Outline and evaluate two theories of the maintenance of relationships
Social Exchange Theory (SET) is one explanation of the maintenance of relationships. It assumes that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges where individuals attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise costs. Exchange refers to when an individual receives an award from others, they feel obliged to reciprocate. These rewards that we may receive from a relationship may include companionship, security and sex. Costs are those exchanges that result in a loss or punishment. These may include physical or psychological abuse and loss of other opportunities. The rewards minus the costs equal the outcomes or profits.
Thibaut and Kelly developed a comparison level. They introduced two levels; comparison level and comparison level for alternatives. Our comparison level refers to our past and present and is the product of our experiences in other relationships together with other general views or expectations. If the current relationship exceeds our comparison level, we deem the relationship to be worthwhile and we are motivated to maintain the relationship. If however, the profit is less than our comparison level, we will be left dissatisfied and the other person will appear less attractive as a partner. The comparison level for alternatives, on the other hand, is concerned with the benefits of possible alternative relationships. It involves a person weighing up a potential increase in rewards from a different partner, minus any cost associated with ending the current relationship.
Thibaut and Kelly also developed a four-stage model of long-term relationships. These consisted of sampling, where rewards and costs are assessed in a variety of different relationships. Bargaining, where a relationship is ‘costed out’ and sources of profit and loss are identified, Commitment where the relationship is established and maintained by a predictable exchange of rewards and finally institutionalisation where interactions are established and the couple have ‘settled down’.
At strength of SET is that there is supporting evidence for example from Rusbult. College students completed questionnaires over a 7-month period and found three underlying factors that determined whether they were satisfied with their relationship. These factors included, carefully wighing up the rewards and costs of the relationship, considering the amount they had invested into the relationship and the existence of an attractive alternative. However, Rusbult identified that SET did not explain the early ‘honeymoon’ phase of a relationship where the balance of exchanges were ignored. Methodological issues associated with Rusbult’s study was the use of questionnaires which may lead to social-desirability characteristics where people may not answer truthfully. Participants may have under-reported or over-reported certain behaviours of views which would affect the results. Hatfield also provided supporting evidence for SET as he found that people who felt under-benefited in a relationship felt angry and deprived whereas people who felt over-benefited felt guilty and uncomfortable. This supports the theory by suggesting that, regardless of whether individuals are benefited, they may not desire to maintain a relationship.
However, a weakness of SET is that the explanation is reductionist as it breaks down relationships into basic, social interactions that are focused on selfish awards of a single individual. It also fails to take into account the notion of fairness between to individuals leading to equity. It believes that people are only motivated to maintain relationships out of selfish concerns, when often this may not be the case. This suggests that SET is oversimplified. It is also very mechanistic as not everyone may evaluate their relationship and it is wrong to assume every single individual in a relationship weights up the costs and losses.
It is also difficult to define rewards and costs precisely and these can be subjective and so individual differences may apply as what may be a reward to one person, another may feel it is a cost.
SET also doesn’t account for cultural differences as Moghaddam suggests that these theories only apply to Western relationships and even then only to certain short-term relationships among individuals with high mobility. Therefore SET possesses some validity in western society such as America but not in collectivist’s societies and is therefore culturally bias.

Another theory of the maintenance of romantic relationships is Equity theory. Equity theory offers an explanation of how social exchange works in real-life romantic relationships. It assumes that people strive to achieve fairness in their relationships and feel distressed when unfairness is perceived. People who contribute greatly into the relationship and receive little in return would perceive inequity, as would those who receive a great deal and give a little in return. The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction, and so the greater the dress. Equity is however, different to equality and the ratio of inputs and outputs is used to measure what is fair in a relationships. What are considered inputs and outputs are a subjective opinion of each partner and an equitable relationship should be one where one’s partner’s benefits minus their costs equals their partners benefits less their costs. If we perceive equality, we are motivated to resotre it, for example by changing the amount we put into a relationship, or our perceptions of relative inputs and outputs.
Supporting evidence for this theory comes from research from Dainton, who studied couples and found that those in relationships of perceived inequality had low relationships satisfaction. These individuals were more motivated to return to an equitable state in order to maintain the relationship. This suggests that equity is a main factor in relationship satisfaction and maintenance.