Social Exchange Theory (AQA A Level Psychology): Revision Note

The key features of Social Exchange Theory

• Social Exchange Theory (SET) is what might be termed one of the ‘economic’ theories of romantic relationships, as it draws from the language of banking, investment and finance in the way that it conceptualises the functioning of relationships

• SET was proposed by Thibaut & Kelley (1959) as a way of explaining how people view the costs and benefits of their current relationship

• SET operates along the minimax principle

  • The idea that people in relationships will aim to minimise their losses and maximise their profits as would a business (profits equal rewards minus costs)

• Rewards, costs and losses are entirely subjective and will depend on each individual

  • E.g., Betty enjoys feeling rewarded when her cooking is praised, but Bertie does not consider this to be important, so Betty’s delicious lasagne goes unrecognised and without praise

• All relationships require each partner to be rewarded and to gain from the profit if the relationship is to survive, so each couple needs to negotiate the terms of this exchange either directly or via experience and learning

  • E.g., Bertie learns that he should always say something nice about Betty’s cooking

• All relationships will require certain sacrifices, which offset the rewards (and in the long run may contribute to building a more rewarding relationship)

  • E.g., foregoing nights out at the pub for a quiet night in, living in a town instead of the countryside, putting up with each other’s family, taking a job with a lower salary, which means more personal time to spend as a couple

• Costs can, however, destabilise a relationship if they lead to arguments, conflict, resentment, etc., so a fine balance is required, which will take time to achieve and is only achievable via hard work and rather a lot of compromise on both sides

Comparison levels

• Comparison levels (CL) are used by each partner in a couple to determine the extent to which they are profiting from the relationship

• CLs evolve based on a person’s experience of previous relationships, e.g. the amount and quality of rewards received in the past, or the costs, and whether these costs proved to be worth the rewards

• The media is also responsible for informing ideas surrounding a person’s CLs

  • E.g., ‘Would Kim Kardashian put up with this?’

• Cultural norms are also key factors in determining CLs: some cultures may assume that high costs are an inevitable part of being in a relationship, whereas other cultures may encourage a sense of entitlement in relationships

  • E.g., ‘I deserve so much more’

• Self-esteem plays a key role in CLs too

  • A person with high self-esteem will demand better rewards than a person with low self-esteem, so the relationship is considered viable if the CL is better, i.e., more profit,  than past relationships

• Comparison levels for alternatives (CLalt) are used to determine whether or not a new, different relationship would bring more rewards (and by extension, profit)  than the current relationship

  • E.g., ‘Bernie always praises my cooking; maybe I’d be happier with him than with Bertie’

• People will stay in their current relationship if it appears to yield more profit than potential alternatives

  • E.g., ‘Bertie may not always praise my cooking, but he’s always taking me off on surprise holidays’

The four stages of relationship development

• SET proposes that relationships follow this pattern in terms of the rewards, costs and profits involved:

  • Sampling stage – the potential rewards and costs of all types of relationships, not just romantic relationships,  are explored via direct personal experience or vicariously, e.g., by observing others

  • Bargaining stage – this occurs early on in the relationship when each partner sets out what they expect, finds out what the potential costs/rewards are and begins negotiations with their partner

  • Commitment stage – costs and rewards begin to be smoothed out as the relationship is established and joint work is undertaken to maximise profits as a unit rather than as separate individuals

  • Institutionalisation stage – the partners are now settled down, and the norms of the relationship in terms of each partner's costs and rewards (the 'terms and conditions') are firmly established

Research which investigates Social Exchange Theory

• Mitchell et al. (2012) – a range of interpersonal relationships can be analysed and understood using SET, but each type of relationship, e.g., romantic or social, requires a conceptual framework

  • Thus, SET cannot be generalised across all forms of relationship types

• Floyd et al. (1994) – commitment develops when couples feel rewarded by their relationship and when they perceive that alternatives will not bring them any deeper satisfaction

• Argyle (1987) – people do not tend to weigh up the pros and cons of the relationship they are in until they reach a point of dissatisfaction with that relationship, so the CLs and CLalts aspects of SET may not apply to most people

• Nakonezny & Denton (2008) – SET is too limited in scope to fully address marital relationships in terms of its use as a tool in couples therapy

Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory

Strengths

• Contrary to Nakonezny & Denton’s (2008) findings above, some research (Christensen et al. 2004) found that couples therapy based on increasing rewards and reducing costs via positive exchanges led to significant improvement in around two-thirds of distressed couples

• SET has explanatory power, as the concept of comparison level for alternatives explains why people may stay in unsatisfying or harmful relationships when they perceive no better options

  • This increases the validity of the theory, as it accounts for behaviour that simpler reward-based explanations cannot

Limitations

• One of the major difficulties in attempting to measure SET is that rewards, costs and profit are subjective variables that will differ from person to person, making it difficult to operationalise research

  • This makes it difficult to test the theory scientifically, limiting its status as a scientific explanation

• Much research supporting SET uses artificial tasks in artificial conditions, e.g. two strangers working together on a game-playing scenario where rewards and costs are distributed - the 'relationship' depends entirely on the task

  • More realistic studies using real partners have been less supportive of SET, and snapshot studies cannot account for properties that emerge from a relationship over time, such as trust

    • This means the supporting research lacks ecological validity

• SET ignores the role of equity (fairness) in relationships

  • Research suggests that what matters to partners is not simply maximising rewards but whether the distribution of rewards and costs is fair

    • This is a shortcoming addressed by equity theory not SET

Issues & Debates

• SET is reductionist, as it reduces complex emotional relationships to simple cost-benefit calculations, like a business transaction

  • This ignores the emotional, irrational, and altruistic elements of relationships (e.g., staying with a partner out of love, loyalty, or duty even when costs are high)

  • Therefore, SET may lack validity as an explanation, as it oversimplifies human behaviour