Maintenance- SET

Maintenance- SET

1. AO1

   • The success of a relationship, in terms of maintenance, is based on profitability,i.e. whether the individual believes they are at a loss or profiting
   • Profit or rewards of maintaining a RR can be anything positive, for example; objects, behaviours, support ect; things that make us feel valued
   • Costs to maintaining a RR can be anything unpleasant, such as emotions, habits, financial investment ect;
   • Sedikdes states that happiness and feeling loved are the most important rewards in maintaining a RR. Stress and worry tend to be significant costs in the maintenance of a RR
   • It has also been found that females emphasise intimacy and self growth in order for a RR to be maintained, whereas males consider sec int he maintenance stages as being highly profitable and emphasise loss of money as costly in their calculation of the maintenance of a RR
   • We attempt to minimise the costs, and maximise the benefits, and this is referred to as minimax.
   • The extent to which the relationships is maintained will depend on how mutually beneficial the relationship is. If the RR offers something in short supply, we will appreciate it more and this explains its maintenance. This is known as the ' Satiation' principle
   • Aspects of Thibaut and Kelly's stages apply to the maintenance of stage of a relationship:
     • 1) Bargaining: the cotinued maintenance of a RR is characterised by each partner attempting to give and receive rewards, seeing the suitability of maintaining and developing a deeper relationship!
     • 2) Commitment: As the RR is maintained each partner learns the likes and dislikes of their partner making it easier to maintain that RR, therefore lowering the costs and making its continued maintenance more likely
     • 3) Institutionalisation: standards are developed within the maintenance stage of the relationship that determines the patterns of rewards/costs
   • Thibaut and Kelly proposed that we develop a comparison level in the maintenance stage of a relationship. This is a standard to which all our relationships are judged. it is a product of our experiences from other relationships together with the views of what we might expect from maintaining the current relationship (derived from social norms/ personal expectations)
   • If the profit exceeds the CL the relationship will be seen as worthwhile, the partner judged as attractive, and therefore the relationship will be maintained. CL's tend to change over time because we experience new relationships
   • The CL of someone is linked to self- esteem. High self-esteem individuals expect to be in a highly profitable relationship for it to be maintained, where as low self-esteeem settles for less for maintenance, accepting even a loss whilst maintaining a RR
   • A similar concept is that of CL's for alternatives, in which a person weighs up the costs/benefits of maintaining their current and of starting other possible relationships. If the maintenance of current benefits outweigh the benefits of a potential partner, the current relationship is likely to be maintained
   • Rusbult extended the model arguing that the concept of investment made is crucial to the maintenance of a RR. She argued greater the investment, the greater the commitment and therefore the stability, explains the maintenance of a RR

2. AO2

   • Research has supported the principle that couples are consciously aware of costs and rewards within the maintenance stage of a romantic relationship. For example, Mills and Clark (1980) in a study of american couples supported the idea that couples were consciously concerned with profits during the maintenance stage of a RR
   • However, a problem for SET explanation of maintenance of RR s that it has a gender bias. SET does not account for gender differences in the perceptions of profit and loss calculations during the maintenance stage of a RR. For example, researchers have found gender differences in how comfortable a member of a couple may feel in 'owing' the other other partner potential benefits, with females feeling more uncomfortable than males. This suggests that SET has not considered the gender variations in perceptions of economic exchange during the maintenance of a relationship. Therefore, SET cannot generalise its conclusions on how a RR is maintained for men and women, and to do so would demostrate a gender bias towards a male perception of how RR's are maintained.
   • A problem with SET is that it assumes that males and females view all aspects of the relationship in the same way. A further related problem is the maintenance of RR within a in gay/lesbian relationships may also not determined by the principles of SET. This raises a problem of generalisability for the SET explanation of the maintenance of RR. Secondly, a problem is identified by research from Mills and Clark. They argue that some couples were primarily concerned with the needs of their partner, contradicting the principle of SET's exchange principle. They described this relationship to be maintained on a more communal basis, where there is a principle concern for the needs and welfare of the other partner. There is no exception that rewards given will be repaid. This undermines SET as an explanation of all types of RR, as some appear not be maintained on economic principles as suggested by SET
   • Simpson 1990 supports the ability of the model to make predictions regarding a couples perception of possible alternatives when attempting to maintain a current relationship. He found that dating couples within an existing relationships found potential alternatives less attractive than non dating couples. This supports this principle of SET as the alternatives would be perceived as threats to the maintenance of their present relationship. Rusbult 1989 also supports this principle of SET and the maintence stage of RR.They found highly committed couples wishing to maintain their present relationship who were asked to take part in a computer dating exercise were extremely derogatory to other potential alternative partners, viewing them as a threat to the maintenance of their existing RR. These studies again support the predictive validity of a cost benefit approach to explaining the maintenance of romantic relationships.
   • Another methodological problem with the SET explanation of the maintenance of RR is that most of the research has been based on the maintenance of short term relationships, often with samples of students. This makes us question the generalisability of the findings to the maintenance of long-term relationships involving non-students. the theory therefore is of limited use as the dynamics of the maintenance of long-term relationships are different from those of short term ones
   • On the other hand, the problem of reductionism emerges for the SET explanation of the maintenance of RR. The problem of SET reduces the complexity of the maintenance of RR to a simple profit and loss calculation ignoring the issues of love. This is a rather mechanical view of how RR's are maintained. A related problem is that it may be considered deterministic, suggesting that the maintenance RR's are predominantly determined by our calculation of potential benefits. This is not supported by research. For example, Mills and Clark (1979) argue that when some individuals attempt to maintain RR they consider the need of the other person rather than then potential benefits they may receive.
     • However, the advantage of SET adopting a rather reductionist approach to explaining the maintenance of RR is that it allows us to operationalise scientifically the complexity of the maintenance stage of RR in an objective manner. Furthermore, an advantage of the SET over other reductionist explanantions of the maintenance of RR, for example the reinforcement-affect model, is that it considers the role of cognitions (i.e. perceptions and judgments) which makes it less deterministic than it may first appear (i.e. perceptions of self-worth influence our level of acceptance costs and benefits).
       • A further limitation of SET is that it cannot suggest from supporting research evidence that profit and loss calculations cause the continued maintenance of a RR, just that profit and loss calculations are correlated with the maintenance of RR. This undermines the predictive validity of the SET explanation of the maintenance stage of RR
   • Rusbult offers support to the SET explanation of the maintenance of RR. He argues that costs may not be important at all stages of a relationship, i.e. formation, but become increasingly important during the maintenance stage. For example, Rusbult and Martz 1995 identify how the model is able to explain why an abusive relationships is maintained because of the investment already made by both partners, i.e. children/home ownership/ shared friends ect. Moreover. SET is supported as an explanation of abusive relationships because the victim of abuse will often have low self esteem and therefore will expect less for themselves during the maintenance of a relationship, hence the relationship is maintained due to the perceptions of the individual couples expectations.