Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory

Question 1

Give an example of a relationship reward.

Answer 1

Affection.

Question 2

Give an example of a relationship cost.

Answer 2

Investment of time.

Question 3

What did Thibaut and Kelly state in 1959?

Answer 3

Stated that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges.​

Individuals are trying to maximise the rewards they obtain from a relationship, and minimise the costs.

Question 4

According to SET, for a relationship to continue - what is expected to happen?

Answer 4

People expect the other person to reward them, as much as they reward the other person.​

Question 5

What theories is SET in line with? Why?

Answer 5

In line with other economic theories of human behaviour.

As it stresses that commitment to a relationship is dependent on how profitable it is.​

Question 6

Who proposed Social Exchange Theory (SET)?

Answer 6

Thibaut and Kelly - 1959.

Question 7

How does SET challenge self-disclosure?

Answer 7

Self-disclosure relies on selflessness (giving up information about yourself) in order to form a deep relationship.

Question 8

In our society people exchange resources with the expectation that they will earn a profit i.e. rewards will exceed the costs.​

Give an example of this in a relationship.

Answer 8

For example, if someone goes into a relationship in order to achieve a greater social status, they can be seen to profit from the interaction.

Question 9

Does SET render human behaviour as positive or negative?

Answer 9

Negative. The social exchange theory is a very selfish concept, putting personal gain before the benefit of your partner.

Question 10

Rewards - costs = ?

Answer 10

Outcome of the relationship.

Question 11

How does determinism link to SET?

Answer 11

As it gives no choice e.g. costs high stay.

Question 12

How does a nomothetic approach link to SET?

Answer 12

Uses equations to create universal laws.

Question 13

How does reductionism link to SET?

Answer 13

As rewards and costs are the only things that determine relationships.

Question 14

What are the 4 processes that Thibaut and Kelly stated all long-term relationships pass through?

Answer 14

Sampling.

Bargaining.

Commitment.

Institutionalisation.

Question 15

Outline sampling, as a SET processes proposed by Thibaut and Kelly.

Answer 15

The costs and rewards of associating with others are explored.

Question 16

Outline bargaining, as a SET processes proposed by Thibaut and Kelly.

Answer 16

A process of negotiation in which rewards and costs are agreed.

Question 17

Outline commitment, as a SET processes proposed by Thibaut and Kelly.

Answer 17

Exchange of rewards and acceptance of costs stabilise. Greater focus on the relationship itself.

Question 18

Outline institutionalisation, as a SET processes proposed by Thibaut and Kelly.

Answer 18

Norms and expectations are firmly established.

Question 19

Give 2 evaluative points about Thibaut and Kelly’s 4 stages of long-term relationships.

Answer 19

Deterministic model, as it assumes that everyone goes through these stages when forming a relationship. Romantic behaviour is predetermined and lawful.

Western theory, as it does not consider other cultures - created in North America.

More in line with individualistic cultures, as it places the focus on the individual rather than a collective.

Question 20

What is a comparison level? What does this link to?

Answer 20

A standard against which all other relationships are judged.​

Links to Bowlby’s internal working model
Links to cognitive approach, schemas.

Question 21

How is a person’s comparison level created?

Answer 21

CL is created as a product of our experiences in other relationships, together with our general views of what we might expect from this particular exchange.​

Question 22

What happens if potential profits in a new relationship exceed current comparison levels?

Answer 22

The new relationship will be judged as worthwhile and the other person will be seen as attractive.​

Question 23

What would happen if the profit was less than our comparison level?​

Answer 23

We would not engage in the relationship as it is not beneficial for ourselves.

Question 24

What if you had only ever experienced bad relationships? How would this affect your CL?​

Answer 24

CL level could be much lower, as your previous bad partner may have negatively affected your self-confidence - meaning your expectations for a future partner are much lower (you perceive yourself as undesirable).

CL level may be much higher, as you want to avoid past relationships - only accepting those who have a much higher CL (more likely to be a healthy romantic partner).

Question 25

What is an alternative comparison level?

Answer 25

When a person weighs up a potential increase in rewards from a different partner, minus any costs associated with ending the current relationship.​

A new relationship will take the place of the current one if its profit level is significantly higher.

Question 26

Explain how comparison levels of alternatives could be seen as too methodical and logical.

(Evaluation of comparison levels of alternatives)

Answer 26

Too methodical and logical, emotions are involved as well.

E.g. leaving someone for someone else (who has a higher CL), may require you to upset someone you already have a connection with.

Question 27

Explain how comparison levels of alternatives would be applicable to modern day.

(Evaluation of comparison levels of alternatives)

Answer 27

Evolutionary outlook, perhaps just more applicable to modern day.

E.g. people wanting partner’s with more money to allow them financial security.

However, it could also link to acquisition of resources and a mate’s betterment of survival advantage (if with a large resource holder/ high status mate).

Question 28

Explain how comparison levels of alternatives doesn’t consider individual differences.

(Evaluation of comparison levels of alternatives)

Answer 28

Doesn’t consider individual differences, profits are subjective.

For example, someone may perceive a high CL due to physical attractiveness, whereas someone else may think that the person has a low Cl as they consider personality more of a profitable trait.

Question 29

Comparison levels of alternatives doesn’t consider that no partner can be an option.

(Evaluation of comparison levels of alternatives)

Answer 29

The theory doesn’t consider the fact that neither can be chosen between 2 potential partners.

