Social exchange theory

Question 1

What does Thilbult and Kelley believe about behaviour in relationships?

Answer 1

• Behaviour in relationships reflect the economic assumptions of exchange. We try to minimise losses and maximise gains.
• We judge satisfaction in terms of profit (Rewards minus costs)

Question 2

Examples of rewards and costs

Answer 2

• They are subjective, a reward that is significant may be less valuable to someone else
• Rewards: companionship, sex, emotional support
• Costs: stress, energy, compromise

Question 3

What is meant by comparison levels?

Answer 3

• It was a way of measuring profit by comparing what you receive and what you deserve. Comparison levels must be equal.
• It develops out of our experiences of different relationships which feeds into our expectations. It is also influenced by social norms

Question 4

What is meant by comparison levels must for alternatives?

Answer 4

• It is a way of measuring profit. We will stay in our current relationship if we believe it is more rewarding than the alternatives.
• If the costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards, alternatives become more attractive

Question 5

How does a relationship develop according to Thilbult and Kelley?

Answer 5

1. Sampling stage - we explore the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting with them in our own relationships (not just romantic ones), or by observing others doing so.
2. Bargaining stage - this marks the beginning of a relationship, when romantic partners start exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what is most profitable.
3. Commitment stage - as time goes on, the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen.
4. Institutionalisation stage - the partners are now settled down because the norms of the relationship, in terms of rewards and costs, are firmly established.

Question 6

Social exchange theory: Research support

Answer 6

• Lawrence Kurdek (1995) asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables.
• Found that those partners who were most committed also perceived the most rewards and fewest costs and viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive.
• It was the first study to demonstrate that the main SET concepts that predict commitment are independent of each other (so they individually have an effect).
• These findings match predictions from SET, strongly confirming the validity of the theory in gay and lesbian couples as well as in heterosexual partners.

Question 7

Social exchange theory: Does not consider equity

Answer 7

• Studies into SET (including Kurdek’s) ignore one crucial factor, equity
• There is much research support for the role of equity in relationships. What matters is not just the balance of rewards and costs, but the partners’ perceptions that this is fair.
  -The neglect of equity means that SET is a limited explanation which cannot account for a significant proportion of the research findings on relationships.

Question 8

Social exchange theory: Vague concepts

Answer 8

• SET deals in concepts that are vague and hard to quantify.
• Rewards and costs have been defined superficially in research (e.g. money) in order to measure them. But real-world psychological rewards and costs are subjective and harder to define. For example most people would consider ‘having your partner’s loyalty’ to be rewarding. But rewards and costs vary a lot from one person to another - even ‘having loyalty’ is not a reward for everyone.
• The concept of comparison levels is especially problematic. It is unclear what the values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship.
• This means the theory is difficult to test in a valid way.

Question 9

Social exchange theory: Lack of direction for cause and effect

Answer 9

• One limitation is its claim that dissatisfaction arises only after a relationship stops being profitable.
• According to SET, we become dissatisfied when we conclude that the costs of the relationship outweigh its rewards and/or the alternatives are more attractive.
• Michael Argyle (1987) argued that we don’t monitor costs and rewards, or consider alternatives, until after we are dissatisfied. When we are satisfied with a relationship and committed to it, we do not even notice potentially attractive alternatives.
• This suggests that considering costs/alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse (dissatisfaction causes a person to consider costs/alternatives).