Theories of Romantic Relationships: Social Exchange Theory

What are economic theories?

Group of explanations which examine how couples regulate their relationships

It suggests that partners seek an exchnage of goods and act out of self-interest, although there is some mutual interdependence

Who suggested the social exchange theory?

Thibaut and Kelley (1959)

What did Thibaut and Kelley claim?

That humans regulate and maintain their relationships by monitoring the exchange of rewards and costs

What does the intimas principle claim?

That we aim to minimise losses and maximise gains

What does satisfaction depend on according to the social exchange theory?

On the ratio between rewards and costs/ the outcome

When is a relationship in a state of profit?

If the rewards, which can be subjective and change over time, outweigh the costs

When is a relationship in a state of loss?

If the costs, which include opportunity costs, outweigh the rewards

What are the 2 ways in which we measure profit in a romantic relationship according to the social exchange theory?

Comparison level

Comparison level for alternatives

What is the comparison level?

The amount of reward that a person believes they deserve which arises out of general expectations of relationships created by precisou relationships, social norms and self-esteem

What is the comparison level of alternatives?

The comparison of the current relationship to other possible available relationships and the fear os missing out, with alternatives becoming more attractive, the more the costs outweigh the rewards

According to the social exchange theory, what are the 4 stages through which relationships develop?

Sampling stage Bargaining stage Commitment stage Institutionalisation stage

Mnemonic to remember social exchange theory stages

Silly Barbie's can't intervene

Sampling stage

Involves exploring the rewards and costs by experimenting within relationships and observing others doing so

Bargaining stage

The beginning oof a relationship and involves exchanging rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what is most profitable

Commitment stage

Develops as times goes on as sources of rewards and costs become more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen

Institutionalisation stage

Develops as partners settle down into firmly established norms in terms of rewards and costs

Strenght 2

SET is supported by research studies.

For example, Sprecher (2001) found that Comparison Levels for alternatives were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship and that rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction, especially for women.

Based on these findings, it can be concluded that some people appear to base their evaluation of romantic relationships on rewards and costs (in particular, Comparison Level for alternatives), just as SET suggests.

Therefore, it would appear that some people do stay in their current relationship while it remains more profitable than the alternatives.

Limitation 2

The Social Exchange Theory key concepts are very difficult to define. The notion of rewards and costs is highly subjective.

For example, one person may find lots of praise from a partner rewarding, but another person could find it annoying, making it difficult to measure.

In addition, it is not clear how much more attractive alternatives should become, or by how much costs should outweigh the rewards, for the person to start feeling dissatisfied with their current relationship.

Limitation 3

Some researchers argue that there is an issue with cause and effect in regards to SET assumptions.

Argyle (1987) argues that people rarely start assessing their relationships before they feel unsatisfied with them.

For example, being unhappy in relationships may lead a person to question whether there are more rewards than costs in their relationships and the potential alternatives, but these thoughts occur only after the dissatisfaction is discovered.

This contradicts SET, which assumes that assessing profit and loss is the way in which all relationships are maintained, even happy ones.

Strength 1

On the other hand, SET has many useful real-life applications.

One example of this is Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT), during which partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchanges in their everyday interactions and decrease the proportion of negative ones, by changing negative behaviour patterns.

According to Christensen et al. (2004) about two-thirds of couples that were treated using IBCT reported that their relationships have significantly improved and they were feeling much happier as a result of it.

This shows that SET can be used to help distressed couples in real life, thus demonstrating its real-world application and benefit for relationships.

Limitation 1

SET takes a nomothetic approach to studying relationships, trying to uncover universal laws of how relationships are maintained that would be applicable to all couples.

However, as demonstrated above, the ways in which relationships are maintained vary significantly from couple to couple, so an individually based, in-depth idiographic approach may be better suited to studying the maintenance of romantic relationships.