Theories Of Romantic Relationships: Social Exchange Theory Flashcards
What does SET assume relationship behaviour is guided by?
Economic change-the minimax principal.
Thibault and Kelley proposed that relationships could be explained in terms of economics (an exchange of goods). SET suggests that satisfaction in a relationship is judged in economic terms. Partners consider the profit that a relationship provides them with by judging the perceived value of costs minus the value of rewards. They are motivated to try and maximise the profitability of a relationship by minimising the costs to themselves (the minimal principal) whilst ensuring that they are getting the best possible amount of rewards. Relationships where there is judged to be a profit are the most likely to continue and conversely those where profit is low are likely to end.
What costs and rewards determine whether relationships with continue or end?
Costs may include los of time or stress.
Rewards may include sex, praise or companionship. In addition opportunity cost also needs to be accounted for, i.e. the recognition that investment in a given relationship is at the ‘cost’ of expending those resources elsewhere.
What is the comparison level?
A way in which relationship profits are measured. CL is our judgement of the reward we expect in a relationship. It is determined by previous relationship experience and social norms. Social norms are reflections of relationships in the media and over time we learn more about what we should expect. We will generally pursue a relationship where CL is high, although some people (for example, someone with low self esteem) may have very low CLs.
What is the second measure of profit?
The comparison level for alternatives (CLalt). This involves considering whether we might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in a different relationship, assuming that (as in most cultures) we can only select one partner. We will remain on a relationship, despite available alternatives, when we consider it is more rewarding than alternatives.
Why does the comparison level of alternatives depend on our current relationship?
Duck suggests that there are always alternatives around. If the costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards, then alternatives become more attractive. But if we are in a satisfying relationship we may not even notice them
What are the four stages of a relationship?
- Sampling stage: involves exploring 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: is where relationships become more stable. Costs reduce and rewards increase.
- Institutional stage: when partners become settled because the norms of the relationship are established.
Limitation: it assumes all relationships are exchange based.
It is argued that exchange relationships may involve profit (e.g. Work colleagues) but communal relationships (e.g. Romantic partners) involve giving and receiving of rewards without thinking of profit. At the start of a romantic relationship tallying of exchanges might be viewed with some suspicion and even distaste. This suggests that SET may not provide a suitable explanation for all types of relationships.
Limitation: the direction of effect.
It is assumed dissatisfaction occurs when costs outweigh rewards or alternatives seem more attractive, but Miller found people who said they were in a committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people. Furthermore, ‘less time spent looking’ was a good predictor of the relationship continuing at a two-month follow up. Therefore, SET may have the wrong direction of cause and effect. Rather than lack of profit leading to dissatisfaction it can be argued that we do not consider the profit until after we become dissatisfied.
Limitation: SET does not consider equity in relationships.
SET focuses on comparison levels but ignores the fact that many romantic partners desire fairness or equity. Hatfield et al found that couples in equitable relationships were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over-or under-benefitting. This evidence suggests SET is a limited explanation of relationships, supported by only a proportion of research findings.
Limitation: it deals in concepts that are hard to quantify.
Research studies tend to operationalise rewards and costs superficially (e.g. Money) but in reality rewards and costs are difficult to define and are subjectively judged. Also it is unclear what the values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship. This is a key issue in understanding relationship breakdown. The inability to accurately quantify the key concepts of SET make it very difficult to produce valid research support.
Limitation: research often involves artificial tasks and conditions.
Research often consists of game-playing and distribution of rewards and costs in a scenario where ‘partners’ are together just for the study. More realistic studies which have used partners in actual relationships have been less supportive of SET. The support for SET is weakened by the lack of validity of the studies and the fact that more realistic studies fail to support its assertions.
