Lesson 6 - The Social Exchange Theory Flashcards
What is the Social Exchange Theory?
This is the idea that relationships are like a business. We monitor costs, rewards and profit, and we look for “better deals” if the relationship is not satisfactory.
What does everyone aim for in a relationship (according to the social exchange theory)?
We all want the maximum rewards with minimal costs.
What is the formula to ensure that a relationship is successful?
Rewards minus costs should have a positive outcome.
What is Comparison Levels (CL)?
A comparison level is a reference that people use to examine how successful their present relationship is when compared with previous ones. The present relationship should have higher rewards and less costs than previous ones.
What are Comparison Levels for Alternatives?
This is when a person compares their present partner to those around them who could potentially make better partners. This is theoretical, and the person thinks about it before making the decision. However, the main issue with this is that its theoretical.
Evaluation of the Social Exchange Theory - You only weigh up pros and cons after the relationship is unhappy
Argyle claims that people will only monitor their relationship in terms of costs and rewards once it becomes dissatisfying. Duck agrees with this, and also says that comparison levels only become relevant when someone is unhappy.
Evaluation of the Social Exchange Theory - Research Support
Gottman (1992) found that individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently report a lack of positive behaviour exchanges with their partner. In successful marriages, where the relationship is happy, the ratio of positive to negative exchanges is 5:1, but in unsuccessful marriages it is 1:1.
Evaluation of the Social Exchange Theory - Cognitive and Behavioural Approaches intertwined
Blau would argue that human beings are selfish, and relationships are based upon the Behaviourist approach, where rewards and operant conditioning keep people together. However this ignores abusive relationships which have very little rewards but many costs. This means that the cognitive approach must be involved, and would likely explain relationships better.
Evaluation of the Social Exchange Theory - Costs and Rewards are hard to define
Littlejohn (1989) found that it is extremely difficult to define what a cost or reward is. It differs from person to person a lot. For example, having a child could be great for one person but a cost for another. There is large variation.
What was the method for Kurdek and Schmitt (1986)’s study?
Investigated 4 types of couples:
44 Heterosexual married couples
35 heterosexual couples
50 same sex male couples
56 same sex female couples
Each couple lived together but had no children.
People had to answer questionnaires and could not discuss with their partner.
What were the findings of Kurdek and Schmitt (1986)?
Greatest relationship satisfaction was found when people saw many rewards in their current relationship when compared to previous ones, and there were not many valid alternatives to compare the current relationship to.
The same factors predict satisfaction in homosexual and heterosexual couples.
Evaluation of Kurdek and Schmitt - Covers a range of relationships.
They sampled same sex couples, heterosexual couples, married and non married couples. This emphasises how romantic relationships operate, and how they can be maintained.
Evaluation of Kurdek and Schmitt - Economic theory
It is an economic theory that gained support when tied in with another economic theory called “the equity theory”. Both of these theories examine relationships like a business, and focus on couples trying to gain high rewards while minimizing the costs.
Evaluation of Kurdek and Schmitt - Questionnaire
The participants had to fill in a questionnaire, and in a sensitive subject such as this one, people are likely to lie due to social desirability bias. This tanks the validity of the study.
Evaluation of Kurdek and Schmitt - Rewards are hard to define
This term has to be operationalised in order to be fully valid. Psychologists argued that it might be difficult to compare one reward to another, and some rewards in a relationship may carry more value than others. It may be a matter of QUALITY over Quantity.
