Theories of RR: social exchange theory

• Social Exchange Theory (SET)

  • The likelihood of a person staying in a relationship is determined by an assessment of what they get out of the relationship compared to what they put in. 
  • The person also compares the relationship against what they expect and what they might achieve in a different relationship.
• Rewards, Costs and Profits

  • According to Thibault and Kelley (1959), all social behaviour is a series of exchanges
  • Individuals attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs
  • Rewards we may receive from a relationship include companionship, being cared for and sex
  • Costs may include effort, financial investment and time wasted
  • Rewards   -   Costs   =  profit or loss 
  • Social exchange theory suggests that commitment to a relationship is dependent on how profitable it is
• Comparison Level (CL):

  • In order to measure the profit in a romantic relationship, we develop a comparison level (CL)
  • This is a standard against which all our relationships are judged
  • Our comparison level (CL) is determined by our experiences in past relationships and social norms
  • If a person’s CL is ‘high’, that means they have previously had very rewarding relationships and would have high expectations of future relationships 
• Comparison Level (CL):

  • If a person’s CL is ‘low’, that means they may have had previously unpleasant relationships, meaning they are perfectly happy with in a relatively poor relationship
  • If we judge that the potential profit in a new relationship is greater than our CL, then the relationship will be seen as worthwhile and the other person will be seen as an attractive partner
  • If we judge the potential profit in a new relationship is less than our CL, then we find the idea of a relationship with the other person less attractive
• Comparison level:

  • For a relationship to be successful, both partners must believe their current relationship is more profitable than their comparison level (previous relationships)
• Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt)

  • This is another way we measure profit in a romantic relationship
  • In this case, we consider whether we could gain greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship
  • Social Exchange Theory suggests that we will stay in our current relationship only so long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternatives
• CLalt:

  • The Comparison Level for Alternatives that we adopt will depend on the state of our current relationship
  • So, if the costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards, then alternatives become more attractive
  • However, if we are in a satisfying relationship we may not even notice the alternatives available!
• AO3:

  • A limitation of SET is that it does not apply to all types of relationships.
  • For example, Clark and Mills (2010) argue that in romantic relationships, partners give and receive rewards without keeping score of who is ahead and who is behind.
  • This contradicts SET, as SET suggests partners return rewards for rewards and costs for costs, monitoring how much the other person is rewarding/costing them
  • Therefore, it appears that SET cannot account for the majority of relationships
• AO3:

  • SET assumes that individuals are dissatisfied in a relationship if they think costs outweigh rewards. However, a limitation of this is that individuals may become dissatisfied first and then weigh up costs and benefits after.
  • Argyle (1987) suggests that we only measure costs and rewards after we have already become dissatisfied with a relationship. 
  • This contradicts SET as it suggests that dissatisfaction leads to weighing up of costs/rewards, rather than vice-versa.
• AO3:

  • A limitation of SET is that it focuses too much on the ratio of perceived costs and benefits and ignores equity. 
  • Equity means fairness. This means that, for both partners, their level of ‘profit’ (rewards minus costs) is the same.
  • There is much research support for the role of equity in the success of relationships 
  • This suggests that equity is more important in relationships than just the balance of rewards and costs as claimed by SET.
• AO3:

  • A limitation of SET is that it is difficult to operationalise and measure its concepts
  • For example, rewards and costs have been defined as money in order to measure them however psychological rewards and costs are more difficult to define because they vary from person to person
  • This makes it difficult to assess the validity of SET as researchers do not always agree on how to define and measure rewards and costs, which are an integral part of the SET.