Social exchange theory

• social exchange theory

  looks at the relationship economically

  assumes romantic partners act out of self-interest in exchanging rewards and costs
• minimax principle

  maximise rewards (e.g. love, companionship) and minimise the costs (stress, time)
• comparison level

  the amount of reward you believe you deserve to get from the relationship influenced by previous experience and social norms.
• comparison level for alternatives

  Do you believe you could get greater rewards and fewer costs elsewhere?

  we stay in the relationship if we believe it is more rewarding than the alternatives.
• stages of relationship development

  • sampling
  • bargaining
  • commitment
  • institutionalisation
• sampling

  we experiment with rewards and costs in our relationship
• bargaining

  we negotiate rewards and costs at the start of a relationship
• commitment

  rewards increase, and costs decrease so the relationship stabilises
• institutionalisation

  normative rewards and costs are well established
• strength - research evidence

  Kurdek (1995) asked gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables. He found that those partners who were most committed also perceived the most rewards and fewest costs and viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive.
• limitation - comparison with other theories

  Studies into SET ignore one crucial factor that may be an overwhelming consideration for romantic partners – equity. Equity theory proposes that what matters in relationships is not just the balance of rewards and costs, but the partners’ perception that this is fair. There is much research support for the role of equity in relationships.
• limitation - vague concepts

  in the real-world, rewards and costs are subjective and therefore hard to operationalise. people will have different perceptions of rewards and costs. this reduces the validity of the social exchange theory
• strength - research support

  Miller (1997) found that participants who rated themselves as being in a highly committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people, compared to participants in casual relationships. Less time spent looking also was a good predictor of the relationship continuing 2 months later. So, people in committed relationships ignore even the most attractive alternatives.