relationships- theories of romantic relationships: SET Flashcards
social exchange theory: assumes relationships are guided by the minimax principle
-THIBAULT and KELLEY (1959) proposed relationships could be explained in terms of economics- an EXCHANGE of goods or less tangible things (e.g. favours)
-SATISFACTION JUDGED in terms of PROFIT (perceived value of costs minus value of rewards)
-partners are motivated towards minimising costs to themselves whilst maximising rewards
-profitable relationships continue, unprofitable relationships fail
SET: nature of rewards and costs
-costs- i.e. loss of time or stress.
-rewards- i.e. sex, praise or companionship.
-opportunity cost also needs to be accounted for (i.e. the recognition that investment in a given relationship is at the ‘cost’ of expending those resources elsewhere).
SET: CL is measure of profit
-comparison level (CL) is a judgement of the reward level we believe we deserve in a relationship, determined by relationship experiences and social norms.
-we generally pursue a relationship where the CL is high but some people (e.g. with low self-esteem) may have low CLs
SET: CLalt is additional measure of profit
-comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) - we consider whether we might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in a different relationship (or none).
- we stay in a relationship when we consider it is more rewarding than the alternatives. If relationship is satisfying, alternatives not noticed.
SET: CLalt depends on our current relationship.
Duck (1994) suggests that there are always alternatives around.
If the costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards
then alternatives become more attractive
four stages of relationships: sampling stage
exploring rewards and costs by experimenting in our relationships and observing others
four stages of relationships: bargaining stage
occurs at start of relationship where romantic partners negotiate
four stages of relationships: commitment stage
relationships become more stable. costs reduce and rewards increase
four stages of relationships: institutionalisation
when partners become settled bc norms of relationship are established.
ao3 of SET: research supporting some of its concepts
-Kurdeck (1995) interviewed homo and heterosexual couples, committed partners perceived they had most rewards and fewer costs and also viewed alternatives as unattractive
-study also showed the main SET concepts predicting commitment are independent of each other
-findings confirmed predictions of SET, supporting the validity of the theory as gay and lesbian couples as well as heterosexual couples
ao3 of SET: CA to research supporting some of its concepts
-Studies into SET (including Kurdek’s) ignore the role of equity (see next spread). What matters in a romantic relationship is not the balance of rewards and costs but the partners’ perceptions that this is fair.
-so SET is a limited explanation bc cannot account for a significant proportion of research findings that confirm the importance of
equity.
ao3 of SET: direction of cause and effect
-SET claims we become dissatisfied after perceive costs outweigh rewards or alt seem more attractive
-but Argyle (1987) argues dissatisfaction comes first, then we start to perceive costs and alt- committed partners don’t even notice alternatives
-so, considering costs/alt is caused by dissatisfaction rather than reverse- a direction not predicted by SET
ao3 of SET: concepts vague
-unlike in research, real world rewards/costs are subjective and hard to define bc they vary e.g. ‘having your partner’s loyalty’ is not rewarding for everyone
-comparison levels are problematic- it’s unclear what the value of CL and CLalt need to be before individuals feel dissatisfied
-SET difficult to test in a valid way
