Social exchange theory Flashcards
Social exchange theory
The likelihood of a person staying in a relationship is determined by an assessment of what they get out of the relationship compared to what they put in, and how the relationship measures up against what they expect and what they might achieve in a different relationship.
Profit and loss:
At the centre of social exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959) is the assumption that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges - individuals attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs.
In our society, people exchange resources with the expectation (or at least the hope) that they will earn a ‘profit, i.e. that rewards will exceed the costs incurred.
Rewards that we may receive from a relationship include companionship, being cared for, and sex.
Costs may include effort, financial investment and time wasted (i.e. missed opportunities with others because of being in that particular relationship).
Rewards minus costs equal the outcome (i.e. either an overall profit or a loss) for that relationship.
Social exchange, in line with other economic theories of human behaviour, stresses that commitment to a relationship is dependent on the profitability of this outcome.
Comparison level:
In order to judge whether one person offers something better or worse than we might expect from another, Thibaut and Kelley proposed that we develop a comparison level - a standard against which all our relationships are judged.
Our comparison level (CL) is a product of our experiences in other relationships together with our general views of what we might expect from this particular exchange.
If we judge that the potential profit in a new relationship exceeds our CL, then that relationship will be judged as worthwhile and the other person will be seen as attractive as a partner.
If the final result is negative (i.e. the profit is less than our CL), then a relationship with that person will be seen as less attractive.
Someone who has previously had unpleasant or unsatisfying relationships may well have a very low CL, and as a result they may be perfectly happy in a relatively poor relationship. In contrast, someone who has previously had very rewarding relationships (and therefore a high CL) would have high expectations for the quality of any future relationships.
As a result, they would most likely exit any relationship that did not meet these high expectations.
A romantic relationship is likely to have a greater degree of solidarity if both partners’ outcomes or perceived profits are above their comparison level.
Comparison level for alternatives:
Although an individual’s satisfaction with a relationship depends on the assessed profit received from that relationship relative to the comparison level, this is not the only factor that determines the likelihood of them staying in that relationship.
A related concept is the comparison level for alternatives (CLA), where the person weighs up a potential increase in rewards from a different partner, minus any costs associated with ending the current relationship.
A new relationship can take the place of the current one if its anticipated profit level is significantly higher.
An individual will be committed to their current relationship when the overall benefits and costs are perceived as being greater than what might be possible in an alternative relationship (or perhaps even having no relationship).
If these alternative options are more appealing, there will be a temptation for the individual to leave their current relationship and start a new one elsewhere.
The more rewarding a partner’s alternatives (e.g. another man or woman, friends, a career), the less is that individual’s dependence on their current relationship.
Relationships may then become less stable if one (or both) of the partners has a low level of dependence on that relationship (Kurdek, 1993).
As a result, partners who differ in their degree of dependence may experience distress because one or both of them lacks commitment to that relationship.
Key study: Kurdek and Schmitt (1986):
Procedure:
Kurdek and Schmitt investigated the importance of social exchange factors in determining relationship quality in 185 couples.
These comprised 44 heterosexual married couples, 35 co-habiting heterosexual couples, 50 same-sex male couples and 56 same-sex female couples.
Each couple lived together and did not have children living with them.
Each couple completed a questionnaire without discussing their answers with each other.
Key study: Kurdek and Schmitt (1986):
Findings:
For each of the four different types of couple, greater relationship satisfaction was associated with:
a. The perception of many benefits of the current relationship (CL).
b. Seeing alternatives to the current relationship as less attractive (CLA).
These findings show that the factors that predict satisfaction in same-sex relationships are the same ones that predict satisfaction in heterosexual relationships.
EVALUATION/DISCUSSION
The problem of costs and benefits
Overemphasis on costs and benefits
Real-world application - Relationship Therapy
EVALUATION/DISCUSSION
The problem of costs and benefits
A problem for social exchange theory is the confusion of what constitutes a cost and a benefit within a relationship.
What might be considered rewarding to one person (e.g. constant attention and praise) may be punishing to another (e.g. it may be perceived as irritating).
In addition, what might be seen as a benefit at one stage of the relationship may be seen as a cost at another juncture as partners may redefine something they previously perceived as rewarding or punishing (Littlejohn, 1989).
This suggests that it is difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits, and challenges the view that all romantic relationships operate in this way.
EVALUATION/DISCUSSION -Overemphasis on costs and benefits:
A reliance on profitable outcomes as an indication of relationship satisfaction ignores other factors that play some role in this process.
An individual’s own relational beliefs may make them more tolerant of a relatively low ratio of benefits to costs within their relationship.
They may, for example, have the belief that ‘If you have committed yourself to a relationship, you live with what it brings’ or lt is selfish to focus on one’s own needs.
Although they may recognise an unfavourable ratio of benefits to costs, their relationship standard means that they continue to provide benefits to their partner and simply put up with the costs.
This suggests that social exchange alone cannot explain relationship satisfaction without also considering individual differences in relational standards and beliefs.
EVALUATION/DISCUSSION - Real-world application - Relationship Therapy:
Individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently report a lack of positive behaviour exchanges with their partner and an excess of negative exchanges.
Gottman and Levenson (1992) found that, in successful marriages, the ratio of positive to negative exchanges was around 5:1, but in unsuccessful marriages this ratio was much lower, at around 1:1 or less.
Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT) attempts to increase the proportion of positive exchanges within a relationship and decrease the proportion of negative exchanges, helping partners to break the negative patterns of behaviour that cause problems, thus making each other happier.
There is evidence for its success at doing this.
Christensen et al. (2004) treated over 60 distressed couples using ICBT and found that about two-thirds reported significant improvements in the quality of their relationships as a result.
