A03 Social Exchange Theory(SET)

• Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET


  Many researchers do not accept the economic metaphor of SET. Clark and Nills argue the theory faily to distinguish two types of relationships. They suggest that exchange relationships (E.g work colleagues) do not involve social exchange as SET predits. But communal relatioships (E.g Romantic partners) are marked by giving and receiving of rewards without keeping score of who is ahead/beahind.
• Unable to account for majority of relationships (Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET)


  SET claims that relationship partners return for rewards for rewards and costs for costs and that these recipricol activities are monitored. But if we felt this kind of exchange monitoring was going on at the start of a relationship, we would question what kind of commitment our partner wanted. It is clear from some relationships that SET is based on faulty assumptions and so cannot account for the majority of romantic relationships.
• Direction of cause and effect


  SET argues that dissatisfaction cuts in when we suspect that costs outweigh rewards or alternatives that are more attractive. That is not until we are dissatisfied with the relationship.
• Miller's study (Direction of cause and effect)


  Miller found people who rated themselves as being part of a highly commited relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people and less time spent looking for a good predicter of the relationship continuing two months later.Therefore, people in commited relationships ignore even the most attractive acts. SET cannot account for direction of causation in this outcome.
• SET ignores equity


  Central concern of SET is the comparison levels, the ratio of perceived rewards and costs. But this ignores faireness and equity. One critical factor that my be an overwhelming consideration for Romantic partners is equity theory.
• Equity theory (SET ignores equity)


  There is much research support for the role of equity in relationships and the view that this is more important than just the balance of rewards and costs. Neglect to this factor may show SET is a limited explanation which cannot account for a significant proporation of the research findings on relationships.
• Measuring SET concepts

  SET deals in concepts that are difficult to quanitify. Rewards and costs have been defined superficially (E.g money) to measure them. But psychological rewards and costs are more difficult to define, especially when they vary so much from one person to another.
• Concept of CLs (Measuring SET concepts)

  Concept of comparison levels is problematic as it is unclear what the values of comparison levels and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship. Therefore, conflict between relationships and studies use simplified materials.
• Artificial research


  Majority of studies supporting SET use artificial tasks in artificial conditions. One common procedure involved two strangers working together on a game playing a scenario in which rewards and costs are distributed. The two partners know nothing about eachotherand their relationships depends entirely on the task they're performing together.
• More realistic studies of SET (Artificial research)

  Much more realistic studies of SET have been less supportive, especially noting that snapshot studies cannot account for the properties that emerge from a relationship over time like trust