PSYCH; Social Exchange Theory

what does the social exchange theory claim/assume

claims that behaviour in relationship reflects the economic assumptions of exchange;

meaning we try to minimise losses and maximise gains in a relationship (minimax principle)

and that we judge our satisfaction with a relationship in terms of the profits it makes the most (aka rewards minus costs)

describe the rewards , costs and profits aspect of social exchange theory

rewards and costs are subjective to an individual;

value of rewards/costs might change over time in a relationship - some things can be rewarding at first

rewards are beneficial things like sex/emotional support

but romantic relationships can be negative so includes costs (Blau1964)

what did Blau 1964 suggest abt rewards/costs in a relationship

describes relationships as ‘expensive’;

romantic relationships can involve many costs like;

time/stress/energy/ compromise etc

2 ways to measure profit in a romantic relationship

comparison level

comparison level of alternatives

how is the comparison level used to measure profit in a relationship

comparison level is the amount of reward you believe you deserve to get in a relationship

a relationship is only considered worth pursuing if our CL is high;

this develops from our experiences of previous relationships which feed into our expectations of the current one

this can be influenced by social norms that determine what’s widely considered as a reward in a certain culture — often reflected in books/films/TV etc

we expect more rewards, the more we experience from social norms (changes our comparison levels)

how is self esteem linked to comparison level

someone with low self esteem will have a low comparison level (believe they dont deserve much)

therefore be satisfied with gaining a small profit

but someone with a higher self esteem will believe they are with a lot more

how is the second measure, comparison level of alternatives, measuring profit in a relationship

comparison level of alternatives refers to the comparison of alternatives of the current relationship;

i.e do we believe we could gain greater rewards from another relationship? is the grass greener elsewhere?

social exchange theory predicts we will stay in a relationship if we believe its more rewarding than anything else (alternatives)

and the comparison level of alternatives depend on the state of the current relationship (if costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards then alternatives become more attractive)

what are the 4 stages of relationship development

sampling stage

bargaining stage

commitment stage

institutionalisation stage

whats the first stage of relationship development

sampling stage;

where we explore the rewards + costs of social change by experimenting with them in our own relationships (not just romantic) or by observing others

whats the second stage of relationship development

bargaining stage;

marks beginning of relationship

when romantic partners start exchanging various rewards/costs by negotiating and identifying whats most profitable

whats the third stage of relationship development

commitment stage;

when time passes, sources of costs/rewards become more predictable

relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs decrease

whats the last 4th stage of relationship development

institutionalisation stage;

partners now settled down

norms of the relationships (rewards/costs) are firmly established

strength of SET - aspects of SET can be applied to all types of romantic relationships

E; Kurdeck (1995) asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables - found that those partners who were most committed also perceived the most rewards and fewer costs and viewed alternatives as unattractive.

E; This demonstrates the different aspects of SET have an impact on the maintenance of the relationship

L; Therefore, this confirms the validity of the theory in gay and lesbian couples as well as in heterosexual partners, increasing its generalisability to different types of romantic relationships

limitation of SET - fails to explain the cause-effect relationship between satisfaction and cost-benefit analysis

E; Argyle 1987 argued that people rarely assess their relationship’s costs and alternatives until they’re already dissatisfied

E; This means SET assumes that monitoring profit keeps a relationship running smoothly. However, if people only check the ‘profit’ once theyre unhappy, then the evaluation of their costs/rewards are likely to be the result of dissatisfaction not the cause of it

L; Therefore, this challenges the core assumption of SET. suggesting the theory cannot accurately explain how relationships are maintained.

limitation of SET - subjective and suffers from cultural bias

E; when one person finds something rewarding, another may find it costly. SET is also based on an individualistic perspective that focuses on personal profit

E; In collectivist cultures, relationships may prioritise family and community welfare rather than individual gain, its also difficult to quantify or define exactly what a ‘reward’ or ‘cost’ is in a scientific way as it differs for everyone.

L; Therefore, the theory may suffer from ethnocentrism and lack universality as it cannot be applied across different cultural contexts, or individuals bc the theory appears to be subjective.