social Exchange Theory (Economic Theory)
(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)
 This theory assumes that all relationships are maintained by a series of
exchanges; individuals attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise their
costs.
Profit & Loss
 In our society, people exchange resources with the expectation that they will earn
a ‘profit’ i.e. that rewards will exceed the costs incurred. Rewards that we receive
from a relationship include: being cared for, sex and companionship. Whereas
costs include: effort, financial investment and time wasted (missed opportunities
with others because of being in that particular relationship). Rewards minus the
costs equal the outcome.
 SET stresses that commitment to a relationship and therefore the maintenance of
a relationships is dependent on the profitability of this outcome.
 For example, Brad Pitt left Jenifer Aniston and their relationship was not
maintained because the loss’ outweighed the profits e.g. Brad wanting children
and not having them and time wasted (missed opportunities with someone else
to have a child) which outweighed the profits of their relationship (E.g. financial
investment, being cared for, both being a good looking celebrity couple).
However, his relationship with Angelina Jolie is still being maintained after 10
years because it can be argued that the profitability of the relationship exceeds
the costs incurred. For example, Brad has brought elements of being a good
provider, able to care, sex, his looks, his status and companionship to his
relationship and is seen as a reward for Angelina, whereas she has brought the
ability to be a mother to his biological 3 children and 3 adopted children, as well
as her looks, kindness, status, gifts such as Brad’s own private island and
companionship which is seen as rewards for Brad. These rewards have exceeded
the costs (such as effort, backlash from the media and Jennifer Aniston’s’
followers about the ‘affair’ after Mr and Mrs Smith in 2004) and therefore the
relationship is still being maintained today.
Comparison Level
 Additionally, Thibault & Kelley suggested that we develop a comparison level – a
standard against which all our relationships are judged.
 Our comparison level (CL) is a product of our experiences in other relationships
together with our general views of what we might expect from this exchange.
 If we judge the potential profit in a new relationship exceeds our CL, the
relationship will be judged as worthwhile, and the other person will be seen as
attractive as a partner and a relationship is maintained.
 If the profit is less than our CL, we will be dissatisfied with the relationship and
the person is less attractive, therefore relationship less likely to be maintained.
 Furthermore, the comparison level for alternatives is where the person weighs up
a potential increase in rewards from a different partner, minus any costs
associated with ending the current relationship.
 A new relationship can take the place of the current one if its profit level is higher,
therefore the current one is less likely to be maintained.
 For example, Mila Kunis, Ashton Kutcher, and McCauley Culkin.
Equity Theory (Walster et al, 1978)
Research Support / commentary
Sex as an exchange resource
P: One strength of SET is that it has been applied to exchanges between
intimate partners, and several studies have demonstrated that sex is used as
an exchange resource. Sex is an important aspect in maintaining
relationships, and deception has become a strategic weapon in this exchange
process.
E: For example, Marelich et al (2008) surveyed 257 students in the USA and
found that men were more likely to use blatant lies about caring about
someone to have sex. Whereas women were more likely to have sex to
avoid confrontation, gain approval and increase intimacy.
E: These findings show that sexual deception is an important part of a social
exchange process, with sex for pleasure and positive relationship outcomes
acting as rewards, and unwanted sex due to guilt and lack of trust acts as a
cost.
L: This study supports SET as it shows that sex for pleasure leads to
maintaining the relationship as it acts as a reward for both people. However,
it becomes a cost through guilt and therefore the relationship is less likely to
be maintained. Consequently, this supportive evidence gives SET credibility
in explaining the maintenance of relationships.
Comparison Level
P: Support for the comparison level in SET can be found by looking at how
people in a relationship deal with potential alternatives.
E: For example, Simpson (1990) asked Pp to rate members of the opposite
sex in terms of attractiveness and found that those participants who were
already involved in a relationship gave lower ratings.
