Social Exchange Theory (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Social Exchange Theory
Introduction
Social Exchange Theory (SET) is part of a group of economic theories that explain romantic relationships. These theories assume that people in relationships act like they're conducting business - always seeking to make profitable exchanges.
SET treats romantic relationships through an economic lens, where partners are viewed as rational actors seeking to maximise their benefits while minimising their losses in relationship exchanges.
The theory suggests that both partners in a relationship aim to give and receive valuable 'goods' whilst acting out of self-interest. However, there is mutual interdependence between partners, meaning each person relies on the other for rewards.
SET proposes that romantic partners behave according to economic principles when exchanging rewards and costs. A relationship remains satisfying and committed when the rewards outweigh the costs and when alternatives appear less attractive than the current relationship.
Key concepts
Rewards, costs and profits
Thibault and Kelley (1959) developed SET around the idea that relationship behaviour follows economic exchange principles. They argued we attempt to minimise losses and maximise gains through the minimax principle. We evaluate our relationship satisfaction by calculating the profit it provides - rewards minus costs.
Rewards encompass positive aspects like companionship, sexual intimacy, and emotional support. However, relationships aren't always pleasant - they involve costs including time investment, energy expenditure, stress, and compromise. There's also opportunity cost - the time and energy invested in your current relationship prevents investment elsewhere.
The subjective nature of rewards and costs means they vary greatly between individuals. What one person considers highly rewarding might seem insignificant to another. Additionally, perceptions of rewards and costs can change throughout a relationship's duration.
Comparison level (CL)
The comparison level represents the amount of reward you believe you deserve from a relationship. This develops from previous relationship experiences, which shape expectations for current relationships. Social norms, influenced by cultural factors and often reflected in media portrayals, also determine what constitutes a reasonable reward level.
As we gain more relationship experience and exposure to social norms, our comparison level evolves. We consider a relationship worth pursuing when our comparison level is high, which connects to self-esteem. People with low self-esteem typically have lower comparison levels and may accept relationships offering minimal profit or even losses. Conversely, those with higher self-esteem expect greater rewards.
Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)
The comparison level for alternatives provides broader context for evaluating our current relationship. It addresses whether we could obtain greater rewards and fewer costs from alternative relationships or remaining single.
Steve Duck (1994) noted that our adopted comparison level for alternatives depends on our current relationship's state. When in a satisfying relationship, there are usually 'plenty of fish in the sea', so alternatives may not capture our attention. However, if current relationship costs outweigh rewards, alternatives become more attractive. SET predicts we remain in our current relationship only when we believe it's more rewarding than available alternatives.
Stages of relationship development
Thibault and Kelley identified four stages through which relationships and their underlying social exchanges develop:
These stages represent a progression from exploration to establishment of stable relationship patterns, showing how social exchange dynamics evolve over time.
Sampling stage
Partners explore potential rewards and costs through experimentation with social exchange, either in their own relationships or by observing others' relationships.
Bargaining stage
This marks the relationship's beginning when romantic partners start exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what proves most profitable for the relationship.
Commitment stage
Over time, the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable, leading to increased relationship stability as rewards grow and costs diminish.
Institutionalisation stage
Partners settle into established patterns because the relationship's norms regarding rewards and costs become firmly established.
Evaluation
Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET
Many researchers reject the economic metaphor underlying SET. Clark and Mills (2011) argue the theory fails to distinguish between relationship types. They suggest exchange relationships (such as work colleague interactions) do involve social exchange as SET predicts. However, communal relationships (like romantic partnerships) involve giving and receiving rewards without keeping score of contributions.
SET assumes relationship partners return rewards for rewards and costs for costs through monitored reciprocal activities. However, if we felt this type of exchange monitoring occurred at promising relationship beginnings, we would likely question our partner's commitment level.
Research demonstrates SET relies on faulty assumptions and cannot account for most romantic relationships.
Direction of cause and effect
SET argues that dissatisfaction develops when costs outweigh rewards or alternatives appear more attractive. Michael Argyle (1987) noted that we don't continuously measure costs and rewards in relationships, nor do we constantly evaluate alternative attractiveness - only when already dissatisfied.
Research supports this view. Miller (1997) found that people rating themselves in highly committed relationships spent less time viewing images of attractive individuals. Reduced viewing time also predicted relationship continuation two months later. This suggests people in committed relationships ignore attractive alternatives. SET cannot explain this causation direction.
SET ignores equity
SET's central focus on comparison level (the ratio of perceived rewards to costs) overlooks one important factor that may overwhelm romantic partner considerations - fairness or equity. This oversight represents a major limitation addressed by equity theory.
Substantial research supports equity's role in relationships, suggesting fairness matters more than simply balancing rewards and costs. Neglecting this factor means SET provides limited explanation and cannot account for considerable research findings on relationships.
Measuring SET concepts
SET involves concepts that are difficult to quantify accurately. While rewards and costs have been defined superficially (such as money) to enable measurement, psychological rewards and costs prove more challenging to define, especially given their variation between individuals.
The comparison level concept presents particular problems. It remains unclear what comparison level and comparison level for alternatives values must reach before dissatisfaction threatens relationships. How attractive must alternatives be, or how much should costs outweigh rewards?
Research lacks consensus on defining or measuring these concepts. Studies often employ oversimplified and artificial methods that may have internal validity but lack external validity because they don't resemble real-world social exchanges.
The subjective nature of rewards, costs, profit, comparison level, and comparison level for alternatives worsens matters as individuals differ in their perceptions. This makes reliable measurement unlikely.
Artificial research
Most studies supporting SET employ artificial tasks under artificial conditions. Common procedures involve strangers collaborating on game-playing scenarios where rewards and costs are distributed. These 'partners' know nothing about each other, and their 'relationship' depends entirely on task performance.
Laboratory-based relationships are temporary, superficial, and task-dependent. They clearly differ from real-life relationship types, bearing no relation to romantic partnerships, which are deeper, longer-lasting, and exist beyond shared activities.
More realistic studies using actual relationship participants have provided less SET support, particularly noting that snapshot studies cannot account for relationship properties that emerge over time, such as trust. This limitation weakens the theory itself because research studies underlying the theory aren't valid measures of real-world relationships or social exchanges.
Summary
Key Points to Remember:
-
Social Exchange Theory treats relationships like business transactions where partners seek to maximise rewards and minimise costs
-
Two key comparison levels determine relationship satisfaction: what we think we deserve (CL) and what alternatives are available (CLalt)
-
Relationships develop through four stages: sampling, bargaining, commitment, and institutionalisation
-
Major criticisms include inappropriate assumptions about relationship monitoring, problems with causation direction, and ignoring the importance of equity
-
Research supporting SET often uses artificial laboratory conditions that don't reflect real romantic relationships