Social exhange theory (maintenance)

SET is a maintenance theory. What is this?

An explanation for what keeps relationships going.

Is maintaining a relationship a one-way process?

No.

It involves an interaction between the two partners - each with their own needs and expectations.

How does social exchange theory explain the process of the interaction between partners to maintain the relationship?

It explains the positive rewards (profit) that partners obtain from being on a relationship weighed against the negative costs (loss).

Individuals who receive more rewards are more likely to be satisfied with their relationship and so are less likely to leave it.

So what does social exchange theory say that the likelihood of a person staying in a relationship is determined by?

An assessment of what they get out of the relationship compared to what they put in, as well as how the relationship measures up against their expectations and what they might get from a different relationship.

What are the three factors of social exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959)

Profit and loss, comparison level, comparison level for alternatives

Explain profit and loss in SET.

The theory assumes that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges - individuals attempt to maximise profits and minimise loss.

In society, people exchange positive actions with the expectation that they will earn a ‘profit’ that outweighs the cost they put in.

Profit minus loss equals the overall outcome of the relationship (either profit or loss).

The theory stresses that commitment to a relationship is dependant on the profitability of the outcome.

Examples of profits and losses.

Profits - being cared for, sex

Losses - effort, financial investment, time wasted if it goes wrong

Explain comparison level in SET.

Our comparison level is a product of our experiences in other relationships together with our general views and expectations of a relationship - to see and compare whether the current partner meets these expectations.

If we judge that the potential profit of a new relationship exceeds our CL, the relationship will be judged as worthwhile.

What would the CL of someone who has previously had unsatisfying relationships be like? How would this affect their relationship?

Their CL may be very low. As a result, they may be perfectly happy in a poor relationship.

Someone who has previously had very rewarding relationships may have a high CL. They would therefore have high expectations for future relationships and would likely leave relationships if they didn’t meet the same high standards.

How can a romantic relationship be likely to have a degree of solidarity?

If both partners’ outcomes or perceived profits are above their comparison level.

Explain comparison level for alternatives in SET.

This is where the person weighs up a potential increase in rewards from a different partner minus any costs associated with ending their current relationship.

A new relationship can take the place of the current one if it’s anticipated profit level is significantly higher.

This can also include breaking up and having no relationship.

When would an individual be committed to their current relationship?

When the overall benefits are perceived as being greater than anticipated benefits in an alternative relationship (or no relationship).

When may relationships become less stable?

If one or both of the partners has a low level of dependence on the relationship.

(The more rewarding a partners alternatives, the less is that individual’s dependence on their current relationship).

Lack of dependence - lack of commitment in relationship.

KEY STUDY: What was the aim of Kurdek and Schmitt’s 1986 study?

To investigate the importance of social exchange factors in determining relationship quality.

What was the procedure of the study?

They studied 4 types of couples:

44 heterosexual married couples

35 heterosexual couples

50 gay couples

And 56 lesbian couples

Each couple lived together and didn’t have children.

The couples completed a questionnaire, without discussing the answers with each other.

What were the findings?

For each of the different types of couple, greater relationship satisfaction was associated with:

The perception of many benefits of the current relationship (comparison level)

And seeing alternatives to the current relationship as less attractive (comparison level for alternatives)

Conclusions of the study

The factors that predict satisfaction in same-sex relationships are the same ones that predict satisfaction in heterosexual relationships.

Positive eval

Research support for the influence of comparison level for alternatives in relationship commitment - Sprecher (2001) found that low CLA leads to more commitment and satisfaction in the relationship. He found that if people see better alternatives, they feel less satisfied and are more likely to leave.

RWA - Social exchange theory can be used in relationship therapy. IBCT helps couples increase positive exchanges and reduce negative ones. Christensen (2004) treated over 60 distressed couples using ICBT and found that two-thirds reported significant improvements in relationship quality as a result.

Negative evla

Subjective definitions - what counts as a “cost” and “benefit” differs from person to person. Eg one person may see attention as rewarding, another may see it as irritating. Littlejohn (1989) said that what might be seen as a benefit at one stage of the relationship may be seen as a cost at another stage. So SET can be hard to apply universally.

Nakonezny and Denton (2008) - argue that individuals must be able to quantify the value of costs and benefits to assess whether benefits outweigh costs. They point out that the value aswell as the relative value of costs and benefits are very hard to determine. The vagueness of these terms make the theory less applicable to personal relationships than business.

Conclusion

SET is a reductionist and subjective approach.

Equity theory offers a more realistic and applicable explanation by focusing on fairness rather than profit and loss.