A03 - Social Exchange Theory

• Evaluation of the Social Exchange Theory (Theories of Romantic Relationships)

  - Cause & Effect

  - Inappropriate Assumptions

  - Ignores equity

  - SET concepts are vague/difficult to quantify
• Inappropriate Assumptions - PART 1


  P = Many researchers do not accept the economic principles which underpin the SET.

  E =  SET claims romantic partners return rewards for rewards, costs for costs & that these reciprocal activities are monitored. SET assumes that all relationships are based on costs & rewards, profit and loss, constant monitoring of satisfaction. 
• Inappropriate Assumptions - PART 2


  E = Clark & Mills (2011) argued that SET fails to distinguish between 2 types of relationships. They suggest that exchange relationships (e.g. Between work colleagues) do involve social exchange as SET predicted. But communicable relationships (e.g. between romantic partners) are marked by the giving & receiving of rewards without keeping score of who is ahead & who is behind.
• Inappropriate Assumptions - PART 3


  E = BUT, Clark & Mills (2011) argue that successful romantic relationships are not exchange - based but communal-based. Partners do not ‘keep score’ (would question commitment if they did). This suggests that quite a few relationships might not be exchange-based e.g. those where trust is a fundamental component.
• Inappropriate Assumptions - PART 4


  L = But if we felt this kind of exchange monitoring was going on at the start of a promising relationship, we would probably question what kind of commitment our partner wanted. It is clear from some research that SET is based on faulty assumptions & thus cant account for the majority of romantic relationships.
• Cause & Effect - PART 1

  P = SET claims that dissatisfaction sets in when we suspect that costs outweigh rewards or that alternatives are more attractive.

  E = Argyle (1987) argues dissatisfaction comes first and points out that we don’t measure costs & rewards in a relationship, nor do we constantly consider the attractiveness of alternatives. That is, not until we are dissatisfied with the relationship. When we are dissatisfied we then start to perceive costs & alternatives - committed partners do not even notice alternatives.
• Cause & Effect - PART 2

  E = Research supports this view (dissatisfaction = first) = Miller (1997) found people who rated themselves being in highly committed relationship = less time looking at images of attractive people. Less time spent a good predictor of relationship continuing 2 months later, indicating people in committed relationships ignore even the most attractive alternatives.

  L = SET can’t account for direction of causation in outcome. Thus considering costs/alternatives caused by dissatisfaction rather than reverse - direction not predicted by SET. Weakening reliability SET.
• Ignores Equity - PART 1


  P = Central concern of SET is the comparison level, the ratio of perceived rewards & costs. But this focus ignores one crucial factor that may be an overwhelming consideration for romantic partners - fairness/equity.

  E = There is much research for the role of equity in relationships and the view that this is more important than just the balance of rewards and costs. 
• Ignores Equity - PART 2


  E = Studies into SET (including Kurdek’s ignore the role of equity) found that what matters in a romantic relationship is not the balance of rewards and costs but the partners’ perceptions that this is fair. 

  L = Neglect of this factor means that SET is a limited explanation which can’t account for a significant proportion of the research findings that confirm the importance of equity in relationships. 
• Ignores Equity - PART 3


  COUNTERPOINT:

  Kurdeck (1995) interviewed homo- and heterosexual couples, committed partners perceived they had most rewards and fewest costs and also viewed alternatives as unattractive.

  The study also showed that the main SET concepts predicting commitment are independent of each other (so they individually have an effect). The findings confined predictions of SET supporting the validity of the theory in gat & lesbian as well as heterosexual couples.
• Difficult to Quantify / SET concepts are vague - PART 1

  P = SET deals in concepts that are difficult to quantify. Rewards & costs have been defined superficially (e.g. money) in order to measure them.

  E = But psychological rewards & costs are more difficult to define especially when they vary so much from one person to another. Unlike in research, real world rewards/costs are subjective and hard to define because they vary, e.g. ‘Having your partner’s loyalty is not rewarding for everyone.  
• Difficult to Quantify / SET concepts are vague - PART 2


  E = It is unclear what the values of CL & CLalt need to be before individuals feel dissatisfied and dissatisfaction threatens a relationship. How attractive do alternatives need to be, or by how much should costs outweigh rewards?The concept of comparison levels is especially problematic. 

  L = This means SET is difficult to test in a valid way.
• Evaluation of the Social Exchange Theory (Theories of Romantic Relationships)


  -Cause & Effect

  -Inappropriate Assumptions

  -Ignores equity

  -SET concepts are vague/difficult to quantify
• Help to recall A03 - SET


  Can - cause & effect

  I - inappropriate assumptions

  Increase - ignores equity

  Vagueness - SET are vague

  "Can I Increase Vaguness"
• Psychologist A03 - SET


  Clark & Mills - inappropriate assumptions

  Argyle AND Miller - cause & effect