Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Give an example of a relationship reward.

A

Affection.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Give an example of a relationship cost.

A

Investment of time.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What did Thibaut and Kelly state in 1959?

A

Stated that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges.​

Individuals are trying to maximise the rewards they obtain from a relationship, and minimise the costs.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

According to SET, for a relationship to continue - what is expected to happen?

A

People expect the other person to reward them, as much as they reward the other person.​

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What theories is SET in line with? Why?

A

In line with other economic theories of human behaviour.

As it stresses that commitment to a relationship is dependent on how profitable it is.​

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Who proposed Social Exchange Theory (SET)?

A

Thibaut and Kelly - 1959.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How does SET challenge self-disclosure?

A

Self-disclosure relies on selflessness (giving up information about yourself) in order to form a deep relationship.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

In our society people exchange resources with the expectation that they will earn a profit i.e. rewards will exceed the costs.​

Give an example of this in a relationship.

A

For example, if someone goes into a relationship in order to achieve a greater social status, they can be seen to profit from the interaction.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Does SET render human behaviour as positive or negative?

A

Negative. The social exchange theory is a very selfish concept, putting personal gain before the benefit of your partner.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Rewards - costs = ?

A

Outcome of the relationship.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How does determinism link to SET?

A

As it gives no choice e.g. costs high stay.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How does a nomothetic approach link to SET?

A

Uses equations to create universal laws.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How does reductionism link to SET?

A

As rewards and costs are the only things that determine relationships.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are the 4 processes that Thibaut and Kelly stated all long-term relationships pass through?

A

Sampling.

Bargaining.

Commitment.

Institutionalisation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Outline sampling, as a SET processes proposed by Thibaut and Kelly.

A

The costs and rewards of associating with others are explored.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Outline bargaining, as a SET processes proposed by Thibaut and Kelly.

A

A process of negotiation in which rewards and costs are agreed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Outline commitment, as a SET processes proposed by Thibaut and Kelly.

A

Exchange of rewards and acceptance of costs stabilise. Greater focus on the relationship itself.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Outline institutionalisation, as a SET processes proposed by Thibaut and Kelly.

A

Norms and expectations are firmly established.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Give 2 evaluative points about Thibaut and Kelly’s 4 stages of long-term relationships.

A

Deterministic model, as it assumes that everyone goes through these stages when forming a relationship. Romantic behaviour is predetermined and lawful.

Western theory, as it does not consider other cultures - created in North America.

More in line with individualistic cultures, as it places the focus on the individual rather than a collective.

20
Q

What is a comparison level? What does this link to?

A

A standard against which all other relationships are judged.​

Links to Bowlby’s internal working model
Links to cognitive approach, schemas.

21
Q

How is a person’s comparison level created?

A

CL is created as a product of our experiences in other relationships, together with our general views of what we might expect from this particular exchange.​

22
Q

What happens if potential profits in a new relationship exceed current comparison levels?

A

The new relationship will be judged as worthwhile and the other person will be seen as attractive.​

23
Q

What would happen if the profit was less than our comparison level?​

A

We would not engage in the relationship as it is not beneficial for ourselves.

24
Q

What if you had only ever experienced bad relationships? How would this affect your CL?​

A

CL level could be much lower, as your previous bad partner may have negatively affected your self-confidence - meaning your expectations for a future partner are much lower (you perceive yourself as undesirable).

CL level may be much higher, as you want to avoid past relationships - only accepting those who have a much higher CL (more likely to be a healthy romantic partner).

25
Q

What is an alternative comparison level?

A

When a person weighs up a potential increase in rewards from a different partner, minus any costs associated with ending the current relationship.​

A new relationship will take the place of the current one if its profit level is significantly higher.

26
Q

Explain how comparison levels of alternatives could be seen as too methodical and logical.

(Evaluation of comparison levels of alternatives)

A

Too methodical and logical, emotions are involved as well.

E.g. leaving someone for someone else (who has a higher CL), may require you to upset someone you already have a connection with.

27
Q

Explain how comparison levels of alternatives would be applicable to modern day.

(Evaluation of comparison levels of alternatives)

A

Evolutionary outlook, perhaps just more applicable to modern day.

E.g. people wanting partner’s with more money to allow them financial security.

However, it could also link to acquisition of resources and a mate’s betterment of survival advantage (if with a large resource holder/ high status mate).

28
Q

Explain how comparison levels of alternatives doesn’t consider individual differences.

(Evaluation of comparison levels of alternatives)

A

Doesn’t consider individual differences, profits are subjective.

For example, someone may perceive a high CL due to physical attractiveness, whereas someone else may think that the person has a low Cl as they consider personality more of a profitable trait.

29
Q

Comparison levels of alternatives doesn’t consider that no partner can be an option.

(Evaluation of comparison levels of alternatives)

A

The theory doesn’t consider the fact that neither can be chosen between 2 potential partners.

E.g. neither alternatives may be chosen: this links back to the involvement of emotions - people may just be happy in their current relationships at their own CL.

30
Q

Outline Rusbult’s research from 1983.

