Social Exchange Theory

Question 1

Outline the social exchange theory

Answer 1

Theory on how relationships form & develop
Assumes romantic partners act out of self-interest in exchanging rewards & costs
Satisfying & committed relationship maintained when rewards exceed costs & potential alternatives less attractive than current relationship

Question 2

Describe the rewards, costs & profits of a romantic relationship ship derived from social exchange theory

Answer 2

Thibault & Kelly (1959) contend behaviour in relationships reflect economic assumptions of exchange
Most importantly, we try to minimise losses & maximise gains (minimax principle)
We judge our satisfaction with relationship in terms of profit it yields: rewards minus costs
Because rewards & costs subjective, what one person sees significant reward, another may see it less valuable
Rewards include beneficial things like sex, companionship & emotional support
Relationships can also be ‘expensive’ through unpleasant emotions

Question 3

What are the two ways we measure profit in a romantic relationship?

Answer 3

Comparison Level (CL)
Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)

Question 4

Outline comparison level

Answer 4

Amount of reward you believe you deserve to get
Develops from experiences in past relationships which feed into expectation for current one
Influenced by social norms which determine what is widely considered to be reasonable level of reward in a culture, e.g. books, films, etc
Our CL changes over time as we have more experience in relationships
We consider pursuing relationship if CL is high
Someone with low self-esteem has low CL, thus satisfied with smaller profit

Question 5

Outline comparison levels for alternatives

Answer 5

Provides wider context of relationship
Do we believe we could gain greater rewards & fewer costs from another relationship? (Could i do better?)
SET predicts we’ll stay in current relationship as long as we believe it’s more rewarding than alternatives
Being in satisfying relationship means you may not even notice alternatives available

Question 6

What are the stages of relationship development?

Answer 6

SAMPLING STAGE: Exploring rewards & costs in our own relationships
BARGAINING STAGE: Beginning of relationship, when partners start exchanging rewards & costs, identifying most profitable
COMMITMENT STAGE: As time goes on, sources of costs & rewards more predictable & relationship stabilises as rewards increase & costs decrease
INSTITUTIONALISATION STAGE: Partners settled down as norms of relationship firmly established

Question 7

Evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships

Answer 7

LIMITATION: Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET - researchers don’t accept economic metaphor
Clark & Mills (2011) argue theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship. They say exchange relationships (like work colleagues) involve social exchange but communal relationships (like partners) marked by giving & receiving rewards without keeping score.
SET claims partner return reward for reward & cost for cost & these monitored. If we felt this exchange monitoring in early stage, we may question what kind of commitment partner wanted. It’s clear from some research SET based on faulty assumptions, thus can’t account for majority of romantic relationships

BOTH: Cause & Effect - SET argues dissatisfaction sets in when costs outweigh rewards or better alternatives.
Argyle (1987) points out we don’t measure costs & rewards in relationship, nor do we constantly consider attractiveness of alternatives UNTIL we’re dissatisfied.
Research supports view dissatisfaction comes first Miller (1997) found people rating themselves in higly committed relationships spent less time looking at images of attractive people. Less time spent looking is good indicator of relationship continuing 2 months later, so people in committed relationships ignore even most attractive alternatives. SET can’t account for causation here.

LIMITATION: SET ignores equity -
Main concern of SET is comparison level, ratio of perceived rewards & costs, but this ignores equity which may be overwhelming consideration for romantic partners.
There’s plethora of research support for role of equity in relationships & view it’s more important than balance of rewards & costs. SET neglects this factor, thus it’s limited explanation not accounting for significant proportion of research findings on relationships.