theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory Flashcards
(12 cards)
who proposed the social exchange theory
thibault & kelley (1959)
what does the social exchange theory claim
- behaviour in relationships reflect economic assumptions of exchange
- minimise losses & maximise gains (minimax principle)
- judge our satisfaction in relationship in terms of profit it yields, defined as rewards minus costs
examples of rewards
companionship, sex & emotional support
examples of costs
time, stress, energy, compromise etc.
–> peter blau (1964) said relationships can be ‘expensive’
what other cost does a relationship include
opportunity cost = investment of time & energy in current relationship means using resources that you cannot invest elsewhere
how do we measure profit in romantic relationships
- comparison level = amount of reward you believe you deserve
- comparison level for alternatives = provides wider context for current relationship
describe 1) comparison level
- develops from experiences of previous relationships which feed into expectations of current one
- influenced by social norms
- changes as we acquire more ‘data’ to set it by
- consider relationship worth pursuing if CL is high
- link with self-esteem
describe 2) comparison level for alternatives
- do we believe we could gain greater rewards & fewer costs from another relationship/being on our own?
- SET predicts we stay in current relationship as long as we believe its more rewarding than alternatives
- duck (1994) = the CLalt we adopt will depend on state of current relationshpips –> if costs of current relationship outweigh rewards, the alternatives become more attractive
thibault & kelley’s social exchange theory - four stages of relationship development
- sampling = explore rewards & cots of social exchange by experimenting with them in our own relationship, or by observing others
- bargaining = marks beginning of relationship, when romantic partners start exchanging rewards & costs, negotiations & identifying what’s most profitable
- commitment = sources of costs & rewards become more predictable as relationship progresses & relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase/costs lessen
- institutionalisation = partners settled down because norms of relationship (rewards/costs) firmly established
AO3 (+) support for aspects of social exchange theory by research studies
E: kurdek (1995)
- asked gay, lesbian & heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment & SET variables
- found most partners who were most committed also perceived most rewards & fewest costs, & viewed alternatives as mostly unattractive
- first study to demonstrate main SET concepts that predict commitment are independent of each other
T: findings match predictions of SET, which confirms validity of theory in gay, lesbian & heterosexual couples
AO3 (-) theories claim that dissatisfaction only arises after relationship stops being ‘profitable’
E:
- SET says we become dissatisfied when we conclude costs outweigh rewards of relationships & alternatives are more attractive
- argyle (1987) argued we don’t monitor costs & rewards, or consider alternatives, until after we are dissatisfied
- when we are satisfied & committed to relationship, we don’t notice potentially attractive alternatives
T: suggest that considering costs/alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction, not the other way round
AO3 (-) concepts of the SET are vague & hard to quantify
E:
- rewards/costs have been defined superficially in research to measure them
- real-world psychological rewards & costs are subjective/harder to define
- eg. most people consider ‘having partners loyalty’ to be rewarding –> but rewards & costs vary a lot between people
- concept of comparison levels is problematic –> unclear whether the values of CL & CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship
T: theory is difficult to test in valid way