E: This suggests that people deal with potential threats (alternatives) by
reducing them to protect their current relationships. They will reduce the
potential profit of a new relationship in order to make the current one seem
more worthwhile, supporting the assumptions of a comparison level – a
standard against which all our relationships are judged.
L: This strengthens SET in explaining the maintenance of relationships, giving
it credibility overall.
Inequity & Distress
 According to equity theory, any kind of inequity has the potential to create
distress.
 People who give a great deal in a relationship and get little in return would
perceive inequity, and therefore would be dissatisfied in the relationship.
 The same is true of those who receive a great deal and give little in return. This is
also an inequitable relationship, with dissatisfaction for both partners.
 The greater the perceived equity, the greater the dissatisfaction. The greater the
dissatisfaction, the greater the distress and will less likely to be maintained.
Equity & Satisfaction
P: There is empirical evidence to support the assumptions of equity and
satisfaction in the maintenance of relationships.
E: For example, Stafford & Canary (2006) asked over 200 married couples to
complete measures of equity and relationship satisfaction. They found that
satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationships to be
equitable, followed by over-benefited partners and lowest for underbenefitted partners.
E: This supports equity theory because it suggests that relationships other
than those that are ‘equitable’, are not satisfied; especially those that are
under-benefitted. This is because one partner is giving a great deal yet
getting little in return, which support the assumptions of equity theory.
L: Consequently, this increases the reliability of this theory because these
findings are consistent with predictions from equity theory.
Ratio of inputs & outputs.
 Equity does not mean equality. It is possible for each partner to contribute &
receive different amounts and the relationship to be equitable.
 What is considered ‘fair’ in a relationship, is a subjective opinion for each partner
e.g. if one partner puts less in but also gets less out, the relationship will still be
judged fair.
 This is explained in terms of a person’s perceived ratio of inputs and outputs.
 An equitable relationship should be one where one partners benefits minus their
costs equals their partner’s benefits less their costs.
 If we perceive inequality in our relationship, we are motivated to restore it. This
can be achieved by: the amount we put in and the amount we demand from the
relationship; or our perception of relative inputs or outputs in order to restore
equity. We may also compare our relationship to our comparison level for other
relationships to see if it is worth continuing our investment in the current
relationship or to end it to begin a new one.
P: Furthermore, additional support comes from Dainton (2003).
E: They studied 219 individuals in romantic relationships and found that
those in relationships of perceived inequity had low relationship satisfaction,
but were motivated to return to an equitable state in order to maintain the
relationship.
E: This is supportive evidence because the findings are in line with the
assumptions of the theory which argues that if we perceive inequality in our
relationship, we are motivated to restore it. This can be achieved by: the
amount we put in and the amount we demand from the relationship; or our
perception of relative inputs or outputs in order to restore equity; or
compare our relationship to our comparison level for other relationships to
see if it is worth maintaining the current relationship or not.
L: This suggests that equity is a main factor in relationship satisfaction and
maintenance, making theory the credible.

This theory is an extension of SET, with its central assumption that people strive
to achieve fairness and feel distressed if they perceive unfairness, which will less
likely to be maintained (Messick & Cook, 1983).
1)
Describe and evaluate two theories of the maintenance of relationships (8 + 16 marks)
2)
Discuss one theory of the maintenance of relationships (8 + 16 marks)
Further reading Cardwell & Flanagan: Folens - A2 Psychology (pp 44 – 45)
Contradictory evidence
Too Individualistic
P: One issue with SET as an explanation of
maintaining relationships is that it focuses
too much on the individual’s perspective and
ignores the social aspects of a relationship.
E: For example, Duck & Sants (1983) argue
that it is too much of an individualistic theory
and therefore does not focus on how
partners communicate and interpret shared
events.
E: This is an issue because this theory is
arguably ‘selfish’, whereby people put
themselves first and therefore implies they
are only motivated to maintain relationships
out of hedonistic (pleasure-seeking) concerns
– ie they’re only in it to see what they can get
out of it.
