Theories of Romantic relationships

Equity theory

Ducks phase model of Relationship breakdown

Social exchange theory

Rusbult’s investment model of commitment

Relationships are based on the benefits (or rewards) that someone perceives they will gain from the relationship vs the costs that are involved. In a relationship, individuals attempt to maximise their benefits / rewards and minimise the costs.

The Theory states that we use two ways to measure the profit in a romantic relationship: This is based on an individuals:
Comparison level (CL) - Comparing current relationships and past relationships, and early stages of relationships.
Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) - Other potential relationships are looked at. If they are judged to offer more benefits, the current relationship is likely to break up. (Looking sideways).

The social exchange theory has been adapted further by Thibualt and Kelley et al who proposed a 4 stage model. As couples become familiar with each other they understand how the other partner exchange costs and benefits.
Sampling stage: rewards and costs are assessed in a number of relationships
Bargaining stage: A relationship is costed out and benefits and costs start to be identified within the relationship e.g sex life, emotional care.
Commitment stage: rewards/costs slowly become predictable as the relationship enters new stages
Institutionalisation stage: Interactions become predictable and the couple 'settles down’.

Sprecher (2001) found that Comparison Levels for alternatives were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship and that rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction, especially for women.
Social Exchange Theory is used in Integrated behavioral to help develop couples therapy focusing on the perceived or actual costs and rewards, where couples are taught how to increase the proportion of positive exchanges and decrease negative exchanges.
Rusbult suggests that costs are not really considered during the stage where a relationship is forming, only much later when the relationship becomes more important & when begins to break down.
The theory could be more suited to Western individualistic cultures. It could be that in other cultures, costs and benefits may be perceived in a very different manner.
some people stay in relationships when the costs outweigh the benefits such as in cases of domestic violence & abuse.

Walster, refined SET with Equity theory. This is another economic model of R/ships, but is based on the idea of fairness for each partner, not necessarily equality. Individuals become dissatisfied with R/ships if they feel they are suffering from inequity (unfairness) Individuals become dissatisfied with R/ships if they feel they are suffering from inequity (unfairness) If they are over-benefitting or under-benefitting – dissatisfaction occurs. In other words, when partners feel they put in more than they receive, or they receive more than they put in, the R/ship is considered inequitable & could end. Partners will recognise disparity and couples have chances to save their R/ships.

click to edit

Profit - Rewards are maximised and costs minimised.

Distribution - Trade offs and compensations are negotiated to achieve fairness in a relationship

Dissatisfaction - The greater the degree of perceived unfairness, the greater sense of dissatisfaction

Realignment - If restoring equity is possible, maintenance will continue with attempts made to realign equity.

Dainton studied 219 individuals in romantic relationships. Found people who perceived inequity had low satisfaction in their relationship. However, most individuals were actually
motivated to return to an equitable state.
Yum et al researched cultural differences in 6 different cultures. While they were differences between cultures, Yum found that equitable couples performed the most maintenance strategies suggesting it takes a lot of effort to keep a relationship equitable.
There is a cause and effect issues with this theory. Although inequity and dissatisfaction are linked it's merely correlational. Clark (1984) argues most people in R/ships do not think in terms of rewards and equity = if they do the R/ships in trouble. This suggests dissatisfaction may cause feelings of inequity.
Neglects to consider individual differences in r/ships for example, not all partners in r/ships are concerned about achieving equity. Huseman (1987) suggested that some people are less sensitive to equity than others. They are seperated into two types of people:
Benevolents - those who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it.
Entitleds - those who believe they deserve to over benefit and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
Practical application of using this theory can help develop couples therapy to focus on the FAIRNESS in R/ships. That would involve working out what each person feels is fair and unfair and how can we restore equity to maintain the relationship

Rusbult suggests that commitment depends on three factors. Satisfaction - To what degree does the partner meet your needs (e.g. sexual needs). Comparison with alternatives - Does the relationship stand up to other possible alternatives. Commitment to the relationship is stronger if needs are adequately met. Investment size - Refers to how much resources the relationship has. The longer the relationship continues, the more the partners have invested into it (such as emotionally care, shared kids etc). The more that is invested, the stronger the commitment. Ending the relationship at this point would make all that investment useless.

click to edit

Rusbult also suggests that commitment expresses itself in everyday maintenance behaviour. Accommodation - Acting in a way that promotes relationships, rather than keeping a tally of costs and rewards. Willingness to sacrifice – putting partner's interests first. Forgiveness - willingness to forgive partner's mistakes, both minor and serous ones. Positive illusions - being unrealistically positive about partner's qualities. Ridiculing alternatives - minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light.

