Social exchange theory
Specification: Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory
Social Exchange Theory is one of the so-called ‘economic’ theories of romantic relationships. Economic theories attempt to describe relationships as a series of exchanges between partners, aiming at balancing the rewards and costs.
Social Exchange Theory (SET)
Social psychologists Thibaut and Kelly (1959) describe romantic relationships using the economic terminology of profit (rewards) and loss (costs). They claim that partners in relationships strive to maximise rewards, such as companionship, praise, emotional support and sex, and minimise costs such as stress, arguments, compromises and time commitments. The notions of rewards and costs, however, are subjective and therefore what is considered very costly by one person, can be seen as low cost or even a reward by another. Costs also tend to change over time as what is considered costly at the beginning of the relationships seems less so as relationships develop.
Thibaut and Kelly (1959) propose that people also use levels of comparison to assess how profitable their relationships are. The first level, called Comparison Level (CL), is based on person’s idea of how much reward they deserve to receive in relationships and becomes a benchmark for judging relationships. This understanding is subjective, once again, and depends on previous romantic experiences and cultural norms of what is appropriate to expect from relationships; these norms can be reinforced by books, films and TV programmes.
Comparison Levels are closely linked to person’s self-esteem – a person with high self-esteem will have higher expectations of rewards in relationships, whereas a person with low self-esteem will have lower expectations. People consider relationships worth pursuing if the Comparison Level is equal to, or better than, what they have experienced in their previous relationships. For a relationship to have a strong foundation moving forward, perceived profits from the relationship must be above the Comparison Level for both partners.
The second, related, level of comparison is termed the Comparison Level for alternatives (CLalt). This concerns a person’s perception of whether other, different, potential relationships (or being on their own) would be more rewarding than being in their current relationship. According to Social Exchange Theory, people will stick to their current relationships as long as they find them to be more profitable than the alternatives. On the other hand, the more profitable a comparable partnership may seem, the less likely an individual is to remain dependent on their current relationship for satisfaction. However, according to some psychologists, such as Duck (1994), if people consider themselves to be content in their current relationships, they may not even notice that there are other available alternatives in the first place.
According to Thibaut and Kelly, all relationships proceed through a series of stages:
Sampling stage: where people explore potential rewards and costs of relationships, not just romantic ones, either by direct experience or by observing others.
Bargaining stage: is the first stage of any romantic relationship. At this stage, partners exchange rewards and costs, figure out the most profitable exchanges and negotiate the dynamics of the relationship.
Commitment stage: when relationships become more stable and partners become familiar with sources of rewards and costs and each other's expectations.
Institutionalisation stage: when costs and rewards are well established
Research Examining Social Exchange Theory
There are a number of studies which provide evidence to support the main assumptions of Social Exchange Theory. For example, Floyd et al. (1994) found that commitment develops when couples are satisfied with, and feel rewarded in, a relationship and when they perceive that equally attractive or more attractive alternative relationships are unavailable to them.
However, Argyle (1987) argues that people rarely start assessing their relationships before they feel unsatisfied with them. For example, being unhappy in relationships may lead a person to question whether there are more rewards than costs in their relationships as well as the potential alternatives, but these thoughts occur only after the dissatisfaction is discovered. This contradicts SET, which assumes that assessing profit and loss is the way in which all relationships are maintained, even happy ones.
Kurdek and Schmitt (1986)
Aim: To investigate Social Exchange Theory.
Method: A sample of 185 couples participated in this investigation, comprising of 44 heterosexual couples who were married to one another, 35 heterosexual couples who were co-habiting but not married, 50 homosexual male couples and 56 homosexual female couples. None of the couples had any children living with them. Each individual within the couples completed a questionnaire, designed to measure the importance of social exchange factors in their relationship satisfaction, without discussing their responses with their spouse or partner.
Results: For all couples participating in the study - irrespective of being married or simply co-habiting, being heterosexual or in a homosexual relationship - relationship satisfaction was always reported as higher when the partners perceived the benefits of the current relationship to outweigh the costs (Comparison Level), and that alternatives to the relationship were deemed as a less attractive option (Comparison Level for Alternatives).
Conclusion: The results from Kurdek and Schmitt’s (1986) research show that Social Exchange Theory concepts can be applied, with confidence, to homosexual relationships in addition to heterosexual relationships.
Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory
A strength of Social Exchange Theory is that it is supported by research. For example, Sprecher (2001) found that Comparison Levels for Alternatives were a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship, whilst rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction, especially for women. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that some people appear to base their evaluation of romantic relationships on rewards and costs (in particular, Comparison Level for alternatives), just as SET suggests. Therefore, it would appear that some people do stay in their current relationship while it remains more profitable than the alternatives.