A

Has incorporated an additional element into this model.

Commitment to a relationship does not just depend on outcomes and available alternatives, but on the amount of investment that has been made.

Affirms connotations of reductionism (as the model needed to be expanded).

Investments may include: mutual friends, missed career opportunities, effort, time, etc.

31
Q

Outline Simpson et al’s research from 1990.

A

47 men, 71 women.

Asked student PP’s to rate members of the opposite sex in terms of attractiveness.

Those in a relationships gave lower ratings than those who were not dating.

This theory does not explain why some people leave relationships despite having no alternative, challenging the social exchange theory.

32
Q

How could Simpson et al’s study relate back to SET?

A

Could potentially plants seeds of doubt towards the attraction of their own partner.

Social desirability, they would want their current partner to be perceived as the best.

Perhaps seen as unfaithful if they rate partner’s higher - breaking loyalty with current partner (guilt).

Happiness and content with their current partner may cloud judgement, rewards already high.

Those not in relationships have nothing to lose, and no loyalty - so those who are single could potentially see them as more attractive.

33
Q

Outline Pennington’s research from 1986.

A

Stated that social exchange theory, ‘does not state how great the disparity in comparison level has to be before it is considered unsatisfactory’.

SET can also be used to explain other types of relationships e.g. friendships

34
Q

Outline Lott’s research from 1994.

A

This challenges social exchange theory as in many cultures women are more focused on the needs of others rather than receiving reinforcement.

This suggests that there are alternative reasons for maintaining relationships.

It also highlights the more selflessness that many experience in relationships, as well as gender differences incorporated in the model.

35
Q

Outline Hays’ research from 1985.

A

Challenges the social exchange theory as they investigated student friendships, finding that rather than being focused purely on rewards received, individuals favoured equity (fairness) giving priority to rewarding the other person.

Challenges the idea that social exchange theory can be applied to all relationships.

36
Q

Outline Hatfield’s research from 1979.

A

Looked at people who felt over or under-benefited in their relationships.

The under-benefited felt angry and deprived.
The over-benefited felt guilty and uncomfortable.

This supports the social exchange theory as it suggests that regardless of whether individuals are benefited, they do not desire to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.

37
Q

Who proposed equity theory? When?

A

Walster in 1978.

38
Q

What is the general idea of equity theory, according to Messick and Cook (1983)?

A

The central assumption that people strive to achieve fairness in their relationship and feel distressed if they perceive unfairness.

39
Q

What do individuals try and maximise/ minimise according to ET?

A

Individuals try to maximise the rewards they receive and minimise the costs.

40
Q

Give an example of how negotiation is needed to produce fairness, according to ET.

A

E.g. one partner may do the shopping every week to compensate for playing sport twice a week.

41
Q

According to ET, what happens when a relationship is unfair or inequitable?

A

It produces distress, especially in the disadvantaged person.

42
Q

What are 3 techniques that may be implemented in order to restore the balance of a relationship?

(Equity theory)

A

Change the amount that we put into a relationship.

Change the amount we demand from a relationship.

Change our perceptions of relative inputs and outputs.

Compare our relationship to CL to see if it’s worth continuing our investment in the current relationship or whether we should begin anew.

43
Q

Outline 2 differences between SET and ET.

A

SET takes advantage of all possible profits, whereas ET serves more as a balance.

SET encourages immediate withdrawal from a relationship if profits are unequal, whereas ET tries to readjust the imbalances.

SET places more emphasis on individuality, whereas ET suggests both show profit.

44
Q

Outline 2 similarities between SET and ET.

A

Both aim to maximise profit and minimise losses.

Both feature elements of negotiation and trying to get the most from a relationship.

Both imply that fairness is important.

45
Q

Outline Stafford and Canary’s research from 2006.

(Support for ET)

A

Supports equity theory.

As they tested over 200 couples on equity and martial satisfaction; finding that highest satisfaction was seen between equal couples, and the lowest was seen between unbenefited couples.

This suggests that equity theory’s ideas about fairness and balancing each partner’s profits and gains is crucial in allowing a meaningful relationship to develop.

They also used a large sample size, which means that generalising strength is increased - (more representative of exterior populations).

46
Q

Outline Atwater et al’s research from 1985.

(Challenge for ET)

A

Challenges equity theory.

This is because women often engage in extra-marital affairs if their current relationship is inequitable. Whereas men often engage in extra-marital affairs to increase sexual activity.

This suggests that there are gender difference within the equity theory, challenging its universality.

47
Q

Outline Feeney et al’s research from 1994.

(Challenge for ET)

A

Challenges equity theory.

This is because they believed that relationships within a modern society are more sophisticated, and a cost-benefit system is too simplistic.

This suggests that equity theory lacks realism, as it cannot be properly applied to real relationships.

Moreover, it highlights the reductionism of the theory, as it breaks down the maintenance of relationships too simply.

Instead, a more holistic viewpoint would be beneficial. This is supported by Humanism, as they believed that the study of human interactions should consider all factors someone possesses, not just simple profit-loss theories.