|
|
|
|
While URT deals with uncertainty in initial interactions and uncertainty caused by unexpected events in developed relationships, it is not intended to account for broader patterns, processes, or issues of relationship development and maintenance. One theory proposed in the 1950s and expanded or reformulated during the 1980’s and 1990’s that seeks to explain relationship maintenance and dissolution is social exchange theory, posited by social psychologists John Thibaut and Harold Kelley (1959). This theory suggests that people approach relationships with an economic-like paradigm; their goal is to maximize rewards and minimize costs while focusing on the outcomes of relationships. Social Exchange Theory proposes some basic claims. First, the theory suggests that individuals are rational creatures who calculate the costs and rewards of a relationship. This claim argues that people conceptualize the net outcome of their relationships by seeking to maximize rewards and minimize costs in the relationship (the minimax principle). Rewards are those things in a relationship that have positive value to an individual. Some rewards of friendship are companionship, support, and loyalty. Costs are those things that have negative value to an individual, such as the time and effort involved in a friendship. The net outcome of a relationship is determined by subtracting the costs from the rewards. Relationships in which the costs outweigh the rewards have a negative net outcome; relationships in which the rewards outweigh the costs have a positive net outcome. As with any economic decision, however, the consideration of costs and rewards is not so simple! Just because your costs are higher than your rewards, doesn’t necessarily mean you are not satisfied or will immediately leave the relationship. This recognition led subsequent theorists to propose variations. Equity theory, for example, frames costs and rewards as ratios rather than absolutes (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Thus, a person may have many costs in a relationship, but if his or her ratio of costs to rewards is about equal to his or her partner’s ratio, then he or she is likely to be satisfied. This accounts for the situations where both partners are investing a great deal of cost in a relationship with relatively fewer rewards (e.g., when both are in college and working with little time for pleasure), but they see that the ratios are equal. A second assumption of Social Exchange Theory and its extension in Rusbult’s Investment Model (e.g., Rusbult, 1983; Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991) is that our satisfaction in a relationship and our willingness to stay in it are based on whether we think we have any other alternatives and how we think the relationship compares to others we have had or have seen . To use the Sleepless in Seattle situation, should Annie give up her relationship with her fiancé to pursue a relationship with Sam? Just knowing her perception of costs and rewards with her fiancé will not allow us to predict her behavior. First, she will compare her relationship against the subjective notion of the expectations she have about the relationships, that is, the normal level of rewards she expects from such a relationship (the comparison level, or CL). Our comparisons come from our previous experiences in similar relationships, from our perceptions of others’ similar relationships, and even from the similar relationships we read about in books and see on television. Basically, we take all of our knowledge about similar relationships and compare it to our current relationship. The second comparison Annie makes is to alternatives to the relationship (the comparison level of alternatives, CLalt). These alternatives may be real, such as when someone asks us on a date while we are already dating someone else, or they may be perceived. Another alternative that we also take into consideration is not having any relationship at all. While the comparison level is static, based on all prior experiences, the comparison level of alternatives tends to be more dynamic. The CL predicts how satisfying a relationship will be: If the perceived outcomes in the present relationship are more positive than your CL, you will be satisfied in your relationship. The CLalt predicts how stable it will be: If you do not have attractive alternatives, you might stay in a relationship, even if it does not meet your positive expectations. For example, if Annie has had a series of poor relationships, she will have a low standard of what she considers to be normal in romance (a low CL). Thus, she may be reasonably satisfied in her relationship with her fiancé simply because she has not had highly satisfying relationships to form a basis of comparison. Even if she were not satisfied, she may not like the alternative of being alone, or, because of her age, resources, or attractiveness, she may feel that finding another partner will be difficult. Thus, her relationship might be stable, even if not rewarding. Both CL and CLalt have shed light upon some of the reasons why women stay in abusive relationships. Research has indicated that many remain with an abusive partner because their past relationship experiences have been similar and subsequently they have a low standard of what to expect from romantic relationships. Sometimes it may also be because they perceive they have no other alternatives. Of course, Annie’s case is more difficult, because she is satisfied—she is meeting her minimal level of rewards. An attractive alternative may destabilize her otherwise satisfying relationship: Since Sam provides what Annie perceives to be a very rewarding alternative, he complicates her romantic decision. In brief, social exchange theory says that individuals seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs in relationships, but that over time we desire equity. Furthermore we compare our current situations and relationships to real or perceived alternatives and make relational choices based on these comparisons. While the theory is psychological in nature, communication is the process by which we negotiate costs and rewards, and our communication itself is often either costly or rewarding to our partner; as such, the theory has great implications for relational communication. References
|