E.g. neither alternatives may be chosen: this links back to the involvement of emotions - people may just be happy in their current relationships at their own CL.

Question 30

Outline Rusbult’s research from 1983.

Answer 30

Has incorporated an additional element into this model.

Commitment to a relationship does not just depend on outcomes and available alternatives, but on the amount of investment that has been made.

Affirms connotations of reductionism (as the model needed to be expanded).

Investments may include: mutual friends, missed career opportunities, effort, time, etc.

Question 31

Outline Simpson et al’s research from 1990.

Answer 31

47 men, 71 women.

Asked student PP’s to rate members of the opposite sex in terms of attractiveness.

Those in a relationships gave lower ratings than those who were not dating.

This theory does not explain why some people leave relationships despite having no alternative, challenging the social exchange theory.

Question 32

How could Simpson et al’s study relate back to SET?

Answer 32

Could potentially plants seeds of doubt towards the attraction of their own partner.

Social desirability, they would want their current partner to be perceived as the best.

Perhaps seen as unfaithful if they rate partner’s higher - breaking loyalty with current partner (guilt).

Happiness and content with their current partner may cloud judgement, rewards already high.

Those not in relationships have nothing to lose, and no loyalty - so those who are single could potentially see them as more attractive.

Question 33

Outline Pennington’s research from 1986.

Answer 33

Stated that social exchange theory, ‘does not state how great the disparity in comparison level has to be before it is considered unsatisfactory’.

SET can also be used to explain other types of relationships e.g. friendships

Question 34

Outline Lott’s research from 1994.

Answer 34

This challenges social exchange theory as in many cultures women are more focused on the needs of others rather than receiving reinforcement.

This suggests that there are alternative reasons for maintaining relationships.

It also highlights the more selflessness that many experience in relationships, as well as gender differences incorporated in the model.

Question 35

Outline Hays’ research from 1985.

Answer 35

Challenges the social exchange theory as they investigated student friendships, finding that rather than being focused purely on rewards received, individuals favoured equity (fairness) giving priority to rewarding the other person.

Challenges the idea that social exchange theory can be applied to all relationships.

Question 36

Outline Hatfield’s research from 1979.

Answer 36

Looked at people who felt over or under-benefited in their relationships.

The under-benefited felt angry and deprived.
The over-benefited felt guilty and uncomfortable.

This supports the social exchange theory as it suggests that regardless of whether individuals are benefited, they do not desire to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.

Question 37

Who proposed equity theory? When?

Answer 37

Walster in 1978.

Question 38

What is the general idea of equity theory, according to Messick and Cook (1983)?

Answer 38

The central assumption that people strive to achieve fairness in their relationship and feel distressed if they perceive unfairness.

Question 39

What do individuals try and maximise/ minimise according to ET?

Answer 39

Individuals try to maximise the rewards they receive and minimise the costs.

Question 40

Give an example of how negotiation is needed to produce fairness, according to ET.

Answer 40

E.g. one partner may do the shopping every week to compensate for playing sport twice a week.

Question 41

According to ET, what happens when a relationship is unfair or inequitable?

Answer 41

It produces distress, especially in the disadvantaged person.

Question 42

What are 3 techniques that may be implemented in order to restore the balance of a relationship?

(Equity theory)

Answer 42

Change the amount that we put into a relationship.

Change the amount we demand from a relationship.

Change our perceptions of relative inputs and outputs.

Compare our relationship to CL to see if it’s worth continuing our investment in the current relationship or whether we should begin anew.

Question 43

Outline 2 differences between SET and ET.

Answer 43

SET takes advantage of all possible profits, whereas ET serves more as a balance.

SET encourages immediate withdrawal from a relationship if profits are unequal, whereas ET tries to readjust the imbalances.

SET places more emphasis on individuality, whereas ET suggests both show profit.

Question 44

Outline 2 similarities between SET and ET.

Answer 44

Both aim to maximise profit and minimise losses.

Both feature elements of negotiation and trying to get the most from a relationship.

Both imply that fairness is important.

Question 45

Outline Stafford and Canary’s research from 2006.

(Support for ET)

Answer 45

Supports equity theory.

As they tested over 200 couples on equity and martial satisfaction; finding that highest satisfaction was seen between equal couples, and the lowest was seen between unbenefited couples.

This suggests that equity theory’s ideas about fairness and balancing each partner’s profits and gains is crucial in allowing a meaningful relationship to develop.

They also used a large sample size, which means that generalising strength is increased - (more representative of exterior populations).

Question 46

Outline Atwater et al’s research from 1985.

(Challenge for ET)

Answer 46

Challenges equity theory.

This is because women often engage in extra-marital affairs if their current relationship is inequitable. Whereas men often engage in extra-marital affairs to increase sexual activity.

This suggests that there are gender difference within the equity theory, challenging its universality.

Question 47

Outline Feeney et al’s research from 1994.

(Challenge for ET)

Answer 47

Challenges equity theory.

This is because they believed that relationships within a modern society are more sophisticated, and a cost-benefit system is too simplistic.

This suggests that equity theory lacks realism, as it cannot be properly applied to real relationships.

Moreover, it highlights the reductionism of the theory, as it breaks down the maintenance of relationships too simply.

Instead, a more holistic viewpoint would be beneficial. This is supported by Humanism, as they believed that the study of human interactions should consider all factors someone possesses, not just simple profit-loss theories.