theories of RR - social exchange theory Flashcards
what is an economic theory of maintenence?
These are based on a ‘business model’ of relationships.
We invest in relationships, and therefore expect to make a ‘profit’.
Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory are both economic theories of maintenance.
outline SET.
Thibaut and Kelley (1959) proposed the Social Exchange Theory.
they believed that individual members of a relationship were motivated to maximise their rewards and minimize their costs.
we judge satisfaction in a relationship in terms of the profit it yields - for a successful relationship, according to this model, rewards minus costs should result in a positive outcome for each individual.
Possible rewards include companionship, being cared for and sex.
Possible costs include effort, financial cost and missed opportunities.
outline comparison level.
Comparison level (CL) is concerned with the past and the present - the comparison between the rewards and costs of the reference (current) relationship and what we have been used to in the past.
If the reference relationship compares favourably, we are motivated to stay in the relationship.
outline comparison level of alternatives.
Comparison level of alternatives (CL alt) on the other hand, is concerned with possible alternative relationships.
Here we compare the reference relationship with others which we could be in. If we feel that we could do better in another relationship, we may be motivated to finish the current one.
name the four stages of relationship development.
sampling stage.
bargaining stage.
commitment stage.
institutionalisation stage.
outline each stage of relationship development.
sampling - we explore the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting with them in a variety of our own relationships, or by observing others doing so.
bargaining - marks beginning of a relationship. the couple start exchanging rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what is profitable.
commitment - The couple settle into a relationship. The exchange of rewards becomes relatively predictable - rewards increase and costs lessen.
institutionalisation - The couple have ‘settled down’. The norms of rewards and costs in the relationship are firmly established.
discuss research support as a strength of SET.
A strength of social exchange theory is research support.
researchers investigated the importance of social exchange factors in determining relationship quality in 185 couples (heterosexual and same-sex married and co-habiting couples). All couples did not have children. Each couple completed a questionnaire (separately).
They found that for every type of couple, greater relationship satisfaction was associated with the perception of many benefits of the current relationship, seeing alternatives to the relationship as less attractive.
These findings suggest that factors that predict relationship satisfaction are the same for heterosexual and homosexual couples.
this supports SET as it shows that it is applicable to relationships beyond heterosexual, increasing its value as a theory of RR.
HOWEVER -
it is limited as although different sexualities are explored, culture bias is still an issue as it was limited to individualist cultures - not generalisable to other cultures, thus the support the research can give SET is limited.
discuss refuting evidence that not all relationships work on the basis of profits and losses as a limitation of SET.
Clark & Mills (2011) have argued that the theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship.
They suggest that exchange relationships (e.g. between work colleagues) do involve social exchange as SET predicts.
However, communal relationships (e.g. between romantic partners) are characterised by the giving and receiving of rewards without keeping score of who is ahead and who is behind.
If we felt the kind of exchange monitoring at the start of a promising relationship as SET predicts, we would likely question what kind of commitment our partner wanted.
This suggests that there is refuting evidence that not all relationships work on the basis of profits and losses, limiting the validity of SET.
discuss determinism as a limitation of SET.
Another major criticism of SET is its deterministic view of romantic relationships.
According to SET, if the costs outweigh the rewards, a person will want to opt out of a relationship. However, there are many cases where people stay in high-cost relationships (for example, when one partner is chronically ill) without feeling dissatisfied.
As a result, the predictive validity of SET is very limited - it cannot establish with significant certainty whether a person will feel happy or unhappy in a relationship, based on the costs and rewards they are getting from it.
This undermines the scientific claim of SET, as an ability to predict human behaviour with a degree of certainty is one of the main objectives for psychology to be accepted as a science.
discuss reductionism as a limitation of SET.
Basing the explanation of such complex phenomenon as romantic relationships purely on costs and rewards makes itreductionistand limits the range of real life romantic experiences it can explain.
For example, SET does not explain why many people stay in abusive relationships despite the lack of rewards and overwhelming costs.
This suggests that a holistic approach to studying romantic relationships may be better suited to explaining the complexity of relationships maintenance.
discuss equity as a crucial factor in relationships as a limitation of SET.
One crucial factor is ignored by SET – equity (fairness).
There is much research support for the role of equity in relationships, and the view that this is more important than just the balance of rewards and costs.
This has been addressed by equity theory -
Unlike SET that argues how people try to maximise rewards and minimise costs in relationships, Equity Theory suggests that partners are concerned about fairness in relationships.
Fairness is achieved when people feel they get approximately what they deserve from relationships. Equity theory proposes the winning formula of fairness in relationships: one partner’s benefits minus their costs, should equal another partner’s benefits minus their costs.
researchers conducted a self report study that found that partners who rated their relationships as more equitable were also more satisfied with them. This suggests that fairness is important to maintaining satisfaction in relationships.
this suggests that equity theory may be a better theory of RRs that SET.
