'Describe and Evaluate Two Theories for the Maintenance of Relationships Essay\r'

'Social transpose theories exist in various forms but the underlying theme is that plenty whitethorn be inconsiderate. Social supervene upon theories point stack whitethorn view races in a â€Å" clams” or â€Å" sledding” way. Thibaut & Kelley believed bulk will ascertain to see how rewarding a family consanguinity is and accordingly how much it cost to be in the relationship. If in that location is a profit left over (rewards †cost = profit) then that whitethorn encourage them to continue the relationship where as if there is a redness †this whitethorn motivate them to end the relationship.\r\nBlau argued that interactions atomic number 18 â€Å"expensive”, as they take clip, cipher and commitment and may involve repellant emotions and experiences. Therefore what we get bulge of a relationship must exceed what goes in. Walster et al believed that social interactions involve an metamorphose of rewards, manage affection, info rmation, status. The degree of attraction or relish reflects how people evaluate the rewards they attain in relative to those given.\r\n sterilize is therefore an economic supposition explaining relationships in terms of maximise benefits and minimising cost. The â€Å"Social exchange” is the mutual exchange of rewards between partners; like friendship, sex and the costs of world in the relationship may be freedoms given up, time, effort. A somebody may make their assessment of their rewards by using two comparisons: The comparison aim (CL) †where rewards atomic number 18 comp atomic number 18d to costs to judge profits.\r\nThis may be based on outgoing experiences and relationships as well as what we tolerate to get from a relationship. The comparison train for alternative relationships (CLalt) †Where rewards and costs argon compared against sensed alternative relationships and how they compare. A relationship is retained if profit is comprehend in s ome(prenominal) these two comparisons.\r\nThibaut & Kelley proposed a four-stage simulate setting how relationships could be maintained, predicting that over time people develop a foreseeable and mutu completelyy beneficial pattern of exchanges assisting the support of relationships; Sampling †Rewards and costs are assessed in a number of relationships Bargaining †A relationship is â€Å"costed out” and sources of profit and red ink are identified Commitment †birth is established and maintained by foreseeable exchange of rewards Institutionalisation †Interactions are established and the partner off â€Å"settle down”.\r\nMills et al identified two kinds of intimate relationships; (a) The communal duplicate where each partner gives out of concern for the other and (b) The Exchange couple who keep mental records of who is ahead and who is behind. This indicates that there are protestent types of relationships and particularize may apply to some of them but non universally to all. Rusbult asked participants to complete questionnaires over a 7-month period concerning rewards and costs and found that circuit did not explain the early â€Å" vacation” phase of the relationship when balance wheel of exchanges was ignored.\r\n but later on relationship costs were compared with degree of satisfaction which suggests that the supposition is vanquish applied to the maintenance of relationships. Rusbult found that costs and rewards from a relationship were weighed up in comparison to realizable alternative relationships when deciding whether they should be maintained which supports that social exchange warnings idea that people assess rewards by making comparisons.\r\nHowever a ternion element of investment (Commitment) was also a factor in this in which people compared how much they had invested into the relationship and what they stood to lose †which SET does not fully recognise suggesting it does not explain much(prenominal) things. Rusbults Investment model looks at this however and remediate explains this. Hatfield looked at people who felt over or under-benefited. The under-benefitted felt angry and deprived magic spell the over-benefited felt guilty and uncomfortable.\r\nThis supports SET theory by suggesting that regardless of whether individuals benefitted, they do not wish to maintain a relationship which is unfair. honor Theory may better explain this however and how it may that that theory is better suited to explain such as if, as SET proposes, it is all about profit †then sure enough when people discover they are over-benefiting they are more inclined to maintain the relationship. Rubin believed that although people are not fundamentally selfish †attitudes towards others are determined to a full-size extent by how rewarding we judge they are for us supporting the theory.\r\n argyle criticised methodologies that evaluate SET as world contrived and ar tificial with little relevance to real life relationships. Sedikides claimed that people are capable of being completely altruistic in relationships and do things for others without expecting anything in retrieve †which is most evident in relationships with those emotionally close to us. Sedikides believed that individuals could bolster their partners self-esteem when face with failures or stress and therefore SET’s theory of humans being out for what they can get is simplistic and inaccurate.\r\nFromm argued against the theory also arguing that professedly â€Å"love” was about giving as opposed to false love where people expect to have favours returned. Most look for has tended to concentrate on short-term consequences of relationships instead than the long-term maintenance and what drives them. This theory may apply to those that keep â€Å"score”. Mustein et al devised the exchange orientation tool, identifying such scorekeepers; who are suspicio us and insecure suggesting that the theory unless suits relationships lacking confidence and mutual trust.\r\nEquity Theory Equity does not mingy equality; instead it perceives individuals as incite to achieve fairness in relationships and to feel dissatisfied with inequity (unfairness). Definitions of equity at bottom a relationship can differ between individuals. Maintenance of relationships occurs through balance and stability. Relationships where individuals rove in more than they receive or receive more than they put in are inequitable, leading to dissatisfaction and possible dissolution.\r\nThe recognition of inequity within a relationship presents a chance for a relationship to be saved †that is, maintained further by making adjustments so that there is a return to equity. Relationships may alternate between periods of perceived balance and imbalance, with individuals being motivated to return to a state of equity. The great the perceived imbalance, the greater the efforts to realign the relationship, so long as a chance of doing so is perceived to be viable.\r\n'