SET (Theories of Romantic relationships)

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

What is Social Exchange Theory? (6)

Thibaut + Kelley (1959):

1. Economic Theory - concepts from econ + operant conditioning

2. Key idea: relationships = based on rewards vs costs - like a mental balance sheet → focuses on self interest + calculations of rewards + costs

3. Minimax principle: minimise costs - eg: arguments, time, stress, maximise rewards - eg: love, support, sex)

4. Form relationships: if rewarding

5. If positive profit + relationship > CLs/CLalts: satisfaction, commitment, + relationship continues

6. Exchange part = assumption that if people receive rewards from others, they feel obliged to reciprocate

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

What is the mnemonic to remember the stages of Social Exchange?

Sales

Bring

Customers

In

(Sampling, Bargaining, Commitment, Institutionalisation)

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

What is the 1st stage of Social Exchange?

Sampling:

People explore the rewards/costs in a variety of relationships (not just romantic ones) eg: via media, personal relationships, or relationships of others we know → so know what a rewarding/costly relationships look like

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

What is the 2nd stage of Social Exchange?

Bargaining:

• Couple negotiates the relationship + agrees the rewards/costs

• Marks the start of the relationship where partners start to exchange

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

What is the 3rd stage of Social Exchange?

Commitment:

• The couple settles into the relationship

• The exchange of reward becomes fairly predictable

• Stability increases as rewards increase/costs lessen

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

What is the 4th stage of Social Exchange?

Institutionalisation:

• Norms + expectations are firmly established

• Settled down

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

What are comparison levels (CL) and how are they set?

• How we measure profit in romantic relationships/how much of a reward you believe you deserve

• Formed based on sampling stage

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

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

How do CL affect entering relationships/relationship satisfaction?

• If judgment of potential profit of a relationship > our CL = judged as worthwhile

• If relationship outcome is positive (profit > CL) = satisfied

• If outcome is negative (profit < CL) = dissatisfied

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

What are Comparison Levels for Alternatives (CLalt)?

Used to give context to current relationship by:

• Comparison to other possible partners/no relationship (alternatives) - would we gain greater rewards from alternative?

We will stay in a relationship as long as we view it as more rewarding/profitable vs alts

• If satisfied we may not even notice any alternatives

In current the relationship’s costs > rewards:

• Assume ‘grass is greener’ + if potential rewards of alternative > current, alternative = more attractive

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: Supporting Research

Kurdek (1995) gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples completed questionnaires → most committed couples perceived their relationships as having high rewards + fewest costs (minimax principle), + reported finding alternatives relatively unattractive (CLalt) → supports SET bcs found variables of costs, rewards and CLalt = IVs that could influence commitment in relationships

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: Supporting Research issue

Kurdek (1995) used Self-report, questionnaires → social desirability bias (want to seem happy/committed) → lowers validity of findings → lowers validity of theory bcs hard to test

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: Bidirectional ambiguity

Bi-directional ambiguity: SET claims we become dissatisfied after perceiving costs > rewards/alternatives = more attractive, THEN become uncommitted, Argyle (1987) argues it's the other way around - committed partners don't notice alts - SO studies claiming SET -> committed relationships may have false cause + effect link, SO link = inaccurate SO lack validity

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: subjectivity

SET’s predictive use = limited bcs lacks objectivity + has subjective concepts → can't compare two people’s CL bcs subjective (based on individuals perceived costs/rewards) so SET has limited explanatory powers → can't apply to large groups of people (not nomothetic)

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: reductionist

Is both machine + environmentally reductionist → fails to account biological/human factors → ignores emotion/love of relationships almost reducing people to how computers interpret data by suggesting satisfaction = solely dependent on rewards/costs → SO SET fails to holistically explain relationships + so may miss important factors

Theories of Romantic relationships - Social Exchange Theory

Evaluation: Alternative explanation (link from reductionist para)

RIM = alt to SET - adds investment → commitment → 'stay or leave' decision NOT just dissatisfaction (bcs profit/lack of AA) → highlights major issue of SET by explaining why dissatisfied partners stay → more comprehensive/less reductionist