Some psychologists suggest there is problems measuring the key variables involved due to the reliance on self-report techniques, such as questionnaires and interviews.
The majority of research into the Investment Model is correlational, so psychologists are unable to conclude that investment causes commitment in relationships.
Le & Agnew (2003) Meta analysis of 52 studies including 11,000 participants from 5 countries. They found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationship where commitment was greatest where most stable and long lasting. Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) argue that it is not just things we bring to the relationships that could count as investment, but also a couple's plans for their future. In the early stages, partners will have made very few actual investments.
According to the investment model, if a partner feels that the investment they made into relationships will be lost if they leave, they are more likely to stay in a relationship even when the costs are high (such as physical or emotional abuse) and rewards are few. Research like Rusbult and Martz supports this.
Rusbult’s investment model of commitment has got wide application in society e.g. across countries and sexual orientations
Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis reviewed the results of 52 different studies that used participants from five different countries (US, UK, Netherlands, Israel and Taiwan). They also included both hetrosexual and homosexual couples; couples that were married and unmarried; romantic relationships, abusive relationships and friendships.

Duck proposed that there are three major types of relationship breakdown:

  1. Pre-existing Doom - The relationship was doomed to end from the start. Could be a result of the partners simply being incompatible for each other.
  1. Mechanical Failure - Partners who are compatible slowly grow apart over a long period of time and decide that things are no longer working (the most common cause of breakups).

Duck also proposed 5 minor reasons which contribute to relationship dissolution. These are:

  1. Sudden Death - This is where the relationship suddenly ends. Discovering a partner has cheated or the couple has a huge argument, which swiftly ends the relationships.

Predisposing personal factors - Bad habits or poor personal hygiene

Duck believed that the reasons given to others as to why the relationship ended are typically much more interesting than the actual reason.

Lack of motivation - Previous theories cover this – e.g. inequity. Or perhaps an individual does not put the effort into the relationship

Lack of maintenance - Spending much time apart, not setting time aside for the relationship, independence too much of a feature.

Lack of skills -If your partner is sexually inexperienced or doesn’t fulfil your sexual needs. Poor cooking skills could also contribute.

Precipitating factors - Things like love rivals, long work hours, boredom

Duck’s 4 phases of relationship dissolution:

  1. Intrapsychic - Focus on partner’s behaviour. Assess the adequacy of partners performance. Focus on the negative aspects of the relationship. Consider the costs of withdrawing from the relationship. Look at what the individual gets from the relationships in terms of benefits. Private dilemma of whether to raise the issues with the relationship or not.
  1. Dyadic - Confront partner over inadequacies. Negotiation of future behaviour. Possible attempt to repair problems (although not always). Both assess the costs of withdrawing from the relationship.
  1. Social - Negotiate post-relationship dynamic with partner. Gossip in friendship/family circles. Face
    -saving stories are created in case of breakup, blame is also attributed. Consideration of the social backlash of relationship breakdown.
  1. Grave Dressing - Perform ‘getting over it’ activities. Going out - drinking/drugs. Retrospective, reformative post-mortem attribution. Publicly distribute own version of breakup.
  1. Resurrection Phase - modified theory (added in 2006.) Reconfiguring oneself for future relationships, showing personal growth. Tashiro & Frazier (2003) survey 92 students. Found number of personal growth factors that led from breakdowns to help in the future e.g. gained wisdom from past relationships.

Evaluation of Duck's Relationship Breakdown theories

There is evidence to support some aspects of Ducks theory of R/ship breakdown Tashiro & Frazier (2003) surveyed 92 students about relationship breakdown and found that a number of personal growth factors that had developed from breakdowns helped them in the future.

Duck’s model of relationship breakdown could offer some useful practical applications, especially to help prevent relationship breakdown. As people can be found in different stages, key advice could be tailor made for individuals. E.G. If someone is clearly in the intrapsychic stage, they could be encouraged to open up to their partner sooner and share concerns while they are still at the early stage of concerns.

The model does not consider reasons why this dissatisfaction & unhappiness has occurred which is likely to have a massive influence on the breakdown. For instance, there is likely to be a big difference (personally and socially) between relationships that have ended due to infidelity compared to long distance obstacles.

The model is based on relationships from individualist cultures, where ending the relationships is a voluntary choice, and separation and divorce are easily obtainable and do not carry stigma. However, this may not be the case in collectivist cultures, where relationships are sometimes arranged by wider family members, and characterised by greater family involvement. This makes the relationship difficult to end, which means that the break-up process will not follow the phases proposed by Duck.

There may be some ethical problems i.e. (its socially sensitive) when it comes to studying relationship breakdown that Duck and researchers must be conscious of. For ethical reasons it’s difficult to study relationships during breakdown, this is because it is potentially traumatic and upsetting time for the couple involved. It could also be argued that they do not wish to discuss the more personal elements of reasons for breakdown. They also may not want to look like the person who is responsible for the breakdown, so the information may not be accurate or consistent as different versions of the same break up could be provided by each person after the relationship.