Compare explanations for relationship breakdown given by exchange theory and equity theory. Which do you consider to be the most convincing and why? What does Duck’s theory add to the explanation? The Exchange Theory which was put forward by Homans in 1971 suggests that when we are in a relationship, we keep an eye on what we are putting in and getting out of a relationship. It argues that whether ir not we are satisfied depends on the ratio of rewards and costs that are given within the relationship. If the person involved feels as though, for them, the rewards outweigh the costs, they will most likely feel satisfied with the relationship as they do not need to give as much, however, if the person involved feels like the costs outweighs …show more content…
This is outlined in Duck’s theory. Also, the Exchange Theory suggests that humans are selfish as the theory seems to say that humans are fixated on getting the rewards from a relationship. In 1988, Duck demonstrated how a relationship should typically end. In order to do this, he developed a four stage model of dissolution. Stage one, the Intra-psychic phase, states that at least one member of the couple will start to feel unhappy and will start to focus on the behaviour of their partners. They will eventually reach the threshold and will voice their concerns. The second stage, the dyadic phase, states that the couple will take part in discussions and some may go to counselling; others may r ach the next threshold. This is the third stage, the social phase, where friends may offer support or take sides. It is this stage, according to Duck, where a break up is inevitable. The final stage is the grave dressing phase. This is when both people involved put across their opinion of what happened during the breakup and each partner will create their own version of who was to blame in the situation. It is normally a face saving situation. This approach address issues that the other approaches, the Exchange Theory especially, ignores. Duck’s approach addresses that couples are likely to take part in discussions about the relationship and where they think it is heading.
Though one may favor exchange processes that conclude with a social association that values the idea of equality, however Blau states that exchange processes can “give rise to differentiation of power” (Blau 1964: 114), which results with relation to superordination and subordination. Blau explains this disequilibrium as a result of needs for resources from unlike partners and efforts among equals to gain advantages over the other (Blau 1964: 114). Relating to intrinsic rewards, if one counterpart gains a reward from the exchange, the other counterpart expects repayment in the form of future wards – hence the principle of reciprocity (Blau 1964: 121). Reciprocity between unlike counterparts creates this sense of imbalance
Social exchange theory includes the following concepts: success, stimulus, value, deprivation, satiation, aggression, and approval. Homans defined each of these concepts explicitly in his book and various articles. The success concept which he defines is the principle of reward. (Homans, 1983, p. 33) While stimulus is defined when a stimulus presents itself and it resembles a previously rewarded activity, that individual is likely to repeat that action again. (Homans, 1950, Chapter 4) Homans defined value as a system of rewards and punishments. (Homans, 1983, p. 32) Deprivation and satiation was defined as the more often a reward has recently been received, the less valuable further rewards become. And if forced for a long time to go without a certain reward, an individual will lose interest and move on. (Homans, 1983, p. 33) Lastly, aggression and approval falls under the principle of distributive justice. When behavior does not receive the expected reward the response is anger. Yet, when the individual receives a greater reward than what is expected or does not receive punishment he will be pleased. (Homans, 1950, Chapter 4).
One theory of the formation of a romantic relationship is one put forward by Byrne and Clore called the reward/need satisfaction model. They suggested that we have relationships long term because we find them rewarding, or we don’t like the prospect of being alone. The rewards from a partner can include friendship, love and sex, or the particular person is associated with pleasant situations so then we want to spend time with them and form a romantic relationship. This can also include the satisfaction from a relationship with a person of high social status, as it would make you look good to other people. These needs can differ from person to person
The primary theorists, John Thibaut and Harold Kelley, made a list of assumptions that the Social Exchange theory is based on. This list falls into two categories; one that focuses on individuals, and one that describes the social exchange between two people (Unger & Johnson 604). The assumptions that the Social Exchange theory makes are about human nature and the nature of relationships. The first, as mentioned earlier, is that of reward and punishment. Humans seek rewards and avoid
The exchange theory is a psychological theory that helps individuals make choices based on the costs and benefits of the situation. By visualizing the outcome, it helps the individual make a decision on the situation. Most times the benefits are valuable outcomes and the costs are what they might be losing. The more the benefits outweigh the costs, the easier and more efficient the outcome will be. In the novel, Road Ends by Mary Lawson, the main characters take many life changing decisions by using the exchange theory.
