social exchange

• INTRO

  proposed by thibaut and Kelley

  • an economic theory for relationships that focuses on individuals aim of maximising profits in a relationship and minimising losses
  • profits and losses are subjective
  • all relationships require sacrifices which can devalue profits, but if costs outweigh rewards then relationship is likely to be unsuccessful
• COMPARISON LEVELS - both partners use this to compare the extent of their profits and losses

  • based on previous relationship e.g do they profit more in this one
  • depends on culture - some people may accept many losses as part of a relationship while others dont
  • depends on self esteem - high self esteem means someone is less likely to stay in a relationship with more losses than profits
• COMPARISON LEVELS FOR ALTERNATIVES - partners may compare the rewards and losses in their relationship to the potential rewards and losses in other potential partners

  • people will stay in their current relationship if they believe it yields more profits than other potential relationships
• 4 stages of assessing quality and profit in a relationship

  • sampling - trial and error with different profits and losses
  • bargaining - as couple become more committed, compromises are made in terms of costs and rewards
  • commitment - costs and rewards are smoothes out and both partners know the standard of these
  • institutionalisation - standard of costs and rewards are well established
• A03

  -one limitation of the social exchange theory is that is takes on a reductionist approach. it breaks down the complexity of a relationship into the simplistic terms of cost and reward. this therefore means it is unable to explain the reasons why people stay in abusive relationships when they costs heavily outweigh the rewards. thus , this theory lacks validity aswell as mundane realism as it is unable to explain all aspects of why people stay or leave relationships
• A03

  +practical application - SET can be applied to integrated behavioural couples therapy. partners are trained to increase the amount of positive exchanges in their everyday interactions and decrease the amount of negative ones, by changing negative behaviour patterns. Christensen et al found two-thirds of couples that were treated using IBCT reported that their relationships have significantly improved and they were much happier as a result. This shows that SET can be used to help distressed couples in real life, thus demonstrating its real-world application and benefit for relationships.
• A03

  -Some researchers argue that there is an issue with cause and effect in regards to SET assumptions. Argyle argues that people rarely start assessing their relationships before they feel unsatisfied with them. For example, being unhappy in relationships may lead a person to question whether there are more rewards than costs in their relationships and the potential alternatives, but these thoughts occur only after the dissatisfaction is discovered. This contradicts SET, which assumes that assessing profit and loss is the way in which all relationships are maintained, even happy ones.