AO3 - SET

• Research to support SET as a theory of romantic relationships was carried out by Kurdeck. He asked homosexual and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and their rewards/costs. He found that those partners who were most committed perceived more rewards and fewer costs and viewed alternative relationships as unattractive. Therefore, increasing the validity of the SET as a theory of romantic relationships as it suggests experiencing relationship ‘profit’ is important for committed romantic relationships for heterosexual and homosexual couples.
• However, much of the research investigating the SET is correlational. Therefore, a cause and effect cannot be established between lack of profit and dissatisfaction in relationships. For example, other research has found that couples do not monitor costs and rewards, or consider alternatives, until after they become dissatisfied. Suggesting that dissatisfaction causes us to compare with alternative relationships and consider relationship profit, rather than the other way around. Therefore, limiting the internal validity of the social exchange theory as a theory of romantic relationships.
• A further limitation of SET is that the definitions of rewards in relationships are subjective. SET states that rewards and costs involve money and time which are considered superficial. Real world costs and rewards are harder to define for couples, for example some couples may regard loyalty as being a reward which vary from couple to couple. In addition, it is unclear what the values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship. Therefore, reducing the validity of SET as a theory of romantic relationships as the concepts are vague and more difficult to test.