ToRR: Social Exchange Theory

Who proposed the Social Exchange Theory?

Thibault & Kelly (1959)

What type of theory is the social exchange theory?

Economic Theory

What does SET emphasise?

Importance of exchange in relationships

• Partners strive to be in a state of profit

What is the minimax principle?

Partners try to minimise losses (costs) and maximise gains (rewards)

According to SET, what is relationship satisfaction based on?

The profit the relationship yields.

• Defined as rewards-costs

• Maximise rewards and minimise costs (minimax principle)

What are rewards in relationships?

Money, companionship, emotional support, sex

What are costs in a relationship?

Time, stress, compromise, energy

Are costs and rewards viewed the same by everyone, and can they change? why?

1. Are subjective (can change according to social norms)

2. Yes, early stage views dependent on social norms, eventually changes

What are the 2 ways in which profit is measured in romantic relationships?

1. Comparison Level

2. Comparison Level for Alternatives

What is meant by ‘Comparison Level’?

• The amount of reward you believe you deserve to get

• If our CL is high, relationship is worth pursuing

What is Comparison Level influenced by?

• Experiences from prev. relationships

• Social norms (reflected in books, films, TV, social media)

  • CL changes as we acquire more ‘data’ to set it by

  • Experience more social norms & relationships

How is CL linked with self-esteem?

• Low self esteem = Low CL

  • Satisfied w. gaining small profit from relationship

• High self-esteem = High CL

  • Will believe are worth a lot more

What question encapsulates Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLat)?

Do we believe we can gain greater rewards & fewer costs from another relationship (or being on our own)?

What does CLat claim and what is it dependent on?

1. We will stay in our current relationship as long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternative

2. CLat we adapt depends on state of current relationship

   • If costs of current relationship outweighs rewards, alts more attractive

What are the 4 stages of relationship development (SET?) (DONT NEED)

1. Sampling

   • Explore r&c by experimenting in relationships, or by observing

2. Bargaining

   • Beginning. exchange r&c, negotiate & identify most profitable

3. Commitment

   • Sources of r&c more predictable, relationship more stable as r increase, c lessen

4. Institutionalisation

   • Partners settled as r&c established

DIS1: Inappropriate Assumptions

P: Many researchers don’t accept economic metaphor of SET

Ev: Clark & Mills argue ‘exchange’ relationships are typical of work colleagues. ‘Communal’ relationships between romantic partners don’t involve scorekeeping when giving & receiving rewards. They are given as needed. E.g. husband wouldn’t stop looking after ill hubby as she hasn’t received enough gifts from him

Ex: If relationships were developed & maintained based on monitoring rewards & costs, could make people question partner’s motives; superficial relationship

L: Suggests SET based on faulty assumptions, can’t account for majority relationships

DIS2: Issues w. cause & effect

P: Researchers argue dissatisfaction causes people to consider r&c in their relationships, rather than partners becoming dissatisfied when costs outweigh rewards.

Ev: Argyle points out we don’t measure r&c in relationship or consider alts until we are dissatisfied. Miller supports, found people who rated themselves in highly committed relationship spent less time looking at attractive people (alts)

Ex: SET can’t account for direction of causation of this outcome, as it appears people don’t look for alts until dissatisfaction

L: Generalisability issues

AD1: Research Support

P: Strength is support for aspects of SET from researh studies

Ev: Kurdek asked gay, lesbo, hetero couples to do questionnaires measuring relationship commitment & SET variables. Found partners most committed perceived most rewards & fewest costs & viewed alts as rel. unattractive

Ex: Demonstrates main SET concepts that predict commitment are independent of each other. Findings match predictions from SET, strongly confirming validity of theory in gay, lesbo & hetero couples

DIS3: Vague SET concepts - measuring issues

P: Limitation is that SET concepts of r&c can’t be reliably measured

Ev: Real-world psychological r&c are subjective & harder to define & quantify. E.g. people can consider having a loyal partner to be a reward, but for others loyalty isn’t a reward - it’s a standard.

Ex: Concept of CL is problematic. Unclear what values of CL & CLat must be before dissatisfaction threatens relationship

L: This means that the theory is difficult to tests in a valid way