Theories of Romantic relationships - social exchange

Question 1

what is social exchange theory??

Answer 1

Thibaut and Kelley (1959)

rewards of relationship - the cost of the relationship = outcome

The basic premise of the social exchange theory is that individuals must feel they are getting more out of the relationship then they are putting in.

Minimax strategy:

Minimise costs
Maximise rewards

Question 2

how do we assess benefits?

Answer 2

An individual will assess their benefits in two comparisons:

1. The Comparison Level (CL) – This is the comparison on the current relationship. Often use past relationships as a guide and also early stages of relationships.
2. The Comparison Level for Alternative Relationships (CLalt) – Other potential relationships are looked at. E.g., if you were seeing somebody else OR considering others relationships. If they are judged to offer more benefits, the current relationship is likely to break up.

This is used to give context to a current relationship.

Do we believe we could gain greater rewards from another relationship?

We will stay in our relationship as long as we see it to be more rewarding or profitable than the alternatives.

If costs of a current relationship are greater than rewards, we assume the grass is greener on the other side.

If we are satisfied we may not even notice any alternatives.

Question 3

what are the stages of a relationship development?

Answer 3

• sampling stage = Rewards and costs are assessed in a number of relationships.
• bargaining stage = The couple negotiates the relationship and agrees the rewards and costs. This marks the start of the relationship where partners start to exchange.
• the commitment stage = The couple settles into the relationship and the exchange of reward becomes fairly predictable. Stability increases as rewards increase and costs lessen.
• the institutionalization stage = Norms and expectations are firmly established. The couple settles down.

Question 4

what are the positive evaluations of social exchange theory?

Answer 4

• One positive of this theory is that there is research evidence to support aspects of social exchange in romantic relationships.
  Research by Rusbult & Zembrodt (1983) longitudinal study with 30 students in heterosexual R/ships completed Q’aires every 17 days for 7 months!
  Students had weighed up the costs and benefits. For those who stayed in a R/ship; increases in rewards led to better satisfaction but costs had little impact.
  Therefore couples do use a cost benefit analysis to decide if their relationship who puts in effort and ensure rewards must exceed costs for the continuation of the relationship.
  This shows support for aspects of the model i.e. the significance of rewards , so this research adds credibility to the theory.

However, Argyle (1987) questions whether part of this theory and asks whether it is the CL that leads to dissatisfaction with the relationship or dissatisfaction that leads to this analysis. It may be that SET serves as a justification for dissatisfaction rather than the cause of it so a cause and effect cannot be established as theory can only suggest a correlation not causation
There are also methodological issues with this research as it relies on self reports where individuals in a relationship may have suggested satisfaction even if hey were not satisfied as it would stop others wondering why you are in a relationship that you are not satisfied with. ( social desirability bias)

• Another positive is that there are useful practical applications for society that result from the ideas put forward by this theory.
  For example, using this theory can help develop couples therapy such as Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy, where couples are taught how to increase the proportion of positive exchanges and decrease negative exchanges. This focuses on the perceived or actual costs and rewards and realign any issues with exchange of resources.
  Therefore it is a way to help identify and tackle issues that couples are having that are causing problems in their relationship.
  This implies SET can help couples break the negative patterns of behavior that cause problems linked to exchange of resources and promote more happiness in relationships and avoid relationship breakdown.

Question 5

what are the negative evaluations of social exchange theory?

Answer 5

• It has been suggested that research into SET is culturally biased
  For example, the theory could be more suited to Western individualistic cultures. It could be that in other cultures, costs and benefits may be perceived in a very different manner
  Couples from collectivist cultures may not be looking for individual profitability and rewards in the same way as people from individualistic cultures . Some cultures may value security, for example, more highly than what ‘profit’ may come from the relationship.
  Hence, this implies that the theory could face difficulties when applied to other cultures and may not apply universally to all relationships so this limits our understanding to just individualistic cultural norms for relationships.
• One of the problems with this theory is that there are ALTERNATE EXPLANATIONS that need to be taken into account as not all relationships follow what SET predicts.
  For example some people stay in relationships when the costs outweigh the benefits such as in cases of domestic violence & abuse. This could be because cost of leaving & potentially losing a home, security and financial security could be more important in deciding to stay in the r’ship than the benefit of leaving (even if it staying would be dangerous) this is because a lot has been INVESTED so they are COMMITTED- these are ideas from RUSBULT’s INVESTMENT MODEL OF COMMITMENT
  Rusbult & Martz ( 1955) studied women at a domestic violence refuge and found those that were more likely to return to an abusive partner were the ones who had made the greatest investments and had fewest viable alternatives. These women were dissatisfied with the relationships BUT still committed to them.
  This suggests that SET cannot explain individual differences for staying in r’ships that would normally lead to a r’ship breakdown according to the theory so alternate explanations could add further understanding to such behaviours.