Theories of Maintenance of Relationships - Coursework Example

Maintenance of Relationships Introduction Satisfying relationships are an essential part of one’s pleasure and gratification. Nothing gives us more jubilation than a flattering relationship, and nothing brings us more regret than a wrecked relationship. All we have to do is try to develop and maintain relationships which provide us harmony, joy and fulfillment despite grave disagreements and anguish at times. We have to give our time, energy, and care to develop and maintain relationships which are based on shared conviction and truthfulness. This paper tends to explain two important theories of maintenance of relationships (Social Exchange theory and Equity theory), and critically evaluates the claims made by both the theories. Theories that Help Explain the Maintenance of Relationships There are two main theories that help explain how relationships are developed, and how people strive to maintain them. Social Exchange Theory The social exchange theory expresses relationships in terms of profit or loss. People expect that their relationships must provide them benefit which must outweigh their cost or input that they gave into the relationship. Hence, the more the reward gained from the relationship, the more is their commitment and effort to maintain the relationship. Heneman and Greenberger (2002, p.66) assert that social exchange in a relationship occurs when one individual or party provides a favor to another person or party, and this favor forces a reciprocate return. This may also happen at workplace where a supervisor favors a sub-ordinate and expects increased performance from him. If the subordinate wants to maintain a social exchange relationship, he proves it with his behavior and performance. The comparison level (CL) measures the worth of the relationship here. The comparison level is the measurement that people have in consideration when they compare their current relationship with a past one or with one that they observe in society. If their profitability is higher than CL, they consider their relationship as meaningful; while, lower profitability than CL shows otherwise. Comparison level for alternatives (CLA) is the measurement that allows people to compare their current relationships with future ones which they will potentially experience. For example, CLA explains the intent of women who want to stay in abusive relationships. Rusbult and Martz (1995, as cited in Sanderson, 2009, p.434) conducted a study on battered women, and found that when women perceived the profitability of their current relationship as high (in the form of children, house, and finances), and future alternatives as uninviting (in the form of homelessness and joblessness), then they opted to stay with the abusive spouses rather than leaving them. Critical Analysis A critical analysis of social exchange theory suggests that this theory of relationship maintenance is very person-centered. Hence, societal aspect of relationship maintenance has been totally ignored. This explanation of relationship maintenance can only be applied in Western culture which is based on individualism and not in cultures where societal bonds are preferred to individual bonds or where Ubuntu (collectivity) is promoted, like in Asian cultures. This gives rise to cultural bias. For example, in America, the benefit and loss of one person remains limited to one person only. That does not become a societal benefit or loss. Every individual is concerned with his affairs only, and is totally unconcerned with human connectedness as a society. Hence, the social exchange theory is very successful there because every individual can weigh his relationships himself. Contrarily, in South Africa, Ubuntuism promotes oneness in society. A Ubuntuist believes in connectedness to the society. He believes in sharing common values and standards among others in the society, which connects everybody in such a societal relationship that if one person is diminished or devalued, the whole society feels diminished and devalued. If one person is rewarded, the whole society feels rewarded. Hence, relationships depend on collective interest and not on personal interest. This fails the social exchange theory of relationship maintenance in such cultures. To support this criticism, Baker (2001, p.70) writes in his book: “One criticism of this approach is that it has tended to view the family as a unit separate from the political, economic and social world.” This has made this explanation of relationship maintenance an interesting study for cross-cultural researchers. Another important criticism is that this theory does not explain the difference in mental development of the two spouses when they perceive the relationship at the same time. Also, it gives no importance to genetic make-up of an individual that forms the basis of behavioral and mental development. However, the investment factors that make humans tolerate the costs are a beautiful aspect of social exchange theory. Sanderson (2009, p.435) writes that investment factors like time, energy and self-disclosure “influence individuals’ commitment to their present relationships, and thereby their willingness to tolerate costs.” Little time spent with a relation causes little investment, and thus, ends with little toleration for costs. The more the time spent, the more is the investment, and the more is the cost toleration. This aspect has also been supported by Gilliland, Skarlicki and Steiner (2008) in their book, in which they state: “Social exchange relationships tend to be longer term with close attachments between the parties and psychological identification with the relationship” (p.67). Equity Theory Equity theory suggests that people make effort to maintain relationships, so far as there is no inequity. The partners of a relationship work on an equal basis for input and expect the same ratio of output. They expect that both of them get the same amount of rewards after having suffered from the same amount of costs. Dissatisfaction occurs when one or both the partners feel that they are investing more and getting less (under-benefitting) or investing less and getting more (over-benefitting). Inequity leads to distress and motivation to change or end the relationship. As compared to social exchange theory which suggests that profits must be greater than costs to bring satisfaction to a relationship, equity theory suggest that the ratio of profits and costs should be equal between the partners involved to bring satisfaction to the relationship. Sprecher (2004, p.599) conducted a longitudinal study with romantic couples to determine the importance of equity in relationship satisfaction, and found that “Underbenefitting inequity (but not overbenefitting inequity) was associated with a lower level of satisfaction and commitment…” Dainton (2009, p.164-186) studied survey data collected from 219 individuals in romantic relationships to study the use of maintenance strategies by people when they suffered from inequity in relationships. He found that inequity, as well as uncertainty, led to lower usage of relationship maintenance strategies; that is, people were not willing to maintain, or use strategies to maintain, their relationships when they felt that their input and output ratios were different from those of their spouses. The study by Canary and Stafford (2009, p.243-267) supports Dainton (2009) in his standpoint. They also assert that equitable relationships motivate the individuals to use maintenance strategies. They affirm that the more the partners used maintenance strategies, the more they felt equity in their relationships. Canary and Stafford (2006, p. 227) had already conducted a similar study in 2006, in which they determined the relation between equity and self-reported maintenance strategies of “positivity, openness, assurances, social networks, and sharing tasks” implemented by 200 married couples. They found that satisfaction was greater in equitable relationships, followed by over-benefitted relationships, followed by under-befitted relationships. Critical Analysis A critical analysis of the equity theory suggests that equitable relationships, no matter in whichever form they are, are the most satisfactory ones. However, it is important to note that men and women perceive the concept of equity differently. For example, if the husband earns more than the wife, his input is perceived as more than that of the wife’s no matter how hard she works both outside and inside of the house. The husband brings home money, but since that is a visible factor and wife’s efforts at household are invisible, hence husband’s input is considered greater. This makes it hard to judge the right amount or ratio of input or output. Another weak point of equity based explanation of relationship maintenance is that it does not help anticipate whether a relationship will be successful or not, or how long will the relationship go. Conclusion It is vital for relationship maintenance that the people involved show mutual trust, love, patience, loyalty and faithfulness to each other while communicating properly about each other’s feelings and problems, ignoring the disagreements, and solving problems with endurance. To foster attraction and longevity in a relationship, it is important to nurture absolute love and its main ingredients, which include effective communication, patience, trust, and loyalty. These are the investment factors that make one partner expect the same or greater amount of output in return. When benefits outweigh costs, the relationship is considered worthwhile according to the social exchange theory. When the partners give in the same ratio of input and expect the same ratio of output, then they consider the relationship as satisfying, according to the equity theory. The paper critically evaluated these two theories as explanations for maintenance of relationships. References/Bibliography Baker, M. (2001). Families, Labour and Love: Family Diversity in a Changing World. Canada: UBC Press. Canary, D.J., & Stafford, L. (2006). Equity and interdependence as predictors of relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Family Communication, 6(4), pp. 227-254. Canary, D.J., & Stafford, L. (2009). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59(3), pp. 243-267. Dainton, M. (2009). Equity and uncertainty in relational maintenance. Western Journal of Communication, 67(2), pp. 164-186. Gilliland, S., Skarlicki, D., & Steiner, D.D. (2008). Social exchange theory and organizational justice. Justice, Morality, and Social Responsibility. New York, NY: IAP. Heneman, R.L., & Greenberger, D.B. (2002). Social exchange theory. Human Resource Management in Virtual Organizations. New York, NY: IAP. Sanderson, C.A. (2009). Social exchange theory. Social Psychology. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Sprecher, S. (2004). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: associations with satisfaction, commitment, and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), pp. 599-613. Read More