The exchange theory is a psychological theory that helps individuals make choices based on the costs and benefits of the situation. The person visualizes the outcome to help make a decision, most times the benefits are good outcomes and the costs are what they might be losing. The more the benefits outweigh the costs, the easier and the more efficient the outcome will be. In the novel, Road Ends by Mary Lawson, the main characters take many life changing decisions by using the exchange theory.
The Social Exchange theory proposes that we make decisions with the goal to maximize benefits and minimize costs (Newman, 2009, p.64). The choices we make require social approval and self-sufficiency. A family will make sacrifices if they perceive the action will equal rewards. Basically the theory refers to a give and take relationship where there needs to be balance for the relationship to be satisfying.
Some individuals like the idea of predictability in the relationship. They do not encourage change. Rather, they want to know what and when something is going to happen. As for others, they want a bit of mystery, some spontaneity in the relationship. In order for a relationship to work, Baxter states that each relationship requires a balance of novelty and prediction. When a couple begins to date, everything is new. With time, each person begins to predict their partner's actions. This creates a sense of comfort with each other and the relationship. Although, when patterns become to predictable, it leads to the ultimate emotional deadening of a relationship. This is when novelty should take place. An occasional surprise or variety in everyday actions will put life back into the relationship. Without it, the relationship
Base on my marriage of six-years, my previous marriage and witnessing how my close friends interact in their relationships, I can conclude that I agree and relate to most of the author’s description on Social Exchange Theory. Just like explained in the comparison level, we all believe that we have outcomes that we are entitled to in any relationship we have. (Miller, 2015, p. 177) For example, in my friendships, if I put ‘X’ amount of effort in a friendship, I expect my friend to put the at least the equal amount of effort. I would not consider my happy and successful six-year marriage to have had costs. We have invested so much into our relationship though. Maybe I feel this way due to the fact that I know my wife and I are such a great fit
According to the about education website, Crossman states “social exchange theory is a model for interpreting society as a series of interactions between people that are based on estimates of rewards and punishments.” Rewards come in many forms: money, gifts, hugs, romance, social recognition and so on. Cost or punishments also come in many forms: humiliation, beating, crying, sacrifice, etc.
It concentrated on how the genders viewed flirting in light of six types of incentives. They were sex, relational, exploring, fun, esteem, and instrumental. The incentives attempted to heighten or reinforce the relationship while the investigating included learning about how the other individual feels in connection to the relationship. The sex incentive includes attempting to get some place sexually with the other individual while the fun incentive is being a flirt only because it seems charming at the movement. The esteem incentive proposes that individuals flirt while keeping in mind to improve themselves in hope to get positive feedback from people’s reactions. The instrumental incentive for being a flirt means individuals hope to gain something. For example, a free meal or a drink. The major contrast he discovered included men seeing kind or welcoming as more sexual than ladies
The main principle of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) is built upon a quasi-economical model and the basic elements of reinforcement psychology (Homans, 1961), where interactions can be explained based on the rewards and the positive reinforcement they offer. Emerson (1976) explains that when a particular action is rewarded, it is more likely that the person will repeat that action or similar ones to achieve the reward. This is the main principle of Skinnerian reinforcement.
The first theory I will touch on is the Social Exchange Theory (SET) presented by George Homans. The concept of the social exchange theory involves “actions contingent on the rewarding reactions of others, which over time provide for mutually and rewarding transactions and relationships” (Cropanzano &Mitchell, 2005, p.890). Homan introduced this theory with the understanding that exchanges are not limited to materials but also include symbolic values (p. 890).
To explain human relationships further, the social exchange theory can be another definite explanation to help distinguish how we feel to be with other people and how one perceives to be with them, either to rekindle their relationship or to question the decisions that make to be in a relationship (Kelley 1959). The social exchange theory can be defined as a term that allows behaviour to be exchanged to allow a relationship between two people to happen (Huston et al., 2013). An individual social life involves interactions between two people which can be viewed as social exchanges in terms of costs and benefits (Nakagawa et al., 2013). By taking the view of human relationships the social exchange theory argues that individuals engage in a cost benefit analysis which forms their relationship with others (Milkie et al., 2004). When the costs and benefits are equal in a relationship, it is defined as equitable (Siddiqui 2008). Moreover, romantic relationships may be difficult for some people as it involves interpersonal skills in order to make them mutually satisfying therefore requires constant maintenance. Recently, Psychologists have begun to look at the breakdown of relationships and the characteristics which requires them to fail. The breakdown of relationship is a theory which explains the failure of certain human relationships and the factors that may be involved such as lack