Introduction
This essay aims to compare and contrast two prominent social psychological perspectives on attraction and relationship development: the Social Exchange Theory (SET) and the Evolutionary Perspective. Both frameworks offer distinct explanations for why individuals form and maintain interpersonal relationships, focusing on different driving forces—economic rationalism in SET and biological imperatives in the Evolutionary Perspective. By exploring these theories, this essay will highlight their key assumptions, strengths, and limitations, ultimately providing insight into how they contribute to our understanding of human connection. The discussion will first outline each theory individually before comparing their approaches to attraction and relationship dynamics, supported by academic evidence. Finally, the essay will reflect on the broader implications of these perspectives for social psychology.
Social Exchange Theory: A Cost-Benefit Approach to Relationships
Social Exchange Theory, initially developed by Thibaut and Kelley (1959), posits that relationships are formed and sustained based on a cost-benefit analysis. According to this framework, individuals evaluate their relationships by weighing the rewards (e.g., companionship, emotional support) against the costs (e.g., time, effort, conflict). If the perceived rewards outweigh the costs, and the relationship meets or exceeds an individual’s comparison level (expectations based on past experiences or alternatives), they are likely to remain in the relationship (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959).
One strength of SET is its applicability to a wide range of relationships, from romantic partnerships to friendships and even workplace dynamics. For instance, research by Rusbult (1983) demonstrated that commitment in romantic relationships is influenced by satisfaction (rewards minus costs), the quality of alternatives, and investments made in the relationship, such as shared memories or mutual resources. This rational and calculative approach provides a structured way to predict relationship outcomes. However, a notable limitation lies in its assumption of human rationality; emotions, which often play a significant role in attraction and bonding, are arguably underrepresented in this model. Indeed, individuals may stay in relationships despite negative outcomes due to love or attachment, aspects that SET struggles to fully explain (Miller, 2012).
The Evolutionary Perspective: Attraction as a Biological Imperative
In contrast, the Evolutionary Perspective on attraction and relationship development argues that human bonding behaviours are shaped by natural selection and the drive to maximize reproductive success. Pioneered by scholars such as Buss (1989), this theory suggests that mate selection is influenced by traits that signal genetic fitness and the likelihood of offspring survival. For example, men may be attracted to physical indicators of youth and fertility in women, such as a symmetrical face or a specific waist-to-hip ratio, while women may prioritize resources and protection, often associated with status or physical strength (Buss, 1989).
Evidence supporting this perspective includes cross-cultural studies showing consistent patterns in mate preferences, such as men valuing physical attractiveness more than women, who tend to prioritize ambition and social status (Buss, 1989). However, a key criticism of this approach is its deterministic nature, as it often overlooks cultural and individual differences in relationship formation. Furthermore, it struggles to account for same-sex relationships or non-reproductive partnerships, which are increasingly common in modern societies (Miller, 2012). Therefore, while the Evolutionary Perspective provides a compelling biological lens, it may lack the flexibility to address the full spectrum of human relational behaviour.
Comparing Key Assumptions and Mechanisms
When comparing SET and the Evolutionary Perspective, a fundamental difference emerges in their core assumptions about human motivation. SET views individuals as rational actors who consciously or subconsciously evaluate relationships based on personal gain and loss. In contrast, the Evolutionary Perspective frames attraction as an unconscious process driven by biological imperatives embedded in our genetic makeup. For instance, while SET might explain a person’s choice of partner based on shared interests or mutual support (a reward), the Evolutionary Perspective would interpret the same choice as a subconscious preference for traits that enhance reproductive success.
Moreover, the mechanisms through which relationships develop differ significantly between the two theories. SET emphasizes dynamic, ongoing assessments—relationships evolve as costs and benefits shift over time. Rusbult’s (1983) investment model, an extension of SET, highlights how commitment grows through tangible and intangible investments, reinforcing the idea of relationships as negotiable exchanges. On the other hand, the Evolutionary Perspective focuses on static, universal traits (e.g., physical attractiveness, resource provision) that are presumed to be hardwired across generations. This difference in focus—dynamic versus static—illustrates how SET can better account for changes in relationships, while the Evolutionary Perspective offers a more foundational explanation for initial attraction.
Contrasting Strengths and Limitations
Both theories have notable strengths in explaining attraction and relationship development, yet they cater to different aspects of these processes. SET excels in its adaptability, providing a framework that can be applied to diverse relationship types and modern contexts. Its focus on individual agency allows for a nuanced understanding of how personal circumstances and decisions shape relational outcomes (Rusbult, 1983). However, as mentioned earlier, its emphasis on rationality often sidelines emotional or irrational drivers of attraction.
Conversely, the Evolutionary Perspective offers robust explanations for cross-cultural consistencies in mate preferences, supported by extensive empirical research (Buss, 1989). Its grounding in biological science lends it a degree of universality, yet this same focus limits its scope. It struggles to address non-heteronormative relationships or attractions that do not align with reproductive goals. Additionally, cultural shifts—such as changing gender roles—challenge the relevance of some evolutionary assumptions in contemporary settings (Miller, 2012). Hence, while both theories contribute valuable insights, their explanatory power depends on the specific relational context under examination.
Conclusion
In summary, Social Exchange Theory and the Evolutionary Perspective provide contrasting yet complementary frameworks for understanding attraction and relationship development. SET offers a rational, adaptable model that captures the dynamic nature of relationships through cost-benefit analyses and individual agency, though it may undervalue emotional factors. Meanwhile, the Evolutionary Perspective roots attraction in biological imperatives, supported by cross-cultural evidence, but falls short in addressing cultural diversity and non-reproductive relationships. By comparing these theories, it becomes evident that neither fully encapsulates the complexity of human bonding on its own. Instead, an integrative approach—drawing on the rational insights of SET and the biological foundations of the Evolutionary Perspective—may offer a more comprehensive understanding. The implications of this analysis for social psychology are significant, as it underscores the need for multi-theoretical perspectives to address the multifaceted nature of human relationships. Future research could explore how these frameworks intersect with cultural and technological changes, ensuring their continued relevance in an evolving social landscape.
References
- Buss, D. M. (1989) Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), pp. 1-14.
- Miller, R. S. (2012) Intimate Relationships. 6th ed. McGraw-Hill Education.
- Rusbult, C. E. (1983) A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), pp. 101-117.
- Thibaut, J. W. and Kelley, H. H. (1959) The Social Psychology of Groups. Wiley.
