Social exchange theory (SET)

• Based on economic theory

  seeking the best deal

  best deal = max profit
• Profit calculation


  Profit - rewards = costs

  for most satisfying relationships we seek the highest rewards and lowest costs
• Each partner in a relationship will be motivated to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs to gain best profit
• Rewards and costs 


  They are subjective

  rewards could be emotional support, sex or companionship

  costs could be stress, energy or compromising

  value of rewards and costs changes over course of relationship
• For a relationship to form and continue both partners should be in profit (rewards higher than costs)
• Comparison level (CL)


  the standard by which we judge all relationships

  based on previous experiences and social norms which are influenced by media

  CL changes over time as we experience different relationships
• If we believe our current profit is greater than our CL the relationship is maintained

  if profit is less than CL relationship will breakdown
• Comparison level for alternatives (CL alt)

  profit for potential alternative relationships is calculated

  can we do better with someone else?

  weigh up a potential increase in rewards from a different partner against costs of leaving our current partner

  a new relationship can take the place of a current one if it’s profit level is higher
• Relationship will maintain if

  Rewards are high, costs are low

  profit is high compared to CL

  profit for alternatives (CL alt) is low
• Relationships will breakdown if

  Rewards are low, costs are high

  profit is ow compared to CL

  profit for alternatives (CL alt) is higher
• Supporting evidence for CL alt

  Sprecher, longitudinal study of 101 dating couples at a US university

  presence of alternatives was biggest predictor of relationship unsatisfisfaction in both males and females

  strong negative correlation between presence of alternative and satisfaction of the relationship , if there are lots of possible alternatives for you, you will be less happy in your relationship

  they concluded that having a high comparison for alternatives means you are more likely to breakdown your relationship
• criticism of C&E


  findings could be explained by the fact that people are more likely to notice alternative when they are unhappy

  issue with cause and effect

  theory claims that high presence of alternatives leads to low satisfaction but could it be low satisfaction makes you look for more alternative

  support of this - miller , people who rated themselves as being in a committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people

  people who are already unhappy are more likely to look for alternatives - contradicting theory
• methodological issues of supporting research

  common procedure used in studies supporting this theory involves two strangers in a game playing

  p's must distribute rewards and costs and then assess their liking of each other , these two players know nothing about each other and their 'relationship' consists soley of the game
• don't generalise to real life relationships

  • studies are artificial as they involve game playing scenarios which do not generalise to real life relationships​
  • These supporting studies therefore lack ecological validity which may undermine the validity of SET​
  • In fact, more realistic studies that use real couples have been less supportive of SET​
• problems of measuring costs and benefits

  • theory suggests that individuals must have a way of measuring costs and benefits ​
  • For example how do you compare the benefit of seeing your children everyday to the cost of arguing with your partner everyday​
  • It is also unclear what the values of the CL and Cl alt must be in order to threaten a relationship​
  • How attractive do alternatives need to be to make you leave your partner?​
  • If it is not possible to measure rewards and costs then the theory cannot be a valid explanation​
• reductionists 


  • SET reduces relationships to profits (rewards and losses) ​
  • other factors such as instincts and reproductive success can also explain relationships​
  • SET also ignores the role of emotion – ​
  • Often people in unrewarding relationships stay because they still love their partner​
  • For example abused spouses are often very defensive of their partners even when their partners are being prosecuted​
• another reason its reductionist

  • Another reason that SET is reductionist is that it argues that partners are out to maximise their profit in relationships ​
  • This doesn’t take into account equity (fairness)​
  • This shortcoming has been addressed by the equity theory (relationships will continue if both partners consider it to be fair)​
  • It is therefore suggested that SET is a very limited theory of romantic relationships​