Theories Of Romantic Relationships: Social Exchange Theory Flashcards
Social exchange theory
Social Exchange theory was proposed by Thibault and Kelley (1959) and is a theory of how relationships form and develop. It assumes that 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.
This theory is thus based on the economic assumptions of exchange where we minimise losses and maximise gains. We judge our satisfaction with a relationship in terms of the profit it yields, defined as the rewards minus the cost.
Because rewards and costs are very subjective depending on the outlook of the individual this means that a significant reward for one person might be seen as less valuable by another person. Also the value of rewards and costs might well change over the course of the relationship. Rewards include beneficial things such as companionship, sex and emotional support. Although a romantic relationship is not always, ‘a bed of roses’ and can involve negative emotions too.
Blau (1964) who spoke in the economic language of relationships, he said relationships can be ‘expensive’ so costs include time, stress, energy and compromise etc. He further mentioned how a relationship incurs another cost - opportunity. Your investment of time and energy in your current relationship means using resources that you cannot invest elsewhere.
Two ways in which we measure the profit in a romantic relationship
Comparison level (CL)
Comparison level for alternative (CLalt)
Comparison level (CL)
This is the amount of reward that you believe you deserve to get. It develops out of our experiences of our previous relationships which feed into the expectations of our current one. It is also influenced by social norms within a culture what is widely considered to be a reasonable level of reward. Experience with relationships allows us to change our CL. We consider that a relationship is worth pursuing if the CL is high. This is based on self-esteem - someone with a low self-esteem will be satisfied with gaining a very small profit (or even a loss) from a relationship whereas someone with a higher self-esteem will believe they are worth a lot more.
Comparison level for alternative (CLalt)
Is the second measure of profit providing a wider context for our current relationship - in other words could we gain more profit from another relationship with less costs and more rewards? (or even being alone) in other words, ‘could I do better?’ or ‘is the grass greener elsewhere?’ Social exchange theory predicts that we will stay in our current relationship so long as we believe that it is more rewarding than alternatives.
Another feature of Thibault and Kelley’s SET describes the four stages in which relationships (and the social exchanges that underpin them) develop:
a) Sampling stage - we explore the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting in our own and observing others - this can also be the case for friendships too
b) Bargaining stage - this marks the beginning of a relationship, when romantic partners start exchanging various rewards and costs and negotiating and identifying what is most profitable
c) Commitment stage - as time goes on, the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increases and costs are less
d) Institutionalisation stage - partners now settled down because the rewards and costs in a relationship are firmly established.
Advantages of SET
One strength is that Gottman (1992) found evidence that supports the social exchange theory. He found that individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently report a lack of positive behaviour exchanges with their partner, and an excess of negative exchanges. In successful marriages where the relationship is happy, the ratio or positive to negative exchanges is 5:1, but in unsuccessful marriages the ratio is 1:1. This study therefore fully supports SET as it shows how rewards and costs are an important part of a romantic relationship.
Another strength of SET is its application to couples who are having relationship problems - Integrated couples therapy by Jacobson (2000) helps partners to break negative patterns of behaviours and to decrease negative exchanges, whilst increasing positive exchanges. Thus SET is successful in helping couples to reconcile. In other words it teaches couples how to maximise rewards and decrease costs in order for the relationship to be more satisfying for both partners.
Disadvantages of SET
However, Argyle challenges the social exchange theory. Argyle disagrees with the idea that people spend a great deal of time monitoring their relationship in terms of rewards and costs. Argyle states that people only monitor rewards and costs once the relationship becomes dissatisfying. Duck agrees with Argyle and states that we only look at comparison levels in a relationship when we are dissatisfied, not when we are happy and the relationship is successful
Furthermore, Blau would argue that human beings are selfish to think of relationship maintenance in terms of rewards and costs. The social exchange theory is rooted in the Behaviourist approach whereby the focus of relationship maintenance is about rewards and operant conditioning. However, some relationships have little rewards but many costs e.g. violent relationships, but they still continue. Therefore the cognitive approach might be able to explain the social exchange theory more accurately.
Research by Littlejohn (1989) found that it is very difficult to define what is a reward and what is a cost in a relationship and this might differ from one person to another. For example a “cost” could be viewed as a reward to another person; an example could be having a child. The social exchange theory needs to carefully examine how individuals view and think about rewards and costs.
Moghaddam (1998) has criticised the social exchange theory, as it is more applicable to western, individualistic cultures and therefore the theory might be difficult to apply to eastern cultures. The perceived costs and rewards of relationships might be very different round the world from one culture to the next. For example in some cultures where a basic lifestyle is acceptable such as in some parts of Africa; it may be sufficient to be in a relationship with a partner who can help provide enough food to eat and have shelter. Rewards and costs might not be so important for a romantic relationship. Instead, family values and compatibility might be more important in collectivist cultures, and these factors help make the relationship successful.
Much of the research conducted on the social exchange theory can be criticised because it has focused on students who are in short term relationships. Using a limited sample of participants who are quite young, might mean that the results gained from the research might be invalid and not very strong evidence. We might not be able to successfully apply the research findings to long term committed older couples who will have a different dynamic in their relationship (compared to short term couples). Therefore we should treat the research findings from such studies with caution, and identify that the results are not very strong in supporting the social exchange theory
What type of theory is SET
Economic theory
