Theories of romantic relationships: Social exchange theory

• Thibaut and Kelley (1959) introduced Social Exchange Theory (SET) which explains romantic relationships in terms of an economic model, where partners weigh up rewards and costs to determine whether the relationship is worth maintaining.

  • It is based on the assumption that people seek to maximise rewards and minimise costs in relationships.
• Rewards and Costs

  • In relationships, rewards can include companionship, emotional support, sex, and financial security.
  • Costs may include stress, effort, financial investment, and opportunity cost (losing alternative opportunities).
  • If rewards outweigh costs, the relationship is considered profitable and satisfying.
• Comparison Level (CL) is the amount of reward that you believe you deserve to get.

  • It is a standard against which the current relationship is judged.
  • It is based on past experiences and expectations of previous relationships about what we deserve in a current relationship.
  • If the current relationship exceeds the comparison level, it is seen as satisfying and worth maintaining.
• Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt) refers to whether we believe we could have a better relationship with someone else.

  • If the costs of the current relationship outweigh the rewards, or if an alternative offers greater rewards, we may consider ending the relationship.
  • However, if no better alternative is available, we may stay in an unsatisfying relationship due to a lack of options.
• Stages of Relationship Development (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)

  • Sampling – We explore the potential rewards and costs of relationships, often through trial and error.
  • Bargaining – The negotiation stage, where couples exchange rewards and costs, identify what is most profitable.
  • Commitment – Over time, the relationship becomes more stable, and costs lessen as partners become accustomed to each other.
  • Institutionalisation – The relationship’s norms are established, and partners become comfortable with the rewards and costs.
• One strength of SET is that there is research support for the role of comparison levels in relationship satisfaction. Sprecher (2001) found that when individuals believed they had better alternatives, they were less committed to their current relationship. This supports the comparison level for alternatives (CLalt), as it suggests that people evaluate their relationships by comparing them to potential other options. The findings provide empirical evidence for SET’s claim that relationship satisfaction is based on perceived costs and rewards.
• A limitation of SET is the difficulty in measuring rewards and costs. What one person perceives as a reward (e.g., emotional support) may be seen as a cost by another (e.g., feeling smothered). This makes objective measurement difficult, as relationship dynamics are highly subjective and individualistic. If rewards and costs cannot be quantified, it is difficult to test SET scientifically, weakening its validity as a psychological theory.
• A limitation of SET is that it may suffer from cultural bias because it reflects Western, individualistic views of relationships. In Western cultures, relationships are typically voluntary and based on personal satisfaction, making SET more applicable. However, in collectivist cultures, relationships are often influenced by tradition, where the needs of a group/community are valued over individual needs, meaning that cost-benefit analysis may not always apply. This suggests that SET is ethnocentric and may not be a suitable explanation for relationships across different cultures.
• A limitation is that it does not account for equity in relationships. Research suggests that people are more concerned with fairness rather than simply maximising rewards and minimising costs. Equity Theory argues that relationships are most satisfying when there is a balance of contributions between partners, rather than one partner gaining more rewards. Hatfield et al. (1989) found that couples who felt under-benefited or over-benefited were less satisfied than those in equitable relationships. This suggests that it may be an incomplete explanation of relationships.