Social Exchange Theory (SET)

• Social Exchange Theory


  an economic theory of how relationships form and develop.

  claims partners in relationships strive to maximise rewards and minimise costs.
• Examples of Rewards


  love

  support

  companionship

  sense of belongingness
• Examples of Costs


  arguments

  stress

  insecurities

  time commitments
• Rewards, Costs and Profits

  idea of rewards and costs are subjective (what's considered as a cost to one person may not be to another).

  value of rewards and costs might change over course of relationship
• Comparison Level (CL)


  based on idea of how much reward they deserve to receive in a relationship

  perception becomes more sophisticated and possibly more accurate with experience as we base our CL off a large number of relationships and experiences

  
  

  Closely linked with self esteem. Higher self esteem = higher expectations of rewards (vice versa for low)
• Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt)

  concerns a person's perception of whether other potential relationships (or being single) would be more rewarding than current relationship

  SET predicts we stay in our relationships only as long as we believe it's more rewarding than alternatives

  if people consider themselves to be content in relationship, they may not notice available alternatives
• Stages of Relationship Development

  Sampling Stage - explore rewards and costs of relationship, either by direct experience or by observing others.

  Bargaining Stage - marks beginning of relationship. exchange various rewards + costs, negotiating and identifying what's more profitable

  Commitment Stage - relationships become more stable, partners become familiar with sources of rewards and costs and each other's expectations.

  Institutionalisation Stage - partners settled down as norms of relationship are firmly established.
• Strength - Supporting Research for SET

  Sprecher found CLalt were a strong predictor for commitment in a relationship and rewards were important as predictor of satisfaction, especially for women.

  Concluded some people appear to base their evaluation of romantic relationships on rewards and costs.

  Strength - supports idea that some people choose to stay in their relationship while it remains more profitable than alternatives.
• Strength - SET has many real-life applications

  Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT), partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchanges in everyday interactions and decrease negative ones.

  Christensen et al - 2/3 of couples that used IBCT reported their relationship significant improved and were feeling happier as a result.

  Strength - shows that SET can be used to help distressed couples IRL, demonstrating its real-world applications and benefit for relationships
• Weakness - Social Exchange Theory is Reductionist

  basing this complex phenomenon purely on costs and rewards makes it reductionist and limits range of romantic relationships it can explain.

  Can't explain why people remain in abusive relationships despite overwhelming costs.

  Weakness - suggests a holistic approach to studying romantic relationships may be better suited to explaining complexity of relationship maintenance.
• Weakness - Research surrounding SET lacks mundane realism

  majority of studies, studied strangers involved in game-based scenario with rewards and costs variably distributed during game.

  Emerson and Cook designed a lab experiment where 112 ppts were bargaining with a partner to maximise personal score in a computer game.

  'relationship was nothing like real-life relationships.

  Weakness - studies lack validity making SET less applicable to real-life relationships.
• Weakness - Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET

  many researchers don't accept economic metaphor underlying SET, assumes that form beginning of relationship, partners keep a kind of tally of profit and loss.

  Clark and Mills argue while this may be true of work interactions, it's rarely the case in romantic relationships, where rewards are distributed freely without necessarily keeping a score.

  Weakness - weakens the SET, as it seems that SET can only explain a limited range of social relationships