4.3.2 - Theories of romantic relationships

Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory treats relationships as exchanges of rewards and costs. It distinguishes judging the relationship against expectations from judging it against available alternatives. Those comparisons help explain why satisfaction and staying are not the same thing.

In social exchange theory, rewards and costs produce an overall outcome, often called profit. Satisfaction depends on how that outcome compares with the person's expectations, not merely whether rewards exceed costs:

$\text{outcome} = \text{rewards} - \text{costs}$

This does not mean people literally sit with a spreadsheet. It means they may consciously or unconsciously judge whether the relationship feels worthwhile.

One important cost is opportunity cost. Time, emotional energy or money spent in one relationship cannot be spent elsewhere. For example, if Sam spends every weekend travelling to see his partner, he may lose time with friends, hobbies or other possible relationships.

The comparison level, often shortened to CL, is the expected standard of relationship outcomes a person thinks they deserve. A person with high expectations may judge the same relationship as less satisfying than someone with lower expectations. This makes social exchange theory subjective: the same reward-cost pattern can be experienced differently by different people.

The comparison level for alternatives helps explain commitment. A person may stay in a relationship that is not very satisfying if they believe the alternatives are worse. Equally, a person may leave a fairly satisfying relationship if an alternative appears to offer greater rewards and fewer costs.

For example, imagine a relationship's outcome is rated 6 on an illustrative scale. Someone whose expected standard is 8 may be dissatisfied; someone expecting 4 may be satisfied. If the first person rates their best alternative only 3, they may still stay. These numbers illustrate relative judgements, not a validated equation that predicts a person's decision.

AO2 example. Nina enjoys her partner's humour and support, but their arguments are frequent and exhausting. Her CL is high because she grew up around affectionate relationships. She also thinks being single would be less stressful than staying. Social exchange theory predicts low satisfaction because costs are high, and low commitment because her CLalt is attractive.

AO3 link. A strength of social exchange theory is that it explains why alternatives matter, not just current happiness. However, it can be criticised for being too reductionist. Romantic relationships may involve love, duty, attachment, children, social pressure and moral commitment, not just personal profit.

Equity Theory

Equity theory keeps the economic language of rewards and costs, but shifts the focus from personal profit to perceived fairness. The core idea is not "get as much as possible". It is "does the relationship feel fair compared with what each partner puts in?"

Equity is not the same as equality. Equality means an equal division of a specified contribution or benefit, rather than necessarily a fair return for different contributions. Equity means the ratios feel fair. For example, one partner may earn more money while the other does more childcare. The relationship may still feel equitable if both partners believe their contributions and benefits are proportionate.

When partners judge their ratios to be unfairly different, one may feel underbenefitted relative to the other, who is overbenefitted. This is a comparison between partners' perceived ratios, not simply whether either person receives more than they put in.

The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the predicted dissatisfaction. Equity theory also predicts that people try to restore equity in one of two broad ways:

• Behavioural restoration: changing what happens, such as asking a partner to do more housework, reducing one's own effort or renegotiating responsibilities.
• Cognitive restoration: changing how the situation is interpreted, such as deciding that a partner's messiness is not a serious cost, or that their emotional support compensates for doing fewer practical tasks.

AO2 example. Zara works full-time, organises all social plans and does most household tasks. Her partner Lee earns slightly more money, but rarely helps at home. Zara may become dissatisfied because she feels underbenefitted: her input-outcome ratio is worse than Lee's. If Lee begins cooking and planning more, behavioural restoration may improve equity.

Named evidence. Utne, Hatfield, Traupmann and Greenberger (1984) studied equity, marital satisfaction and stability in newlywed couples. The research is commonly used to support the idea that perceived equity is linked to relationship contentment and stability. People who reported equity also reported greater contentment and perceived stability. This supports the predicted link with fairness, but perceived stability is not the same as observing that the marriage later survived. The association also cannot show whether fairness improves satisfaction or satisfied partners judge the division more kindly.

AO3 link. A limitation is that equity is deeply subjective. Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987) proposed individual differences in equity sensitivity: some people are more tolerant of underbenefit or overbenefit than others. This challenges an assumption that inequity produces the same response in everyone. It does not show that fairness is irrelevant; the meaning and tolerability of a contribution can vary.

Rusbult's Investment Model

Rusbult's investment model develops social exchange theory by explaining why some people remain in relationships even when satisfaction is low. The central concept is commitment. A person may be dissatisfied but still committed because leaving would mean losing important investments and because alternatives look poor.

Rusbult first tested the model in romantic associations in 1980 and later explored it longitudinally in 1983. The AQA version names the three determinants of commitment: