Social exchange theory

• What is the social exchange theory?

  • Assumes that romantic partners act out of self-interest in exchanging rewards and costs, and that a satisfying and committed relationship is maintained when rewards exceed costs
  • Thibault and Kelley (1959) said that in relationships we minimise losses and maximise gains, making judgements about relationships based off of the rewards and the costs
• What are rewards, costs, and profits?

  • Rewards include beneficial things such as companionship, emotional support, etc. but these are subjective and vary with different people, and can also change throughout the course of a relationship
  • Costs include time, energy, stress, as well as an opportunity cost as the things you invest into a relationship means giving up using them elsewhere
  • We judge our satisfaction w/ a relationship in terms of the profit it yields e.g. rewards minus costs
• What is the comparison level?

  • The amount of reward we believe we deserve, based off of previous relationships which feed into our expectations of our current one
  • Also influenced by social norms that determine what is widely considered a reasonable level of reward, such as books and TV
  • We consider a relationship worth pursuing if our CL is high - someone with high self-esteem will believe they are worth more and expect more profits from relationships
• What is the comparison level for alternatives?

  • Making the judgement of whether or not we gain greater rewards and less cost from our own relationship or alternative potentials
  • Social exchange theory predicts that we will stay in our current relationships as long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternative options, which could be other potential partners or being single
  • Duck (1994) said this depends on the state of our current relationship - if our current costs outweigh our rewards then alternatives begin to look more attractive
• What are the stages of relationship development?

  1. Sampling: we explore rewards and costs by experimenting them in our own relationships or observing others doing so
  2. Bargaining stage: beginning of a relationship when partners begin giving and receiving rewards to decide whether the relationship is worthwhile
  3. Commitment: relationship increases in predictability and partners know how to elicit rewards, lowering costs and maintaining stability
  4. Institutionalisation: norms of relationship in terms of reward and cost are firmly developed and partners are now settled down
• What is one strength of the social exchange theory?

  • Research support: Kurdek (1995) asked LGBTQ+ and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring commitment and SET variables
  • Found that the partners who received the most rewards, least costs, and viewed alternatives as unattractive were the MOST committed
  • Findings match the predictions of SET, strongly confirming the validity of the theory in homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples
• What is one limitation of the social exchange theory?

  • Direction of cause and effect: SET claims dissatisfaction arises only after a relationship stops being 'profitable' but it may be the reverse
  • Argyle (1987) argued we are not constantly monitoring costs and rewards, or considering alternatives, until AFTER we are dissatisfied -in committed, satisfying relationships we don't even notice potentially attractive alternatives
  • Suggests considering costs/alts is CAUSED by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse, challenging SET's main ideas
• What is another limitation of the social exchange theory?

  • Vague concepts: real-word psychological rewards and costs are highly subjective and vary from one person to another, as everyone has different standards for what they consider costs and rewards
  • It is also unclear what the values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship
  • Theory is difficult to test in a valid way suggesting it lacks standardisation, questioning whether or not we should trust it as a theory
• What is another limitation of the social exchange theory?

  • Inappropriate central assumptions: SET assumes all relationships take on an economic nature in that it monitors costs and rewards, profit and loss, etc.
  • Clark and Mills (2011) contrastingly argue that this cannot be applied to romantic relationships they are communal-based
  • Romantic partners do not 'keep score' as this would destroy the trust that underlies a close emotional relationship
  • Weakens theory as it ignores emotional influences on relationships instead focusing on robot-like economics