Theories of romantic relationships: SET Flashcards
What does SET stand for
Social exchange theory
Social exchange theory
It assumes romantic partners act out of self interest in exchanging rewards and costs. A satisfying and committed relationship is maintained when rewards exceed costs and potential alternatives are less attractive than the current relationship
Costs, rewards and profits
Costs - loss of time time, stress e.t.c (what it costs you)
Rewards - sex, praise or companionship (what you get out)
Profits - the reason you stay
Satisfaction is judged in terms of profit (perceived value of costs minus the value of rewards)
Profitable relationships continue, unprofitable relationships fail
Comparison level (measuring profit)
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 esteem, may have low CLs
Comparison level of alternatives (additional measure of profit)
- include a name and what they suggest
We consider whether we might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in a different relationship (or none)
- Duck 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 relationship
Sampling stage - involves exploring the rewards and costs by experimenting in our relationships (not just romantic ones) and observing others
Bargaining stage - occurs at the start of a relationship where romantic partners negotiate around costs and rewards
Commitment stage - where relationships become more stable. Costs reduce and rewards increase
Institutionalisation stage - when partners become settled because of the norms of the relationship are established
What is one strength of SET
Supported by research studies
Evaluation: Supported by research studies
Studies have been conducted to support SET. Sprecher (2001), for instance, discovered that rewards played a significant role in predicting satisfaction, particularly for women, and that Comparison Levels for alternatives were a major predictor of commitment in a relationship. These results imply that, as SET indicates, some individuals seem to base their assessment of romantic relationships on costs and benefits (specifically, Comparison Level for alternatives).
It would seem, then, that some individuals do continue in their existing relationship as long as it is still financially advantageous compared to the alternatives.
What are three limitations
Cause and effect
Deterministic view
SET concepts are vague
Evaluation: Cause and effect
Regarding the SET assumptions, some researchers contend that there is a problem with cause and effect.
According to Argyle (1987), people almost never begin evaluating their relationships before they are dissatisfied with them. When someone is dissatisfied in a relationship, for instance, they might consider whether there are better options available to them and whether their current partnership offers more benefits than drawbacks.
However, these questions don’t usually come up until the uncomfortable state is acknowledged. This runs counter to SET, which holds that all relationships—happily included—are sustained through the evaluation of gain and loss.
Evaluation: Deterministic view
A significant critique of SET is to its deterministic perspective on romantic relationships. In accordance with SET, an individual will wish to withdraw from a relationship if the expenses above the benefits. Nonetheless, there are also instances where individuals remain in expensive partnerships—for instance, when one spouse has a chronic illness—without experiencing dissatisfaction. Because of this, SET’s predictive validity is severely limited; it is unable to determine, with any degree of accuracy, whether a person would be happy or unhappy in a relationship based on the benefits and costs involved.
This calls into question the scientific validity of SET, since one of the primary requirements for psychology to be recognised as a science is the capacity to reasonably predict human behaviour.
Evaluation: SET concepts are vague
Unlike in research, real world rewards/costs are subjective and hard to define because they vary e.g having your ‘partners loyalty’ is not rewarding for everyone. Also comparison levels are problematic - it is unclear what the values of CL and CLat need to be before individuals feels dissatisfied
This means SET is difficult to test in a valid way
