maintainanse of romantic relationship essay
The social exchange theory takes on relationships provide both rewards (e. g. sex, love, intimacy) and costs (e. g. time, energy, money). Everyone tries to max praise for min costs. If a relationship is usually to continue, people expect the partner to reward these people as much as they are doing. Therefore , the higher the advantages and reduce the costs, the more attractive the partnership is. The right way to judge whether or not the rewards well worth more than costs or the other way round depend on the Comparison Level (CL).
CL is the overview of what to anticipate in the “exchange from our earlier experience. In case the person has a bad romantic relationship before, he/she will expect little through the current spouse; How sufficient a person feels depends upon what rewards (e. g. sex) and costs (e. g. argument) involved if they may have another marriage with another individual (CL alt). The collateral theory runs this look at. It recommended that people shoot for fairness between rewards & costs. So , a person expects the same proportion of rewards for their costs; normally they will feel distress.
This kind of theory can account for individual differences since people have difference. view to rewards and costs so what is appropriate may not apply to others. For example , Argyle located that many girls feel less satisfied when over-benefited in a relationship, while many guys feel tiny dissatisfaction. Therefore , it becomes very beneficial in detailing extreme instances where some individuals in very unhappy romance do not dissolve, yet those in average marriages do- this is because the investment is high (e. g. children) and the alternatives are low (e. g. no money) and so persons tend to stay (Rusbult).
Yet , the claim that individuals constantly target rewards while motivation to keep relationship provides suggested individuals are selfish and self-centred in relationships. However it may be true to the European individualistic nationalities which emphasises on personal interests, yet may not connect with non-western collectivistic cultures. This is due to they stress on group values and thus personal selfish concerns turn into socially undesirable. Therefore these theories are merely relevant to Western cultures (Moghadamm et al).
Another theory, the socio-biological theories, says that our behaviors are the result of evolution in order to max the chance of passing on the genetics. This would mean all relationships are developed to increase the survival of people and opportunities for successful reproduction. Buss suggested that women often search for older, good men since these men can support them and their children; whereas men favor younger ladies because they are probably more suitable for farming than older ones. After successfully pass on the genes, we have to protect them so as to max the chance to pass on further. Thus we are advanced to form close families to protect our children because they shared genes with us. The closer the genes, the more we put together to sacrifice to protect all of them. This is the kin-selection which suggests success of an individual’s genes is ensured by helping close relatives to survive.
The claim to get kin-selection is definitely supported by Fellner & Marshall’s study who also found that 80% of parents are willing to contribute their kidneys to their kids. This shows that people with the closest generic relationships (i. e. parents &children) are prepared to sacrifice to shield each other for survival, thus support kin-selection. Therefore , this kind of theory made the specific characteristics of friends and family worldwide- the large resources and energy dedicated to children- explainable. This means it seems to gain validity.
However , this kind of validity is limited because it are unable to explain various other common human relationships such as homosexuals and close friendships. If the claim that interactions are to duplicate successfully is valid, it will not apply to homosexuals because they cannot give genes. Furthermore, Grajek located that women love their best friend more than their particular partners. This kind of cannot be explained by this theory as close friends outside family cannot support pass on genes and so should be as important as their particular partner. Grajek’s contradictory findings have made this kind of theory not enough to explain many relationships.
1