A weakness of the Social Exchange Theory key concepts is that they are very difficult to define. The notion of rewards and costs is highly subjective. In addition, it is not clear how much more attractive alternatives should become, or by how much costs should outweigh the rewards, for the person to start feeling dissatisfied. Furthermore, SET assumes that from the beginning of a relationship partners keep some kind of tally of profit and loss. Clark and Mills (2011) argue that while this may be true of work interactions between colleagues (exchange relationships), it is rarely the case in romantic (communal) relationships, where rewards are distributed freely without necessarily keeping a score. More than that, other research findings suggest that it is not a balance of rewards and costs, but rather perceived fairness of relationships, that keeps partners happy and committed to the relationships. This weakens the validity of SET, as it seems that SET can only explain a limited range of social relationships.
On the other hand, SET has many useful real-life applications. One example of this is Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT). According to Christensen et al. (2004) about two-thirds of couples that were treated using IBCT reported that their relationships have significantly improved, and they were feeling much happier as a result of it. During the therapy sessions partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchanges in their everyday interactions and decrease the proportion of negative ones, by changing negative behaviour patterns. This shows that SET can be used to help distressed couples in real life, thus demonstrating its real-world application and benefit for relationships.
The research support for Social Exchange Theory limited is often criticised for lacking mundane realism. The majority of research into SET is based on studying strangers that are involved in some kind of game-based scenario with rewards and costs variably distributed during the game. For example, Emerson and Cook (1978) designed a laboratory experiment where each of the 112 participants were bargaining with a partner to maximise their personal score in a computer game. The ‘relationships’ between these partners are nothing like real-life romantic relationships, which are based on getting to know another person and establishing trust. As such, these studies lack internal validity, making SET less applicable to real-life romantic relationships.
Extension Evaluation: Issues & Debates
SET takes a nomothetic approach to studying relationships, trying to uncover universal laws of how relationships are maintained that would be applicable to all couples. However, the ways in which relationships are maintained vary significantly from couple to couple, so an individually based, in-depth idiographic approach may be better suited to studying the maintenance of romantic relationships.
Another major criticism of SET is its deterministic view of romantic relationships. According to SET, if the costs outweigh the rewards, a person will want to opt out of a relationship. However, there are many cases where people stay in high-cost relationships (for example, when one partner is chronically ill) without feeling dissatisfied. As a result, the predictive validity of SET is very limited; it cannot establish with significant certainty whether a person will feel happy or unhappy in a relationship, based on the costs and rewards they are getting from it. This undermines the scientific claim of SET, as an ability to predict human behaviour with a degree of certainty which is one of the main objectives for psychology to be accepted as a science.
Possible Exam Questions
Define what is meant by Comparison Level for Alternatives in relation to romantic relationships. (2 marks)
With reference to theories of romantic relationships, explain what is meant by a ‘social exchange’. (2 marks)
John and Jim have met online via a dating app and are on their first date at a restaurant. The date is going well, and when the meal ends John offers to pay for the meal for them both. Jim agrees as long as he can buy the tickets to the film they are going to see afterwards. When they are at the cinema John also treats Jim to some popcorn and soda. Jim agrees to see John again for another date next week.
Explain how John and Jim’s behaviour can be predicted using the principles of social exchange. (4 marks)
Psychologists decided to investigate the role of costs and rewards in relationships, using laboratory experiment. They invited 10 male and 10 female volunteers to take part in the study and organised them in male/female pairs. Each pair then played either a competitive (playing against each other) or non-competitive (playing as a team) quest computer game. After the game, participants completed a questionnaire evaluating how much they liked their partner and whether they would like to meet them again.
a. Write standardised instructions for the participants in this experiment. (5 marks)
b. Explain two weaknesses of laboratory experiments for studying romantic relationships. (4 marks)
c. Identify a suitable inferential test for this study. Justify your choice. (3 marks)
Describe what research has shown about the Social Exchange Theory of romantic relationships. (4 marks)
Outline Social Exchange Theory as a theory of romantic relationships. (6 marks)
Kim and Simon are celebrating 20 years of marriage. They are reminiscing about their relationship, and Simon says that he felt very secure and at ease from the very beginning. He claims that Kim has a unique ability to make him feel appreciated. ‘Being in a relationship with you is like being in warm bath’ he says, ‘I can’t imagine a happier couple than us!’
Using your knowledge of Comparison Levels, explain Simon’s experience. (4 marks)
Explain one strength and one weakness of Social Exchange Theory. (6 marks).
Describe and evaluate one theory of romantic relationships. (8 marks)
Discuss Social Exchange Theory as an explanation of romantic relationships. (16 marks)