L: Consequently, as the theory appears to be
quite derogatory, it’s practicality as a useful
theory in explaining the maintenance of
relationships is reduced. Additionally, if these
principles only apply to individualistic
cultures, this brings with it the issue of
cultural concerns and its external validity can
be questioned.
Evaluation/Synopticity
CI  Culturally Biased
P: One issue with SET as an explanation for the maintenance of relationships is that it is arguably culturally
biased.
E: For example, Moghaddam (1998) suggests that ‘economic’ theories only apply to Western relationships and
only to those individuals in short-term relationships with high mobility e.g. students. They are typically very
mobile and experience many short-term romantic relationships. It makes sense to be concerned with give and
take when there is little time to develop long-term commitment. However, long-term relationships within
other less mobile population groups – especially in non-traditional societies, are more likely to value security
than personal profit.
E: This is an issue because it suggests that SET only applies to certain people in certain cultures and therefore
lacks external validity because it cannot be applied universally.
L: Consequently, this decreases the explanatory power of SET in explaining the maintenance of relationships
overall.
Real Life Application
P: One strength of Social Exchange Theory is that the notion of exchange has been used to explain why some
women stay in abusive relationships.
E: For example, Rusbult & Martz (1995) argue that women could stay in these relationships when investments
are high (e.g. children, financial security) and alternatives are low (e.g. nowhere else to live, no money).
E: This is because this could still be considered a profit situation, in that the rewards (house, financially better
off, remaining as a family for the children’s sake) exceed the costs incurred (being in an abusive relationship)
and therefore choose to remain in these relationships, supporting the assumptions of SET.
L: Consequently, making SET a credible theory because it can account for relationships in real life of those
individuals wouldn’t necessarily stay in otherwise.
(A nice link here would be MAID Culturally
Biased!)
A02: Contradictory evidence  On the other hand…
P: However, there is empirical evidence that refutes equity theory in explaining the maintenance of relationships.
E: For example, Ragsdale et al (2007) rejects the claim that equity is a key determinant of relationship maintenance. They argue it cannot explain why people stay
in unhappy marriages.
E: This is an issue because the theory argues that people strive to achieve fairness and feel distressed if they perceive unfairness in a relationship which is less
likely to be maintained if this happens. However, some couples still choose to stay in unhappy marriages regardless. This may be due to ensuring the children
have a stable family to be raised in; it may be the case of them sticking with someone they know and once loved rather than having the daunting aspect of going
through a divorce, being on their own and finding love again. This has nothing to do with equity, but may in fact just be purely down to not wanting to grow old
alone.
L: As a result, this contradictory evidence reduces the explanatory power of equity theory as an explanation of maintenance of relationships.
 Gender Differences found in the research (NOTE: This is NOT the same as GENDER BIAS when conducting research)
P: Research suggests that men and women might judge the equity of a relationship differently and therefore demonstrates gender difference s in the findings of
the research.
E: For example, Steil & Weltman (1991) found that, among married working couples, husbands who earned more than their wives rated their own career as more
important than the wives’ careers. In such couples the women generally also rated their husbands’ careers as more important as their own. However, in couples
where the woman’s income exceeded the man’s, neither partner rated their career as more important.
E: This suggests that that ‘wives’ tendency to seek less for themselves than comparable men making comparable contributions impedes the achievement of
equality at home, refuting the idea that both sexes in the relationship strive for equity in maintaining their relationship.
L: Consequently, this suggests that men and women might judge the equity of a relationship differently, which in turn may impact on the internal validity of such
research and therefore reduce the support they give to equity theory in explaining the maintenance of relationships.
3) Discuss one explanation of the formation of relationships and one explanation of the maintenance of relationships (8 + 16 marks)
4a) Outline research into the maintenance of relationships (8 marks) HERE – OULTINE RESEARCH STUDIES
4b) Evaluate research into the maintenance of relationships (16 marks) HERE- EVALUATE RESEARCH STUDIES AND LINK IN MAID THROUGHOUT.