Social Exchange Theory

• Social Exchange Theory: Assumptions

  Explains the relationship formation process by focusing on the rewards partners obtain from being in the relationship, versus the costs they incur. Individuals who receive favourable reward/cost outcomes are more likely to be satisfied with their relationship and maintain it.
• Profit and Loss:

  Thibaut and Kelly claim that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges where individuals attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs. People exchange their resources with the expectation that they will earn a 'profit'. Rewards received in a relationship can be: being cared for, sex, and companionship. Costs may be: effort, financial investment, and time wasted. The 'economic' theory stresses that commitment to a relationship is dependent on the profitability of the outcome.
• Comparison Level (CL): 1

  Thibaut and Kelly propose that we develop a CL- a standard against all relationships are judged. It is the product of our experiences in other relationships, and our general views/expectations. If we judge that potential profit in a new relationship exceeds our CL, then it will be judged as worthwhile and the other person is deemed attractive. If the result is negative, the partner will be seen as unattractive.
• Comparison Level (CL): 2

  If someone previously had an unpleasant or unsatisfying relationship, they may have a low CL meaning they would be perfectly happy in a relatively poor relationship. In contrast, someone with previously rewarding relationships, they are likely to have high expectations and wouldn't persist in a relationship which didn't meet these. A relationship will have a greater degree of solidarity if both partners perceived profits are above their CL.
• Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLA):

  A related concept for relationship commitment is CLA; where the person weighs up the potential increase in rewards from an alternate partner minus any costs associated with leaving their current relationship. If the alternative options are more appealing, there will be temptation to leave their current relationship. The more rewarding a partner's alternatives, the less dependence on their current relationship. Relationships can become less stable when there is low levels of dependence- causing distress.
• Key Study: Kurdek and Schmitt

  Procedure- investigated the importance of social exchange factors in determining relationship quality in 185 couples. Comprising of 44 heterosexual married couples, 36 co-habiting heterosexual couples, 50 same-sex male couples, and 56 same-sex female couples. Each lived together without children. Couples then completed a questionnaire without discussing their answers with each other.
• Key Study: Kurdek and Schmitt

  Findings- for each of the 4 different types of couple, greater relationship satisfaction was associated with: the perception of benefits in the current relationship (CL), seeing alternatives to the current relationship as unattractive (CLA). These findings show that factors which predict relationship satisfaction are the same for heterosexual couples and same-sex couples.
• AO3: Evidence for the Influence of CLA

  Sprecher did a longitudinal study of 101 dating couples at a US university, finding that the variable most associated with relationship commitment was CLA. Showing that a preference of alternatives was consistently and negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction/commitment in both males and females. Sprecher then suggests that those who lack alternatives are likely to stay committed, and those who are satisfied and committed are likely to devalue alternatives. IDA- Cultural Bias
• AO3: Problem of Costs and Benefits

  An issue with the SET is confusion over what constitutes as a cost and a benefit in a relationship. What may be considered as rewarding to one person (like constant affection and praise) may be a cost to another (seen as irritating). Additionally, what may be seen as a benefit at one stage of a relationship, may become a cost in another stage- as partners may redefine something which they previously found as being rewarding. Suggesting that it is difficult to classify all events in terms of costs and rewards. IDA- Individual Differences
• AO3: Problems with Assessing Value

  Nakonezny and Denton argue that for SET to be relevant to personal relationships, individuals must have some way of quantifying the value of costs and benefits to assess whether there is an overall profit. Claiming that this value is difficult to determine, as so are the relative costs and rewards. Though this isn't the case in commercial and economic relationships where the theory is normally applied, the vagueness of the theory is then less applicable to personal relationships.
• AO3: Overemphasis on Costs and Benefits

  Reliance on profitable outcomes for relationship satisfaction ignores other factors- an individual's own rational beliefs may make them more tolerant of a low ratio of benefits to costs. They may believe that it is too selfish 'to focus on one's own needs'. Although they may recognise the unfavourable ratio, their relationship standard means that they continue to provide benefits and put up with the costs. Thus, the SET alone cannot explain relationship satisfaction without considering individual differences in relationship standards and beliefs.
• AO3: Real-World Application; Relationship Therapy

  Individuals in unsuccessful marriages report a lack of positive behaviour exchanges. Gottman and Levenson found that in successful marriages the ratio of positive to negative exchanges was 5:1; whereas in unsuccessful marriages it was 1:1 or lower. The primary goal of Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT) is to increase the proportion of positive exchanges. Helping couples to break their negative behaviour patterns and making each other happier. After treating 60 distressed couples with IBCT, 2/3s reported significant improvements.
• AO3: Issues and Debates

  Determinism- according to the SET, if the costs outweigh the rewards then a person will wish to opt out of their relationships. Though there are many cases where an individual will choose to remain in a high-cost relationship (e.g. if one partner is chronically ill). Meaning the predictive validity of SET is low- it cannot certainly establish if someone feels happy based on their costs/rewards.
• AO3: Issues and Debates

  Reductionism- basing the complex phenomenon of romantic relationships as being purely based of costs and rewards makes it reductionist, it limits the range of real-life relationships it can explain. E.g. it doesn't explain why people stay in abusive relationships despite their lack of rewards and high costs. A more holistic approach would be more suitable.