Social exchange theory

• Social exchange theory assumes romantic partners act out of self-interest in exchanging rewards and costs.
• Thibaut and Kelley 1959 proposed social exchange theory using economic theory that suggests we form a relationship if it is rewarding and we attempt to maximise our rewards and minimise our costs as we are more likely to commit and be satisfied in a relationship if the rewards outweigh the costs, giving a profitable outcome.
• Thibaut & Kelley 1959 assumes people try to maximise the rewards they obtain from a relationship and minimise the costs. This is the minimax principle.
• Rewards in a relationship include companionship and sex. Costs include missed opportunities, time and money.
• Rewards and costs are subjective. Some may find something to be a significant reward, but this may be less valuable to others. What we see as a reward may change over the course of the relationship. What is seen as rewarding during formation of a relationship, might become less so during maintenance.
• The sampling stage of relationship development is where the couple explores rewards and costs in a variety of relationships or others doing so.
• The bargaining stage of relationship development is where the couple negotiates the relationship and agrees the rewards and costs. Marks the start of the relationship where partners begin to exchange.
• The commitment stage of the relationship is where the couple settles into the relationship and exchange of rewards becomes fairly predictable. Stability increases as rewards increase and costs lessen.
• The institutionalisation stage of the relationship is where norms and expectations are firmly established and settled down.
• Profit in a romantic relationship is measured by companion level which is the amount of reward you believe you deserve.
• Comparison level is formed based on our experiences of previous relationships which feed into our expectations of the current one. It is also influences by social norms and media and our comparison level changes as we acquire more data.
• We consider a relationship worth pursuing if our comparison level is high.
• Comparison level for alternatives is used to give context to a current relationship. We will question whether we believe that 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 the cost of a current relationship is greater than the rewards, we assume the grass is greener on the other side. If we are satisfied, we may not even notice any alternatives.
• Research support. Sprecher 2001 found that comparison levels for alternatives were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship and rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction. This is positive as it demonstrates that some people base their evaluation of romantic relationships on rewards and costs as social exchange theory suggests.
• Reductionist approach to explaining romantic relationships. Social exchange theory is based purely on costs and rewards so limits the range of real life romantic experiences it can explain. Social exchange theory does not explain why people stay in abusive relationships despite the lack of rewards and overwhelming costs. This suggests a holistic approach may be better suited explaining relationships.
• Nomothetic approach to relationships. Social exchange theory suggests universal laws of how relationships are maintained that would be applicable to all couples; however, relationship maintenance varies between couples. This suggests that an idiographic approach may be better suited to explaining the maintenance of romantic relationships.
• Social exchange theory is based on research that lacks mundane realism. For example, Emerson and Cook 1978 designed a lab experiment where 112 participants were bargaining with a partner to maximise personal scores in a computer game. The relationships between these partners did not reflect real life romantic relationships. This is negative as these studies lack internal validity making social exchange theory less applicable to real life romantic relationships.