Relationships

Investment Models and Economic Theories in Relationships

Investment models and economic theories in relationship psychology propose that individuals engage in relationships in which their ‘profits’ or rewards outweigh their ‘costs’.

Social Exchange Theory (Thibault & Kelley, Homans)

• Relationships are conceptualised as joint financial ventures where both parties aim to ensure that rewards exceed costs.
• The relationship progresses through stages: the sampling stage, where individuals offer ‘samples’ of themselves without expecting anything in return; the bargaining stage, where some costs or sacrifices begin to be required; and the commitment and institutionalisation stage, where rewards increase, costs lessen, and patterns of giving and receiving are established.
• The principle guiding these exchanges is the minimax principle, where both individuals aim to minimise costs and maximise rewards. Costs might include spending time with your partner’s family instead of your own, while rewards might include companionship.
• Profitability in relationships is judged using the comparison level (CL), which is the amount of reward each partner believes they deserve based on past experiences and social norms, and the comparison level for alternatives (CLalt), which evaluates the profit gained in the current relationship versus alternatives, such as being single.

Analysis of Social Exchange Theory

Positives:

• The theory provides a structured framework for understanding the transactional nature of relationships and the progression through different stages.

Negatives:

• The theory has been criticised for being too simplistic, as highlighted by Equity Theory, which argues that mutual benefit is not sufficient for satisfaction; fairness or equity is also necessary. Studies by Utne et al. and Demaris support this, showing that individuals need to feel they are being appropriately rewarded, and if one partner benefits disproportionately, satisfaction for both decreases, a scenario SET does not adequately address.
• It fails to explain why people stay in abusive relationships, as there seems to be no reward that could justify the costs in such scenarios. In contrast, Rusbult’s Investment Theory, which considers investments as reasons for staying in relationships even when they are not satisfying, offers a more robust explanation.

Equity Theory (Walster et al.)

• Equity Theory extends the ideas of Social Exchange Theory by positing that it’s not enough for relationships to be mutually beneficial; they must also be equitable. Both partners’ levels of profit should be proportional to the effort they put in.
• If one partner contributes less but receives more, the relationship becomes inequitable, and satisfaction decreases for both. Partners may resolve inequity by adjusting their levels of effort or by cognitively re-evaluating what counts as a reward.

Analysis of Equity Theory

Positives:

• Equity Theory is considered an improvement on SET by emphasising fairness in the distribution of rewards and costs, which has been supported by empirical evidence from researchers like Utne et al. and Demaris.

Negatives:

• Equity Theory struggles to explain why individuals stay in abusive relationships. It suggests that people may adjust their perceptions to cope with inequity, but it does not convincingly explain the motivations for such adjustments compared to Investment Theory, which posits that existing investments in the relationship can motivate individuals to stay despite high costs.
• Research such as the longitudinal study by Berg and McQuinn challenges the theory by showing that relationships do not necessarily become more equitable over time, and the degree of perceived equity does not consistently predict relationship longevity.

Rusbult’s Investment Model (Rusbult & Van Lange)

• Builds on the concepts of SET but emphasises that relationships also require commitment, influenced by satisfaction levels, the quality of alternatives, and the amount of investment.
• Investments are classified as either intrinsic (direct contributions like emotional commitment) or extrinsic (indirect contributions like shared possessions or mutual friends), which contribute to the commitment to maintaining the relationship despite potential dissatisfaction.

Analysis of Rusbult’s Investment Model

Positives:

• The model effectively explains why people remain in less satisfying or even abusive relationships by highlighting the role of investments. Studies by Rusbult & Martz support this, showing that higher investments correlate with a higher likelihood of staying in abusive relationships.

Negatives:

• Critics argue that the model oversimplifies the early stages of relationships, where investments are not yet significant. Goodfriend and Agnew suggest that commitment in the early stages might be driven by anticipated future plans rather than current investments.
• The empirical support for the model largely comes from correlational studies, which can indicate associations but do not establish causation. This limits the ability to definitively say that investments cause commitment.

Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown

Duck’s model describes the stages of relationship breakdown:

• Intrapsychic Phase: One partner privately assesses their dissatisfaction, focusing on the partner’s faults and considering alternatives.
• Dyadic Phase: Dissatisfaction is discussed between the partners, often leading to conflict and negotiations about the future of the relationship.
• Social Phase: The breakdown becomes public, involving friends and family who may take sides or influence the direction of the relationship.
• Grave-dressing Phase: Post-breakup, individuals craft narratives to justify their actions and reinterpret past events, often shifting the blame to maintain social approval.

Analysis of Duck’s Phase Model

Positives:

• The model provides a detailed framework for understanding the stages through which relationships deteriorate, which can be useful in therapeutic contexts to prevent breakdowns.
• Duck acknowledges the limitations of the initial model and revised it to include more flexibility and an additional resurrection phase, where individuals learn from the breakup and plan for future relationships.

Negatives:

• The model has been criticised for relying on retrospective accounts, which may not accurately capture the dynamic process of relationship dissolution.
• The phased approach might oversimplify the complex and fluid nature of relationship breakdowns, not fully capturing the variability in how individuals experience and react to the end of a relationship.

Virtual Relationships in Social Media

Virtual relationships, which can be formed on social networking sites (SNS) like Instagram or through computer-mediated communication (CMC) like online games (e.g., World of Warcraft), differ from face-to-face relationships due to the absence of physical gating features. Gating factors such as physical appearance or geographical distance, which might normally impede the formation of relationships, are not present in online interactions.

• Change in Self-Disclosure: The absence of physical gating refocuses attention from superficial features to deeper self-disclosure, allowing individuals to present their “true selves”. Research by McKenna and Bargh emphasises that this shift can lead to more genuine connections as initial judgments based on physical appearance are removed.

• Early Theories on Self-Disclosure: Initially, it was believed that people were less likely to share personal information online compared to in-person interactions. Sproull and Kiesler supported this with their reduced cues theory, arguing that the lack of non-verbal cues like facial expressions and tone of voice in online environments leads to a lower sense of identity and discourages intimate self-disclosure.

• Evolution of Theories on Online Interaction: Despite early views, more recent theories suggest that online interactions can still convey rich cues through alternative means. Walther and Tidwell noted that cues in online communication differ from face-to-face interactions but are still present, such as the time taken to respond to messages or the use of emojis.

• Hyperpersonal Model: Walther later developed the hyperpersonal model, which suggests that online communication can be more personal and intimate than face-to-face interactions due to the control over self-presentation and anonymity. This model posits that the reduced cues and increased control over communication encourage individuals to disclose more deeply and form stronger connections.

• Online Disinhibition Effect: Suler’s work on the online disinhibition effect adds to this by explaining that the anonymity of online interactions reduces barriers to self-disclosure. Combined with the absence of gating, this effect allows for rapid intimacy development as individuals feel safer sharing personal information without immediate real-world consequences.

Analysis of Virtual Relationships

Positives:

• Support for Hyperpersonal Model: The hyperpersonal model is supported by studies like those conducted by Whitty and Joinson, who found that people engage in more profound and searching questions in computer-mediated communications, carefully crafting their responses to present themselves in the best possible light. This research strengthens the argument against the reduced cues theory, which suggests that online communication is less personal.

Negatives:

• Complexity of Online Communication: Generalising findings from CMC research can be problematic because the level of self-disclosure varies significantly across different platforms and types of online interaction. For instance, an anonymous forum and a public Tinder profile are likely to exhibit vastly different patterns of self-disclosure due to their inherent differences in privacy and audience.
• Multimodal Relationships: Many online relationships are multimodal, meaning they may begin online but transition to face-to-face interactions, especially in platforms like dating apps. This transition affects the levels of self-disclosure and intimacy, making it necessary to consider these relationships on a spectrum rather than in binary terms.

Broader Implications:

• Inclusivity for Socially Isolated Individuals: Virtual relationships provide valuable social opportunities for individuals who may struggle with traditional, face-to-face interactions due to reasons like medical conditions, geographical isolation, or social anxiety. McKenna et al. highlighted that the absence of gating not only enhances the likelihood of forming connections but also often results in stronger bonds compared to those formed face-to-face over similar periods.

Overall, while virtual relationships present unique challenges and opportunities, they are an increasingly significant part of the social landscape, allowing for diverse forms of connection and interaction beyond traditional physical constraints.