theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory Flashcards
What are the key principles of the social exchange theory (SET)?
John Thibault and Harold Kelley (1959) proposed the Social Exchange Theory (SET), which explains behavior in relationships as driven by economic exchanges:
• Goal: Minimize losses and maximize gains (minimax principle).
• Satisfaction: Judged in terms of profit = Rewards - Costs.
• Subjectivity: Rewards and costs are subjective (what one considers rewarding, another may not).
• Examples of Costs: Time, stress, energy, compromise.
• Key Insight: Relationships involve costs (e.g., negative emotions) and rewards, and romantic satisfaction relies on achieving a profit.
What is the comparison level (CL) in the social exchange theory?
Definition: The comparison level (CL) measures what we believe we deserve in a relationship.
• Influences on CL:
1. Previous Relationships: Expectations shaped by prior experiences.
2. Cultural Norms: Media, books, and societal views influence what is considered a “reasonable” reward level.
• Self-Esteem Impact:
• High self-esteem: Believe they deserve more (higher CL).
• Low self-esteem: Accept lower rewards (lower CL).
Example: If a person’s CL is high, they will only pursue relationships meeting that standard.
What is the comparison level for alternatives (CLalt), and why is it important?
The comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) provides a way to evaluate rewards and costs of the current relationship relative to alternatives.
• Key Question: “Could I do better elsewhere?”
• Decision Rule: If rewards from an alternative relationship outweigh the current one, people may leave.
• Dependence on Current State:
• If rewards outweigh alternatives, we stay.
• If alternatives seem better (e.g., “plenty more fish in the sea”), we may leave.
Conclusion: CLalt determines relationship stability by comparing current satisfaction with alternatives
What are the four stages of relationship development in social exchange theory?
Thibault and Kelley’s SET outlines four stages in which relationships (and the exchanges within them) develop:
1. Sampling Stage: Exploring rewards and costs of social exchanges, either by experimenting in relationships or observing others.
2. Bargaining Stage: Beginning of a relationship, where partners negotiate rewards and costs and identify what is most profitable.
3. Commitment Stage: Over time, rewards and costs become more predictable, leading to a more stable relationship as profits increase.
4. Institutionalisation Stage: Norms of the relationship (rewards and costs) are firmly established, and the relationship becomes settled.
What makes rewards and costs subjective in the social exchange theory?
Subjectivity: Rewards and costs vary depending on the individual.
• Example of a Reward: Receiving praise from a partner might be highly valued by one person but insignificant to another.
• Example of a Cost: Time spent in the relationship might be rewarding at first but feel like a cost later on.
• Dynamic Nature: What is considered rewarding or costly can change as the relationship evolves (e.g., the excitement of a new relationship may fade over time).
Insight: Relationships are not always “beds of roses”—they can involve negative emotions and challenges alongside rewards.
How does the social exchange theory use economic metaphors to explain relationships?
SET compares relationships to economic exchanges where individuals act out of self-interest to maximize rewards and minimize costs:
• Profit: Rewards - Costs.
• Costs: Emotional strain, energy, stress, compromise.
• Rewards: Positive emotions, security, or practical benefits.
• Evaluation: Relationships are judged based on the perceived balance of profit and loss.
Conclusion: Satisfaction and commitment depend on achieving a positive balance, with rewards outweighing costs.
What research supports the Social Exchange Theory (SET), and what is a counterpoint to this?
Lawrence Kurdek (1995) provided strong support for SET by studying gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples.
• Method: Participants completed questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables.
• Findings:
• Partners most committed perceived the most rewards and fewest costs.
• They also viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive.
• Significance:
• This study confirmed that main SET concepts (e.g., rewards, costs, and alternatives) operate independently of each other.
• It was the first study to demonstrate these effects across different relationship types (gay, lesbian, and heterosexual).
Counterpoint:
Studies into SET, including Kurdek’s, overlook a critical factor: equity.
• Equity theory suggests that partners are not solely concerned with balancing rewards and costs.
• Instead, partners care about fairness in the relationship.
Conclusion: While Kurdek’s findings support SET, the neglect of equity limits SET as a comprehensive explanation for relationship satisfaction.
What is the issue with cause and effect in SET’s explanation of relationship dissatisfaction?
A major limitation of SET is its assumption that dissatisfaction arises only when a relationship stops being profitable:
• SET Argument: People monitor rewards, costs, and alternatives, and when the relationship becomes less rewarding or alternatives seem better, dissatisfaction occurs.
• Criticism (Michael Argyle, 1987):
• People do not monitor rewards, costs, or alternatives unless they are already dissatisfied.
• When satisfied and committed, individuals ignore or do not notice attractive alternatives.
Conclusion:
This challenges SET because it suggests that dissatisfaction causes monitoring of rewards/costs, not the reverse as SET claims.
Why is SET criticized for having vague and subjective concepts?
SET is limited because its key concepts—rewards, costs, and comparison levels (CL/CLalt)—are subjective and difficult to define:
• Rewards and Costs:
• People define rewards and costs differently.
• Example: “Having your partner’s loyalty” may be rewarding for some but not others.
• Real-world rewards/costs are hard to quantify because they are based on personal perceptions.
• Comparison Levels (CL and CLalt):
• It is unclear how high CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction occurs.
• The subjectivity of CL/CLalt makes it difficult to measure and predict dissatisfaction reliably.
Conclusion:
The vagueness of SET concepts makes the theory difficult to test scientifically, reducing its validity as an explanation for relationships.
