Romantic Relationship

Psychologists are interested in investigating why we form romantic relationships and why they last, as they are an intrinsic part of human life for many of the population. The theories studied here take an economic approach, stating that relationships exchange costs and benefits. Some argue that these exchanges should be unequal, whereas others think they should be equitable.

Psychologists have also studied relationship breakdown. Duck (2007) states that relationships break down in stages ranging from the thought of breaking up to the grave dressing, wherein partners make themselves look good in preparation for their next relationship.

Before we delve into that, let us define a romantic relationship.

Theories of romantic relationships

According to psychologists, romantic relationships develop in several ways: physical attraction, proximity, the similarity of attitudes, and complementarity, among other things.

Multiple theories of romantic relationships exist, and we shall cover them below.

Romantic relationships theory: social exchange theory

Thibaut and Kelley (1959) describe relationships in economic terms. They claim that partners strive to maximise rewards (praise, comfort, etc.) and minimise costs (arguments, compromises, stress, etc.). According to Thibaut and Kelley, partners use comparison levels to assess how profitable their relationships are. They also use them to move through the stages of sampling (evaluating the potential costs and benefits of a relationship), bargaining (negotiating costs and benefits), and commitment (when a relationship is stable, rewards increase, and costs decrease).

Evaluation of social exchange theory

For your exam, it is essential to understand the strengths and weaknesses of this theory.

Strengths:

• Social exchange theory lacks mundane realism (does not reflect real-world situations).

• Subjective (everyone has a different experience of relationships).

• Nomothetic approach – tries to set a precedent applicable to everyone.

• Deterministic and reductionist – theory states that relationships are based exclusively on costs and benefits when in reality, many factors influence them.

Social exchange theory views relationships as a conflict between partners to reap the rewards.

Romantic relationships theory: equity theory

Proposed by Walster et al. (1978), equity theory states that partners are concerned with fairness in relationships, concerning the input and output each partner provides and receives off one another. When one partner reaps more rewards from a relationship, they feel guilty, whilst the other partner is dissatisfied, and this is known as inequity and distress.

According to equity theory, partners must strive for equal costs and rewards to maintain a happy, fair relationship.

Evaluation of equity theory

Strengths:

• Supported by research, e.g., Stafford and Canary (2006). They found that partners who view their relationships as equal are the most satisfied.

• Advocates gender equity as it assumes that equitable relationships are the healthiest.

Weaknesses:

• Berg and McQuinn (1986) argued against the equity theory. They conducted a study on married couples and found that dissatisfaction in inequitable relationships was assessed at the beginning of a relationship and predicted if the relationship would last. In contrast, equity theory states that dissatisfaction goes hand in hand with inequity and develops over time, contrary to the results of this study.

• Cause and effect suggest that inequity is the cause of unhappiness in relationships, neglecting other factors that might influence it.

• Gender differences – Sprecher (1992) points out that women feel more guilty when over-benefitting and more unhappy when under-benefitting, implying that equity theory is more applicable to women.

• Cultural differences – Aumer-Ryan et al. (2006) revealed that equity plays a greater role in Western cultures.

Romantic relationships theory: investment model

Rusbult et al. (2001) aimed to improve the social exchange theory, as they found that many couples stay together even though the costs outweigh the benefits.

• According to Rusbult et al. (2001), three main factors ensure commitment: satisfaction level, comparison, and the most important, investment (intrinsic and extrinsic).
• Rusbult et al. (2001) also identified maintenance mechanisms (accommodation, forgiveness, ridiculing alternatives, positive illusions, and willingness to sacrifice) that aid the continuance of a relationship.

Evaluation of the investment model

The investment model has multiple strengths and weaknesses, which you must know for your exam.

Strengths:

• Supported by numerous studies: Impett, Beals, and Peplau (2002), Le and Agnew (2003),

  Rhahgan and Axsom (2006), and Bui, Peplau, & Hill (1996).

• We can apply it to abusive relationships. For example, if you are more invested in a relationship, you are more likely to stay, even in abusive situations.

Weaknesses:

• The majority of research support is correlational.

• Research on equity theory is subjective and unreliable, resulting from questionnaires and interviews.

Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown

Duck (2007) stated that although breakups seem like a one-time event, they are a progressive breakdown in stages. The romantic relationship stages of breakdown are:

• The first stage is the intra-psychic stage, in which a person admits their dissatisfaction.
• In the second stage, the dyadic stage, they admit to their partner that they are unhappy before revealing this to others in the social stage.
• Finally, there is the grave-dressing stage, in which partners try to minimise their mistakes and maximise their positive attributes.
• In 2006, Duck and Rollie added a new stage, the resurrection phase. In this stage, partners move past the pain of the separation and experience personal growth.

Evaluation of Duck’s theory of relationship breakdown

Again, it is important to know the strengths and weaknesses of this theory for your exam.

Strengths:

• Supported by scholarly research, such as Tashiro and Frasier (2003).

• We can apply it to everyday life, e.g., couples counselling.

Weaknesses:

• Most research that supports Duck’s theory is unreliable because it relies on retrospective data (participants look back at their relationships).

• Ethical issues exist, such as invasion of privacy.

• Individual differences exist, as relationships can fail for a variety of reasons.

• Cultural bias – a model based on individualistic cultures, where a breakup is a personal choice and therefore cannot be applied to some collectivist cultures, in which relationships are arranged for the benefit of the group.

• It doesn’t state why relationships fail, only that they do.

Romantic Relationship - Key takeaways

• There are many theories about why we form romantic relationships, namely: the social exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley), equity theory (Walster et al.), the investment model (Rusbult), and Duck’s phase model.

• Some psychologists believe that our attraction is an innate, evolutionary force, whereas others view it as a social phenomenon, stating that factors such as similarity of values influence our attraction.

• The reasons why we stay in a relationship are also debatable. Some think that partners try to take advantage of a relationship, whereas others consider they should strive for equity.

• Duck proposed that relationships break down over time in a series of stages.

• The advantages of relationships theories are that they are instrumental and have much research to support them.

• The disadvantages of theories of relationships are that they are often subjective and come from anecdotal, retrospective evidence.