SET: Theories of romantic relationships

• SET= social exchange theory
• SET assumes relationship are guided by the minimax principle
• Thibault and Kelley proposed that relationships could be explained in terms of economics- it is an exchange of goods or less tangible things such as doing a favour
• Satisfaction is judged in terms of profit (the perceived value of costs minus the value of rewards)
• Partners are motivated to minimise the costs to themselves by maximising rewards
• Profitable relationships continue; unprofitable relationships fall
• Costs may include loss of time or stress
• Rewards may include sex, praise or companionship
• Opportunity cost also needs to be accounted for (i.e. the recognition that investment in a given relationship is at the 'cost' of expending those resources elsewhere)
• Comparison level (CL) is a judgement of the reward level we expect in a relationship, determined by relationship experiences and social norms
• We will generally pursue a relationship where the CL is high but some people (e.g. with low self-esteem) may have low CLs
• Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) involved considering whether we might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in a different relationship, assuming that (as in most cultures) we can only select one partner- we will remain in a relationship, despite available alternatives, when we consider it is more rewarding than the alternatives
• Duck suggests that there are always alternatives around. If the costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards then alternatives become more attractive. But if we are in a satisfying relationship we may not even notice them
• Four stages of relationship:

  1. Sampling stage involves exploring rewards and costs by experimenting in our relationships and observing others
  2. Bargaining stage occurs at the start of a relationship where romantic partners negotiate around costs and rewards
  3. Commitment stage is where relationships become more stable. Costs reduce and rewards increase
  4. Institutionalisation stage is when partners become settled because the norms of the relationship are established
• What are the four stages of relationships?

  Sampling, bargaining, commitment and institutionalisation
• Limitation: SET assumes all relationships are exchange based

  Clark and Mills argue that exchange relationships may involve profit (e.g. work colleagues) but communal relationships (e.g. romantic partners) involve giving and receiving of rewards without thinking of profit. At the start of a romantic relationship tallying of exchanges might be viewed with some suspicion and even distaste. Thos suggests that SET may not provide a suitable explanation for all types of relationships
• Limitation: SET doesn't consider equity in relationships

  SET focuses on comparison levels but ignores the fact that many romantic partners desire fairness or equity. Hatfield et al. found that couples in equitable relationships were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over- or under benefitting. This evidence suggests SET is a limited explanation of relationships, supported by only a proportion of the research findings
• Limitation: concepts are hard to quantify

  Research studies tend to operationalise rewards and costs superficially (e.g. money) but in reality rewards and costs are difficult to define and subjectively judges. Also it is unclear what the values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threaten a relationship. This is a key issue in understanding relationship breakdown. The inability to accurately quantify the key concepts of SET make it very difficult to produce valid research support
• Limitation: research involved artificial tasks and conditions

  Research often consists of game-playing and distribution of rewards and costs in a scenario where 'partners' are together just for the study. More realistic studies which have used partners in actual relationships have been less supportive of SET. The support for SET is weakened by the lack of validity of the studies and the fact that more realistic studies fail to support its assertions