Social exchange and equity theory

• Thibault and Kelley (1959) proposed the Social Exchange Theory for relationship formation takes an ‘economical’ approach, viewing relationships as worthwhile based on their relative costs and benefits, with the ‘minimax’ principles suggesting that we all aim to increase our rewards and decrease our benefits. We invest time, energy and money into each relationship and so we want to ‘get our worth’.
• In order to assess the potential profits we gain from a relationship, we can use comparison levels and comparison of alternatives. Comparison levels (CL) refer to our perception of what we are worth and so what we can get out of a relationship. This perception becomes more sophisticated, and potentially more accurate, with experience because we can base our CL off of a larger number of relationships and experiences. Our CL is also influenced by social and cultural factors, such as what novels and TV programs depict as a good or bad relationship.
• Our comparison levels determines the quality of the relationship we are looking for, and hence the quality of our partner. For example, a person with feelings of worthlessness may ‘settle’ for relationships which yield little profit. This leads to comparison of alternatives, where individuals may consider ending a relationship if they can see that there are other alternatives which would give them a larger profits. However, this is a sign of an unstable relationship, and a couple who are satisfied will not be looking for alternatives.
• There are 4 stages of assessing the quality and profit of a relationship:

  1. Sampling - Rewards and costs are determined through trial and error.
  2. Bargaining - As a couple become more committed, compromises are made in terms of cost and rewards.
  3. Commitment - Such standards of cost and rewards are known to both parties and negotiated.
  4. Institutionalisation - These standards and expectations are well-established and become predictable.
• Strengths of the social exchange theory:

  • Supporting evidence - Kurdeck interviewed homosexual and heterosexual couples. Committed partners perceived they had most rewards and fewest costs and also viewed alternatives as unattractive. The study also showed that the main SET concepts predicting commitment are independent of each other, so they independently have an effect. The findings confirmed predictions of SET, supporting the validity of theory in homosexual and heterosexual couples.
• Limitations of the social exchange theory:

  • Limited explanation - A retrospective explanation as to why relationships break down, rather than an explanation of their initial development, because many of the concepts in SET cannot be objectively and quantitatively measured. It is for this reason that it is difficult to establish ‘thresholds’ for each of these concepts, suggesting that SET is a subjective theory and reflects each individual’s perception of what is ‘worthy’ in a relationship, in terms of the comparison levels.
• Strengths of the social exchange theory:

  • Argyle suggested people in committed relationships are unlikely to look towards other people as they are satisfied in their own relationship, and have their own perception of suitable comparison levels. Miller then said it therefore should follow that satisfied individuals in long-term relationships will spend less time looking at other people because the benefits of their current relationship exceeds the associated costs. This suggests that SET is likely to be an accurate explanation for comparison levels as a mechanism for relationship breakdown.
• Limitations of the social exchange theory:

  • Reductionist - Basing the explanation of such complex phenomenon as romantic relationships purely on costs and rewards limits the range of real-life romantic experiences it can explain. For example SET does not explain why many people stay in abusive relationships despite the lack of rewards and overwhelming costs. This suggests that a holistic approach to studying romantic relationships may be better suited to explaining the complexity of relationships maintenance.
• Equity theory suggests that striking a balance between the ratio of cost and reward that each individual has is the key to a successful relationship. Therefore, couples are not always looking to maximise their gains, but simply to have a ‘fair’ relationship. This is not the same as equality where this ratio, alongside levels of cost and reward, would be the same for both partners.
• Rewards may include feelings of intimacy, love, sex, support and encouragement, whereas costs may include infidelity and even abuse.
• Equity is largely a subjective perception. However, differences in these perceptions can lead to one person being overbenefitted, whilst the second is underbenefitted. This disparity causes the overbenefitted individual to feel guilty and not worthy of the other, whereas the underbenefitted individual feels envious and disappointed that their input into the relationship is not reciprocal.
• The degree of difference between the two ratios, belonging to each individual, determines the likelihood that the relationship will be salvaged and the effort required to do so.

  • Behavioural - One partner will increase their own cost in order to increase the reward of the other individual, in an attempt to achieve equity.
  • Cognitive - One or both individuals making their expectations or perceptions of equity more realistic, such as accepting certain ‘costs’ as standards/norms. This may include abuse, tardiness, messiness and even unfaithfulness.
• Strengths of the equity theory:

  • Supporting link between equity and satisfaction - Utne suggested satisfied couples (out of a sample of 118, and who’d been dating for 2 or more years before marriage) valued equity as a key component of the success of their relationship, and preferred this balance compared to one or both members being benevolents or entitleds. Therefore, this suggests that equity has greater ecological validity than SET because it can explain the quality and satisfaction associated with real-life couples, as opposed to simply being theoretical.
• Strengths of the equity theory:

  • Supporting animal studies - Brosnan and DeWaal in their study of capuchin monkeys, found that they if monkeys were denied their reward (a bunch of grapes) for playing a game, they became very angry. This suggests that the importance of equity in relationships has ancient origins.
• Limitations of the equity theory:

  • Not universal - Huseman suggested this influence varies depending on the individual and whether they are happy to disproportionately give to the relationship (‘benevolents’) or disproportionately thrive off of the relationship (‘entitleds’). In both cases, individuals do so without worry and are aware of their actions, as well as their partner’s attitudes. This means that equity is essentially a perception and is not universal across all people.
• Limitations of the equity theory:

  • Alternative explanations - Clark and Mills suggested that equity theory may be a better or more valid explanation for friendship and business/non-personal relationships, as opposed to simply romantic relationships. This is because the researchers emphasised that it is important to draw distinctions between different types of relationships, and the different expectations that go with each, which may impact on the perceived equity levels. Hence, this suggests that SET is a limited explanation for only some types of relationships.