social exchange theory (SET)

• social exchange theory

  Thibault and kelley 1959 = behaviour in relationship reflect economic assumptions of exchange 

  • Try to minimise losses and promote gains (minimax principle)
  • Judge satisfaction with a relationship in terms of profit it yields.

  Rewards and costs are subjective - may be different to others and change overtime
• profit and loss

  • One major assumption that applies to all social relationships is that they are based on a form of exchange.
  • We maximise the rewards of the relationship whilst minimising the costs.
  • Rewards from relationships include: Being cared for, companionship & sex.
  • Costs can include: Effort, financial investment & time expended
  • Both partners try to give minimal costs in order to gain enough rewards to make the relationship profitable
• comparison levels

  • Thibaut and Kelley proposed that we have a certain comparison level that we judge all our relationships against.
  • This CL is based on our expectations and experiences from previous relationships.
  • If the profit from a new relationship is deemed to be above the comparison level, then that relationship is thought to be worthwhile
  • If first relationship - get CL from parents, social media, friends, movies/tv shows
• comparison levels for alternatives (second measure of profit)

  • Where dissatisfaction occurs people will create a comparison level for alternative relationships.
  • E.g. Will a relationship with person B or C be more 'profitable' than my current relationship with person A?
  • This is judged by weighing up the profits of starting a new relationship against the costs of ending the current one.
• SET predicts we will stay in our current relationship only so long as we believe it is more rewarding than alternatives

  Duck 1994 = CLalt, we adopt will depend on state of current relationship if costs outweigh pros then see others as alternatives
• stages of relationship development

  Thibault and Kelley suggested that relationships develop in 4 stages:

  1. Sampling- experimenting with the costs and rewards of social exchange in our own relationships/observations of other relationships.
  2. Bargaining - romantic partners exchange various rewards and costs, identify and negotiate which is most profitable.
  3. Commitment - costs and rewards become more predictable. Costs reduce and rewards increase due to relationship stability.
  4. Institutionalisation - partners are now settled due to the norms of a relationship being firmly established.
• supporting research

  • "SOME* research support for the relationship between rewards and relationship success
  • Joel et al (2020) conducted a meta-analysis of 43 longitudinal studies of couples,
  • Two of the top five predictors of relationship success were 'sexual satisfaction' and "conflict"...

  HOWEVER...

  • Joel et al. also found that another two of the top five predictors of relationship success were 'perceived partner commitment and 'perceived partner satisfaction
  • SET does not take perceptions of a partner's happiness into account at all.
  • This suggests that it is an oversimplistic model of relationship success
• methodological difficulties

  • There are methodological difficulties with measuring benefits and costs in SET
  • Rewards and costs are difficult to quantify.
  • They can be entirely subjective and emotional
  • They have often been defined superficially in order to measure them e.g. money
  • This makes it very difficult to accurately quantify whether benefits might outweigh costs or not

  Because of this..

  • Clark and Mills (2011) suggest that the theory only works for relationships where it is easier to keep score'.
  • Exchange relationships (coworkers) do involve SE, but Communal relationships (romantic partners) do not.
• ignores equity

  • There is much more research support for equity (next topic)
  • Neglect of this factor means that SET may be a limited explanation.
  • E.g. Stafford and Canary found that over-benefitted partners were less satisfied that partners who perceived their relationship as equitable