Social exchange theory

• Rewards, costs and profits

  • Thibault + Kelley: Behaviour reflects economic assumption of exchange - 'Minimise losses and maximise gains'
  • Reward and costs are subjective
  • Values of rewards and costs - Change over the course of the relationship
  • Rewards - E.g. companionship, sex and emotional support
  • Can involve negative emotions
  • Blau: Opportunity cost - Investment of time and energy in relationship cannot be invested anywhere else
• Comparison level (CL) - Measuring the profit in a romantic relationship

  • Amount of reward that one believes they deserve to get
  • Stems from experiences of former relationships - Feed expectations of the current one
  • Influence by social norms - Determine what is considered reasonable level of reward - Often reflected in the media
  • More relationships + Experience of social norms = CL changes as we have more 'data'
  • High CL - Want to pursue relationship - High self-esteem - Believe they are worth more
  • Low CL = Low self-esteem - Satisfied to gain a small profit from a relationship
• 4 stages of development

  1. Sampling stage: Explore rewards and costs of SE - Experiment with them in own relationship or observing others
  2. Bargaining stage: Beginning when romantic patterners exchange rewards and costs - Negotiate and identify most profitable
  3. Commitment stage: Sources of costs and rewards more predictable + Relationship more stable - Rewards increase costs decrease
  4. Institutionalisation stage: Partners settled down - Norms of the relationship
• Evaluation of SET - Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET

  Clark + Mills:

  • Theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship
  • Suggest exchange relationships - Involve social exchange as SET predicts
  • But communal relationships - Marked by giving and receiving of rewards without keeping score of who is in the lead

  SET claims:

  • Partners return rewards for rewards and costs for costs that are monitored
  • But we would question relationship if this was shown at the start

  Limitation: SET based on faulty assumptions and cant account for majority of romantic relationships
• Evaluation of SET - Direction of cause and effect

  • SET argues - Dissatisfaction when costs outweigh rewards or alternative are more attractive
  • Argyle: Don't measure costs and rewards until we are satisfied
  • Supported by Miller: Found people in committed relationship ignore attractive alternatives

  Limitation: SET cannot account for direction of causation in this outcome
• Evaluation of SET - SET ignore equity

  • Focus of SET ignore a crucial factor that may be an overwhelming consideration for romantic partners - Fairness or equity
  • Much research support of equity in relationships + More important than balance of rewards and costs

  Limitation: Neglected this factor - Limited explanations that cannot account for a decent amount of findings on relationships