social exchange theory

•  John Thibault and Harold Kelley [1959] 

  They contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange. Most importantly, they say we try to minimise losses and maximise gains [the minimax principle]. We judge our satisfaction with a relationship in terms of the profit it yields. Defined as the rewards minus the costs.
• Because such rewards and costs are subjective, there exists a very wide range of possible outcomes. What one person considers a significant reward might be viewed by someone else as less valuable. Also, the value of rewards and costs might well change over the course of a relationship. What is seen as rewarding or costly in the early stages, for instance, might become less so as time goes on. Rewards include such beneficial things as companionship, sex and emotional support. But a romantic relationship can involve negative and unpleasant emotions.
• In the economic language of Peter Blau, relationships can be expensive, so costs include time, stress, energy, compromise, and so on. Also in economic terms, a relationship incurs another kind of cost, an opportunity cost. Your investment of time and energy in your current relationship means using resources that you cannot invest elsewhere. 
• Comparison level [CL] 

  • This is the amount of reward that you believe you deserve
  • It develops out of our experiences of the past which feed into our expectations
  • It's also influenced by social norms that determine what is widely considered to be a reasonable level of reward.
  • Over time, we’ve been in more relationships and have more experience of social norms, so our CL changes as we acquire more data
  • We consider a relationship worth pursuing if our CL is high. There is a link with self esteem here. low self esteem = low CL and will therefore be satisfied with gaining just a small profit
• Comparison level for alternatives: 

  • Social exchange theory predicts that we will stay in our relationship only so long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternatives. 
  • According to relationship researcher Steve Duck, the CLalt we adopt will depend on the state of our current relationship. Due to a wide range of alternative partner choices, if the costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards, then alternatives become more attractive. Being in a satisfying relationship means that you may not even notice that alternatives could be available
• Thibault and Kelley's social exchange theory, four stages through which relationships develop:

  1. Sampling stage
  2. Bargaining stage
  3. Commitment stage 
  4. Institutionalisation stage 
• what is the sampling stage of relationship development

  We explore the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting with them in our own relationships, or by observing others doing so
• what is the bargaining stage of relationship development

  This marks the beginning of a relationship, when romantic partners start exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what is most profitable
• what is the commitment stage of relationship development

  As time goes on, the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen
• what is the institutionalisation stage of relationship development

  The partners are now settled down because the norms of the relationship, in terms of rewards and costs, are firmly established.
• Many researchers do not accept the economic metaphor underlying SET. Margaret Clark and Judson Mills [2011] argue that the theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship. They suggest that exchange relationships do involve social exchange. But communal relationships [such as romantic partners] are marked by the giving and receiving of rewards without keeping score of who is ahead and who is behind.
• SET claims that relationship partners return rewards for rewards, costs for costs, and that these reciprocal activities are monitored. But if we felt this kind of exchange monitoring was going on at the start of a promising relationship, we would probably question what kind of commitment our partner wanted. It is clear from some research that SET is based on faulty assumptions and therefore cannot account for the majority of romantic relationships.
• SET argues that dissatisfaction sets in when we suspect that costs outweigh rewards or that alternatives are more attractive. Micheal Argyle [1987] points out that we don’t measure costs and rewards in a relationship, nor do we constantly consider the attractiveness of alternatives. That is, not until we are dissatisfied with the relationship
• Research supports this view that dissatisfaction comes first. For example Miller [1997] found that people who rated themselves as being in  a highly committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people. What's more, less time spent looking was a good predictor of the relationship continuing two months later. So people in committed relationships ignore even the most attractive alternatives. SET cannot account for the direction of causation in this outcome.
• SET ignores fairness or equity. There is research support for the role of equity in relationships, and the view that this is more important than just the balance of rewards and costs. Neglect of this factor means that SET is a limited explanation which cannot account for a significant proportion of the research findings on relationships.
• SETs concepts are difficult to quantify. Rewards and costs have been defined superficially in order to measure them. But psychological rewards and costs are more difficult to define, especially when they vary so much from one person to another. The concept of comparison levels is especially problematic. It is unclear what the values of  CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship.
• • The majority of studies supporting SET use artificial tasks in artificial conditions. For example, One common procedure involves two strangers working together on a game playing scenario in which rewards and costs are distributed. More realistic studies using participants in real relationships have been less supportive of SET, especially noting that snapshot studies cannot account for the properties that emerge from a relationship over time, such as trust.