social exchange theory

• •Based on economic theory

  • Sees relationships as a market place where people

  seek the best deal

  • Therefore relationships are seen in terms of

  trading & exchanging commodities
• • Profit = rewards– costs

  • It is believed that each partner in a

  relationship will be motivated to maximise

  their rewards

  • and minimise their costs in order to gain the best profit
• •Rewards and costs are subjective

  • You might consider receiving a compliment from your

  partner a prized reward whereas your partner could take it

  or leave it

  • Rewards could be emotional support, sex or

  companionship

  • Costs could be stress, energy or compromise

  • The value of rewards and costs can change over the course

  of a relationship

  • For a relationship to form & continue both partners should

  be in profit (rewards must be higher than costs)
• comparrison level?


  standard by which we judge all relationships, based off past experiences and parents etc
• • Our CL can change 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 then the relationship will breakdown​
• comparison level for alternatives?

  • we will 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 its profit level is higher
• • The relationship will maintain if:​
  • Rewards are high, costs are low ​
  • Profit is high compared to CL​
  • Profit for alternatives (CL alt) is low
• • The relationship will breakdown if:​
  • Rewards are low, costs are high ​
  • Profit is low compared to CL​
  • Profit for alternatives (CL alt) is higher
• a03 supporting cl alt?

  • Sprecher (2001) conducted a longitudinal study of 101 couples at a US university ​
  • found that the presence of alternatives was the biggest predictor of relationship satisfaction in both males and females.​
  • There was a strong negative correlation between presence of alternatives & satisfaction of the relationship
  • In other words, 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 break your relationship​, supports theory
• High presence of alternatives

  Low satisfaction
• Low satisfaction


  High presence of alternatives
• These findings could be explained by the fact that people are more likely to notice alternatives when they are unhappy
• There is an issue of cause and effect
• Claims that high presence of alternatives leads to low satisfaction but it could be the other way round
• Miller (1997)


  • People who rated themselves as being in a committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people
• This suggests that people who are already unhappy & thinking about ending their relationship are more likely to look for alternatives, contradicting the theory
• a03 methodological issues of supporting research?

  • One common procedure used in studies supporting this theory involves two strangers in a game playing situation ​
  • Ps 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 solely of the game
• a03 cost and benefits

  The 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​
  • ​
• a03 reductionist


  • SET reduces relationships to profits (rewards and losses) ​
  • However, 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
• reductionism 2 ?


  • 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
• equity theory?


  • What matters most within a relationship in terms of equity is that both partners level of profit (rewards-costs) is roughly the same. ​
• • If one partner over-benefits and the other under-benefits from the relationship there is a lack of equity…​
  • which is a recipe for dissatisfaction and unhappiness. 
• • The over-benefitted partner will likely feel guilt, discomfort and shame. ​
  • The under-benefitted partner is likely to feel the greatest dissatisfaction in the form of anger, hostility, resentment and humiliation. ​
  • Thus satisfaction in the relationship is about perceived fairness. ​
• restoring equity?


  1. changing amount we put into a relationship ​
  2. changing amount we demand from the relationship​
  3. The change could be a cognitive one as well- we may just change what we perceive to be a cost. E.g. if untidiness was considered to be a cost to begin with it now becomes the norm​

  • The more unfair the relationship the harder we try to restore equity​
• research study 1


  • One study surveyed 100s of married couples of all ages​
  • Ps who felt their marriages were inequitable because of an unfair division of domestic responsibilities were identified….​
  • During the child rearing years’ wives often reported feeling under-benefitted and husbands over-benefitted. ​
  • As a result, marital satisfaction tended to dip. ​
• research study 2?


  • In contrast, during the honeymoon period (when newly married) and empty nest stages (when children have left home)…​
  • both husbands and wives were more likely to perceive equity and to feel satisfaction with their marriages. ​
  • This study shows that equity is linked to satisfaction 
• research support for equity theory?

  • Stafford and Canary (2006) ​
  • Asked over 200 married couples to complete measures of equity and relationship satisfaction. ​
  • Findings revealed satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationships to be equitable​
  • followed by over-benefited partners​
  • lowest satisfaction for under-benefited partners. ​
  • consistent findings with equity theory
• a03 crticism 


  • A criticism is that Equity theory ignores individual differences in relationships​
  • Research suggests not all partners are concerned about achieving equity in a relationship.  ​
  • Some partners are known as benevolents ​
  • they are prepared to contribute more to a relationship than they receive​
  • Some are entitleds who believe they deserve to be over benefitted (without feeling guilty)​
  • This shows the equity theory is not a universal explanation and may therefore lack validity as it does not apply to everyone​
• a03 crticism ?


  • However, equity theory is beta gender biased as differences between genders are ignored. ​
  • It has been found that females are more concerned with inequity than males. ​
  • One study which supports this criticism investigated whether marital inequity is associated with later marital disruption. ​
  • In a sample of 1500 couples it was found that if females sense being under-benefited, the risk of divorce increases. ​
  • However, the findings were not the same for men​
  • Therefore, Equity theory is more applicable to females than males. 
• a03 criticsm 


  • It has been assumed Equity theory is applicable to all types of relationships. ​
  • However, a criticism of the theory is that we should distinguish between different types of relationships. ​
  • Research shows equity is very important in work/friendship relationships…​
  • but not as important in romantic relationships.​
  • Critics have questioned the link between equity and satisfaction of romantic relationships.​
  • This means the theory may lack validity as it may not be an accurate explanation of romantic relationships.
• a03 criticism 


  • reductionist as it simplifies relationship success to equity and inequity. ​
  • ignores other important factors such as instincts and reproductive success. ​
  •  ignores role of emotion; often people in inequitable relationships stay because they still love their partner. ​
  •  abused spouses are often very defensive of their partners even when their partners are being prosecuted for the abuse. ​
  • Equity theory ignores the importance of investment for the success of a relationship, which is addressed in Rusbult’s investment model.​
  • too simple to explain the complexity of relationships​