Relationships: Social Exchange Theory

Question 1

Outline the social exchange theory as a concept.

Answer 1

Thibault and Kelly (1959) proposed Social exchange theory (SET). Based on principles of operant conditioning and economic concepts – maximise profits and minimise loses (minimax principle):
We form/commit to a relationship if it is rewarding and profitable
Rewards – Cost = Outcomes.

Question 2

Outline the measures of profit in SET.

Answer 2

1. Comparison Level (CL) - the amount of reward you feel you deserve. This can be impacted by past relationships, self esteem and social norms.
2. Comparison Level for alternatives (CLalt)- current relationship compared with potential relationship.

Question 3

Outline the SET stages of development.

Answer 3

Sampling: We experiment with different rewards and costs in different relationships/observe others

Bargaining: At the beginning of a relationship, we start exchanging rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what is most profitable.
This determines whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile.

Commitment: The relationship increases in predictability as each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other, which increases rewards and lowers costs – this leads to the relationship becoming more stable

Institutionalization: The partners are settled down because the norms of the relationship (rewards and costs) are established.

Question 4

What are the strengths of SET?

Answer 4

+ Research support: Kurdek (1995) asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete a questionnaire measuring relationship commitment and SET variables. Found that those most committed had most rewards and fewest costs and viewed alternatives as unattractive. Suggests these factors play key role in commitment. Study also has population validity making it more generalizable.

+ Research support; Floyd et al (1994) found commitment develops when couples are satisfied with, and feel rewarded in a relationship.

+ Research support: Sprecher (2001) found Comparison Levels for alternatives (CLalt) were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship and rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction, especially in women.

+ Real World Application: Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT), involves partners being trained to increase positive exchanges and decrease negative ones. Research shows 2/3 of couples reported that their relationships significantly improved. This shows that SET can be used to help distressed couples in real life, thus demonstrating its real-world application and benefit for relationships.

Question 5

What are the weaknesses of SET?

Answer 5

• Lacks ecological validity and mundane realism. The majority of research into SET is based on studying strangers that are involved in some kind of game-based scenario with rewards and costs variably distributed during the game. For example, Emerson and Cook (1978) designed a laboratory experiment where each of 112 participants was bargaining with a partner to maximize personal score in a computer game. The ‘relationships’ between these partners are nothing like real-life romantic relationships, which are based on getting to know another person and establishing trust. As such, these studies lack internal validity, making SET less applicable to real-life romantic relationships.
• Clark and Mills (2011) argue that while this may be true of work interactions between colleagues (exchange relationships), it is rarely the case in romantic (communal) relationships, where rewards are distributed freely without necessarily keeping a score. More than that, other research findings suggest that it is not a balance of rewards and costs, but rather perceived fairness of relationships, that keeps partners happy and committed to the relationships. This weakens the validity of SET, as it seems that SET can only explain a limited range of social relationships.
• Argyle (1987) argues that people rarely start assessing their relationships before they feel unsatisfied with them. For example, being unhappy in relationships may lead a person to question whether there are more rewards than costs in their relationships and the potential alternatives, but these thoughts occur only after the dissatisfaction is discovered. This contradicts SET, which assumes that assessing profit and loss is the way in which all relationships are maintained, even happy ones.