3.4: Theories of romantic relationships - Social exchange theory (SET)

Question 1

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks)

Answer 1

Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle)

Question 2

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
When does the exchange element occur?

Answer 2

The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate

Question 3

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards

Answer 3

Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex

Question 4

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs

Answer 4

Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time

Question 5

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.

Answer 5

The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss

Question 6

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We

Answer 6

We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs

Question 7

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Which relationships will succeed?

Answer 7

Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed

Question 8

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

What does social exchange theory also propose?

Answer 8

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges

Question 9

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
What is this comparison level based on?

Answer 9

This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available

Question 10

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
What may this comparison also look at?

Answer 10

This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends

Question 11

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person

Answer 11

If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level

Question 12

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore,

Answer 12

Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives

Question 13

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

First AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 13

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity

Question 14

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism

Answer 14

Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa

Question 15

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this,

Answer 15

As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly

Question 16

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This

Answer 16

This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way

Question 17

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore,

Answer 17

Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity

Question 18

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

Second AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 18

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory

Question 19

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
Example

Answer 19

For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable

Question 20

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
Why does this support social exchange theory?

Answer 20

This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal

Question 21

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
What is there also research support for?

Answer 21

There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives

Question 22

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
Example

Answer 22

For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low

Question 23

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low.
How does this support social exchange theory?

Answer 23

This supports social exchange theory, as Sprecher argued that those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed to the relationship (and satisfied), as the theory predicts

Question 24

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low.
This supports social exchange theory, as Sprecher argued that those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed to the relationship (and satisfied), as the theory predicts.

Third AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 24

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of social exchange theory is that it can explain why romantic relationships are maintained when they are abusive with apparent high costs

Question 25

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low.
This supports social exchange theory, as Sprecher argued that those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed to the relationship (and satisfied), as the theory predicts.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of social exchange theory is that it can explain why romantic relationships are maintained when they are abusive with apparent high costs.
Example

Answer 25

For example, Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that women who had been physically assaulted by their partners and were living in a women’s refuse were likely to return to their abusive partners, as they did not have better alternatives, often due to low levels of education, no job prospects and little access to money

Question 26

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low.
This supports social exchange theory, as Sprecher argued that those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed to the relationship (and satisfied), as the theory predicts.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of social exchange theory is that it can explain why romantic relationships are maintained when they are abusive with apparent high costs.
For example, Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that women who had been physically assaulted by their partners and were living in a women’s refuse were likely to return to their abusive partners, as they did not have better alternatives, often due to low levels of education, no job prospects and little access to money.
How does this support social exchange theory?

Answer 26

This supports social exchange theory, because even though the women were in abusive relationships, the profits of remaining exceeded the costs

Question 27

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low.
This supports social exchange theory, as Sprecher argued that those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed to the relationship (and satisfied), as the theory predicts.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of social exchange theory is that it can explain why romantic relationships are maintained when they are abusive with apparent high costs.
For example, Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that women who had been physically assaulted by their partners and were living in a women’s refuse were likely to return to their abusive partners, as they did not have better alternatives, often due to low levels of education, no job prospects and little access to money.
This supports social exchange theory, because even though the women were in abusive relationships, the profits of remaining exceeded the costs.
This also

Answer 27

This also presents us with practical real world application, as support can then be tailored by charities for abuse victims to improve their education and employment prospects to address this need

Question 28

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low.
This supports social exchange theory, as Sprecher argued that those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed to the relationship (and satisfied), as the theory predicts.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of social exchange theory is that it can explain why romantic relationships are maintained when they are abusive with apparent high costs.
For example, Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that women who had been physically assaulted by their partners and were living in a women’s refuse were likely to return to their abusive partners, as they did not have better alternatives, often due to low levels of education, no job prospects and little access to money.
This supports social exchange theory, because even though the women were in abusive relationships, the profits of remaining exceeded the costs.
This also presents us with practical real world application, as support can then be tailored by charities for abuse victims to improve their education and employment prospects to address this need, allowing what?

Answer 28

This also presents us with practical real world application, as support can then be tailored by charities for abuse victims to improve their education and employment prospects to address this need, allowing women to leave abusive relationships

Question 29

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low.
This supports social exchange theory, as Sprecher argued that those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed to the relationship (and satisfied), as the theory predicts.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of social exchange theory is that it can explain why romantic relationships are maintained when they are abusive with apparent high costs.
For example, Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that women who had been physically assaulted by their partners and were living in a women’s refuse were likely to return to their abusive partners, as they did not have better alternatives, often due to low levels of education, no job prospects and little access to money.
This supports social exchange theory, because even though the women were in abusive relationships, the profits of remaining exceeded the costs.
This also presents us with practical real world application, as support can then be tailored by charities for abuse victims to improve their education and employment prospects to address this need, allowing women to leave abusive relationships.

Fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 29

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that social exchange theory is culturally biased, as it has been based on the dynamics of primarily Western couples and then generalised to all other relationships

Question 30

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low.
This supports social exchange theory, as Sprecher argued that those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed to the relationship (and satisfied), as the theory predicts.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of social exchange theory is that it can explain why romantic relationships are maintained when they are abusive with apparent high costs.
For example, Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that women who had been physically assaulted by their partners and were living in a women’s refuse were likely to return to their abusive partners, as they did not have better alternatives, often due to low levels of education, no job prospects and little access to money.
This supports social exchange theory, because even though the women were in abusive relationships, the profits of remaining exceeded the costs.
This also presents us with practical real world application, as support can then be tailored by charities for abuse victims to improve their education and employment prospects to address this need, allowing women to leave abusive relationships.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that social exchange theory is culturally biased, as it has been based on the dynamics of primarily Western couples and then generalised to all other relationships.
Therefore,

Answer 30

Therefore, social exchange theory is typical of a Western individualist culture that focuses on the needs of the individual, hence the primary focus being on profits for each person within the romantic relationship

Question 31

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low.
This supports social exchange theory, as Sprecher argued that those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed to the relationship (and satisfied), as the theory predicts.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of social exchange theory is that it can explain why romantic relationships are maintained when they are abusive with apparent high costs.
For example, Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that women who had been physically assaulted by their partners and were living in a women’s refuse were likely to return to their abusive partners, as they did not have better alternatives, often due to low levels of education, no job prospects and little access to money.
This supports social exchange theory, because even though the women were in abusive relationships, the profits of remaining exceeded the costs.
This also presents us with practical real world application, as support can then be tailored by charities for abuse victims to improve their education and employment prospects to address this need, allowing women to leave abusive relationships.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that social exchange theory is culturally biased, as it has been based on the dynamics of primarily Western couples and then generalised to all other relationships.
Therefore, social exchange theory is typical of a Western individualist culture that focuses on the needs of the individual, hence the primary focus being on profits for each person within the romantic relationship.
However,

Answer 31

However, in collectivist cultures, social exchange theory may not necessarily apply, for example where arranged marriages still take place

Question 32

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low.
This supports social exchange theory, as Sprecher argued that those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed to the relationship (and satisfied), as the theory predicts.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of social exchange theory is that it can explain why romantic relationships are maintained when they are abusive with apparent high costs.
For example, Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that women who had been physically assaulted by their partners and were living in a women’s refuse were likely to return to their abusive partners, as they did not have better alternatives, often due to low levels of education, no job prospects and little access to money.
This supports social exchange theory, because even though the women were in abusive relationships, the profits of remaining exceeded the costs.
This also presents us with practical real world application, as support can then be tailored by charities for abuse victims to improve their education and employment prospects to address this need, allowing women to leave abusive relationships.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that social exchange theory is culturally biased, as it has been based on the dynamics of primarily Western couples and then generalised to all other relationships.
Therefore, social exchange theory is typical of a Western individualist culture that focuses on the needs of the individual, hence the primary focus being on profits for each person within the romantic relationship.
However, in collectivist cultures, social exchange theory may not necessarily apply, for example where arranged marriages still take place.
In such cultures,

Answer 32

In such cultures, the focus would be on the bringing together of families and communities and not down to purely the selfish desires of each individual

Question 33

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Thibault and Kelley (1959) contend that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange, as we try to minimise losses and maximise gains (the minimax principle).
The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate.
Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex.
Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship, for example effort, financial investment or time.
The costs subtracted from rewards equals a perceived profit or loss.
We are attracted to those who offer rewards and put off a relationship perceived to involve great costs.
Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed.

Social exchange theory also proposes that individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges.
This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available.
This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the profits of that, for example less arguments, freedom and more time with friends.
If a person judges the current relationship as offering poor value based on this comparison level, they may be motivated to end it or continue to maintain it provided the profits exceed this comparison level.
Therefore, social exchange theory proposes that a relationship is maintained if both partners outcomes or perceived benefits are above their comparison level and possible alternatives.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one major criticism of social exchange theory is the fact that it portrays relationships purely on a profit and loss basis, which many researchers reject as lacking face validity.
Another criticism is how costs and benefits are determined, as what one person deems a cost, another may see this as a profit and vice versa.
As well as this, the dynamic nature of relationships means that what was once seen as a benefit at one point may eventually be seen as a cost at a later point, as partners redefine what they see as rewarding or costly.
This makes it difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’ and challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
Therefore, social exchange theory lacks validity.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Despite this, there is research support for social exchange theory.
For example, Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited in their relationships.
Those under benefiting felt angry and deprived, while those over benefiting felt guilty and uncomfortable.
This supports social exchange theory, because regardless of whether individuals are under or over benefited, they do not wish to maintain a relationship if it is unequal.
There is also research support for the influence of a comparison level for alternatives.
For example, Sprecher (2001) found that the exchange variable most highly associated with relationship commitment was the partners comparison level for alternatives.
In relationships where the possibility for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low.
This supports social exchange theory, as Sprecher argued that those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed to the relationship (and satisfied), as the theory predicts.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of social exchange theory is that it can explain why romantic relationships are maintained when they are abusive with apparent high costs.
For example, Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that women who had been physically assaulted by their partners and were living in a women’s refuse were likely to return to their abusive partners, as they did not have better alternatives, often due to low levels of education, no job prospects and little access to money.
This supports social exchange theory, because even though the women were in abusive relationships, the profits of remaining exceeded the costs.
This also presents us with practical real world application, as support can then be tailored by charities for abuse victims to improve their education and employment prospects to address this need, allowing women to leave abusive relationships.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that social exchange theory is culturally biased, as it has been based on the dynamics of primarily Western couples and then generalised to all other relationships.
Therefore, social exchange theory is typical of a Western individualist culture that focuses on the needs of the individual, hence the primary focus being on profits for each person within the romantic relationship.
However, in collectivist cultures, social exchange theory may not necessarily apply, for example where arranged marriages still take place.
In such cultures, the focus would be on the bringing together of families and communities and not down to purely the selfish desires of each individual.
What does this show?

Answer 33

This shows that social exchange theory lacks universality and generalisation