Social Exchange Theory

• Social Exchange Theory:

  • Thibault & Kelley (1959)
  • States that in relationships we give & receive resources (the 'exchange'), eg time, attention, money, affection, bad habits, stress etc. Rewards & costs are subjective (own opinion).
• Social Exchange Theory:

  • We perform a cost-benefit analysis of this exchange in order to calculate whether we are making a profit or a loss- can do this by subtracting costs from the benefits (rewards).
  • For a relationship to be deemed satisfactory, we should feel that we are in 'profit'.
• Social Exchange Theory assumes that everyone tries to maximise relationship profit by getting more rewards & minimising costs, ie maximise the good & minimise the bad.
• • We all have a minimum level of profit that we're willing to accept to maintain a relationship- individualised & known as our 'comparison level'.
  • This is subjective & made up of our experiences in past relationships & cultural norms, is closely linked to self-esteem.
  • If the cost-benefit analysis reveals a profit that exceeds our comparison level, we are satisfied & will continue in the relationship.
• • We also look at other potential partners to see what we could get from them as a measure of whether we should continue in our current relationship- known as 'comparison level for alternatives'.
  • If we judge our current relationship as the most profitable, we are satisfied & our relationship is maintained.
  • Predicts that relationships that benefit both parties will succeed, whereas relationship that are imbalanced will fail.
• Thibault & Kelley state that all relationships proceed through a series of stages: 1

  1. Sampling stage- through dating & observing others, people can explore potential rewards & costs of relationship (what will be acceptable in the future).
  2. Bargaining stage- first stage of romantic relationship where partners exchange rewards & costs, figure out most profitable exchanges & negotiate the dynamics of relationship to ensure the best 'deal'.
• Thibault & Kelley state that all relationships proceed through a series of stages: 2

  3. Commitment stage- relationships become more stable, partners become familiar with sources of rewards & costs & each others' expectations- rewards increase & costs lessen. This may change overtime & require re-negotiation.
• Kurdek & Schmitt (1986) Study:

  • Investigated the importance of social exchange factors in determining relationship quality in 185 couples- of 44 heterosexual married couples, 35 co-habiting heterosexual couples, 50 same sex male couples & 56 same sex female couples.
  • Each couple completed a questionnaire without discussing their answers with each other.
• Kurdek & Schmitt (1986) Study:

  • Greater relationship satisfaction associated with:
  • -the perception of many benefits of the current relationship (CL)
  • -seeing alternatives to the current relationship as less attractive (CLFA)
  • This confirms important aspects of SET in real relationships.
• Evaluation of SET- strength:

  • Research support from a range of real life relationship types.
  • Kurdek & Schmitt (1986) key study.
  • Indicates the validity of Social Exchange Theory.
• Evaluation of SET- strength:

  • Evidence for the influence of comparison level of alternatives- Sprecher (2001) found that in relationships where the comparison level for alternatives was high, commitment to & satisfaction with current relationship, tended to be low.
  • Suggests those who have low commitment & low satisfaction in their relationship, go through this concept of 'comparison level for alternatives', ie they start to look elsewhere.
• Evaluation for SET- strength:

  • Real world application- relationship theory. Gottman & Levenson (1992) found that in successful marriages, ratio of positive to negative exchanges= 5:1, but in unsuccessful marriages, ratio was much lower at around 1:1 or less.
  • Therapies have therefore been developed to help increase the positive exchanges within these relationships.
  • Indicates not only credibility of theory in explaining nature of relationships, but also as the basis for ways of improving quality of life.
• Evaluation for SET- weakness:

  • Overemphasis on costs & benefits- Clark & Mills (1979) argue that not all relationships rely on the constant analysis of whose giving & receiving what.
  • They highlight that some relationships, eg those with a colleague, may rely on exchange, whereas others, such as romantic relationships are more communal, with a pooling of resources & an acceptance that all will balance out in the end, rather than constant monitoring.
  • This indicates that the SET does not apply in all cases, so cannot fully explain relationships.