Social Exchange Theory

• Theories of romantic relationships:

  Rusbult’s Investment Model

  Social Exchange Theory 

  Equity Theory 

  Ducks Phase Model
• Social Exchange Theory - YEAR & WHO?

  Thibaut & Kelley (1959)
• Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley 1959)

  • SET assumes relationships are guided by the minimax principle:
  • Thibault & Kelley (1959) proposed that relationships could be explained in terms of economics - an exchange of goods (tangible) or intangible things like e.g. favours.
  • This theory holds that all social exchanges are a series of exchanges; individuals motivated to attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs. 
• Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley 1959) - PART 2

  • In our society, people exchange resources with the expectation (or at least the hope) that they will earn a ‘profit’ i.e. the rewards will exceed the costs incurred. 
  • The perceived value of rewards minus the value of the  costs = the outcome (a profit or a loss). SET ( in line with other economic theories of human behaviour, stresses that commitment to a relationship) is dependent on profitability of this outcome -  Satisfaction is judged in terms of this profit.
• Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley 1959) - PART 3

  Profitable relationships continue, unprofitable relationships fail.

  • Behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange
• Rewards:

  • Friendship
  • Affection 
  • Self Esteem 
  • Sex
  • Praise 
  • Companionship
  • Opportunity cost also needs to be accounted for (i.e. the recognition that investment in a given relationship is at the ‘cost’ of expending those resources elsewhere).
• Costs

  Costs:

  • Money (financial)
  • High maintenance
  • Mental Health/stress
  • Loss of time
• What else did Thibaut & Kelley propose?

  In order to judge whether one person offers something better or worse than we might expect from one another. Thibaut & Kelley propped that we develop a comparison level.

  T & K came up with 2 levels of comparison:

  • Comparison level AND…
  • Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)
• Comparison Level (CL)

  • CL is a measure of profit: It refers to level of reward WE BELIEVE we deserve in a relationship.
  • High CL = We believe we deserve a lot reward in a relationship
  • Low CL = We believe that we deserve little/no reward in a relationship, we may even accept only costs. (people with low self-esteem = likely have low CL).
• Comparison Level (CL) - PART 2

  • We generally pursue relationship where CL high but some people (e.g. with low self esteem) may accept ones with low CLs.
  • This perception formulated from previous relationship experiences & from media. Overtime, we get more relationship experience & more experience of social norms & so our CL will change as we acquire more ‘data’.
  • Thus = cultural differences play big role here.
• Comparison Level for alternatives (CLalt)

  • CLalt is an additional measure of profit: This level of comparison is concerned with the extent to which we believe we could get more rewards & fewer costs in a different relationship OR even by being alone.
  • High CLalt = we believe alternatives are better than what we have so we feel low satisfaction in, and therefore low commitment to the relationship.
  • Low Clalt = We believe we are better off where we are, we may not even notice or think about alternatives. So we feel high satisfaction in and commitment to the relationship.
• Comparison Level for alternatives (CLalt) - part 2

  • We consider whether we might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in a different relationship (or none).
  • We stay in a relationship, despite available alternatives, when we consider it is more rewarding than the alternatives.
  • If relationships are satisfying, alternatives are not noticed.

  CLalt depends on our current relationship:

  Duck (1994) suggests that there are always alternatives around.

  If the costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards, then alternatives become more attractive.
• Another feature of Thibault & Kelley’s SET?

  Another feature of Thibault & Kelley’s SET concerns the 4 stages through which relationships develop:

  Thibault & Kelley’s Four Stages of Relationship Development:

  1. Sampling stage
  2. Bargaining stage 
  3. Commitment stage 
  4. Institutionalisation
• (1)

  Sampling Stage - (1)

  • Involves exploring rewards & costs of social exchange by experimenting with them (exchanging them) in our own relationships (not just romantic ones) or by observing others doing so.
• (2)

  Bargaining stage - (2)

  • Occurs at/marks the start of a relationship, when romantic partners start exchanging various rewards & costs, negotiating & identifying what is most profitable - (negotiate around costs and rewards).
• (3)

  Commitment Stage - (3)

  • Commitment Stage is where relationships become more stable. Costs reduce and rewards increase.
  • As time goes on, sources of costs & rewards become more predictable
• (4)

  Institutionalisation - (4)

  • The partners are now settled (down) because the norms of the relationship ( in terms of rewards & costs) are firmly established (does not have to be marriage nowadays).
• Difference between Stages?

  The difference between the first 2 stages is that at the sampling stage you don't need to be in a romantic relationship; it could be just observing the romantic relationship or others and also experimenting with costs & rewards in our non romantic relationships
• Stuff discussed in SET

  • SET
  • Rewards/Costs
  • Comparison Level
  • 4 Stages through which relationships develop