social exchange theory Flashcards
what is the social exchange theory
thibaut and kelly (1959) claim we try to maximise rewards and minimise losses in relationships
define comparison level
a persons idea of how much reward they deserve in a relationship. our CL develops from experiences in previous relationships and social norms. CL is closely linked to our self esteem. those with a low CL will be satisfied with a minimal profit or a loss, and those with a high CL will only be satisfied with many rewards.
define comparison level for alternatives
a persons perception of whether other relationships or being on their own would be more rewarding than their current relationship. people are likely to remain with their current partner if they believe that they are more profitable that any alternatives.
duck (1994) however suggests people may not notice any alternatives until they feel dissatisfied in their relationship.
what are the 4 relationship stages
sampling = exploring rewards and costs via direct or indirect experience
bargaining = first stage of relationships. exchange rewards and costs to find most profitable exchanges and their own dynamics
commitment = relationships are more stable and people are familiar with sources of rewards and costs, and each others expectations
institutionalisation = rewards and costs are well established
floyd et al (1994)
found commitment develops when couples are satisfied with and rewarded in their relationships, and perceive alternatives are unavailable to them
argyle (1987)
argues people don’t assess their relationships until they feel dissatisfied. e.g. being unhappy may cause someone to assess their rewards and costs and potential alternatives. this contrasts SET
kurdek and schmitt (1986) - investigating the social exchange theory
method
44 married, and 35 co habiting non married heterosexual couples. 50 male and 56 female homosexual couples. all had no children living with them. each person did a questionnaire to measure the importance of social exchange factors in their relationship satisfaction
kurdek and schmitt (1986)
results and conclusion
for all couples, satisfaction was higher when they perceived the benefits to outweigh the costs (CL) and believed their alternatives were worse options (CLalt).
this suggests SET concepts can be applied to heterosexual and homosexual relationships
give a limitation of SET
kurdek and schmitt’s research into the SET in heterosexual and homosexual couples uses self report techniques, which are often subjective and unreliable. participants may answer in a socially desirable manner, or may display demand characteristics. this would lead their answers to be unrepresentative of the concept being researched, therefore limiting the study’s internal validity.
give a strength of SET
research support. sprecher (2010) found CLalt was a good indicator of commitment in a relationship, and especially for women rewards were a good predictor of satisfaction. therefore we can conclude people base their evaluation on rewards and costs as SET suggests. so it appears people stay in a current relationship while its more profitable than alternatives
give a limitation of SET
key concepts are difficult to define. rewards and costs are subjective, and it is unclear as to how attractive alternatives should be and how much costs should outweigh rewards for a person to be dissatisfied. additionally, clark and mills (2011) argue that the notion of counting rewards and costs may occur in exchange relationships (e.g. with colleagues) but not in communal (romantic) relationships where rewards are just given. this limits the validity of SET, suggesting it can only apply to certain social relationships.
give a strength of SET
real world applications such as the introduction of integrated behavioural couples therapy (IBCT). this involved training to increase positive and decrease negative exchanges in their daily lives by changing negative behaviour patterns. christensen et al (2004) found about 2/3 of couples who were treat with IBCT said their relationships improved and they felt much happier. this shows that SET can be used to help real life couples
give a limitation of SET
research is criticised for lacking mundane realism. most research studies strangers in a game based scenario with rewards and costs variably distributed throughout. e.g. emerson and cook (1978) did a lab experiment where 112 people bargained with a partner to maximise their own score in a game. these relationships are unrepresentative of real life romantic relationship, so the studies lack internal validity making SET less applicable to real life relationships
give a limitation of SET
SET takes a nomothetic approach by creating universal laws on relationship maintenance to apply to all couples. however since this varies from couple to couple, an idiographic approach may be more suitable by studying relationship maintenance more individually and in depth
give a limitation of SET
deterministic view of relationships. the theory claims if the costs outweigh the rewards then a person will want o leave that relationship, however in cases such as when one partner is chronically ill people will stay in these high cost relationships and not feel dissatisfied. therefore SET’s predictive validity is limited as its can’t predict is people will be happy or unhappy in their relationship bad on the costs and rewards they are gaining. this then undermines SET’s scientific credibility.
