9.3.1 Social Exchange Theory

These theories are based on the economic approach to relationships. This works on the assumption that people run relationships in a similar way to a joint bank account, keeping an eye on what they and their partner are putting in and getting out of the relationship.

Economic theories help explain how couples keep their relationship going and the decision to stay or go.

Social Exchange Theory

In any relationship, both partners are continually giving and receiving items of value.

Since people are fundamentally selfish, relationships continue only if both partners feel they are getting more out than they're putting in.

The theory sees people as perceiving their feelings for others in terms of profit (rewards minus costs of the relationship).
- Rewards include companionship, being cared for and sex.
- Costs include effort, financial investment, and time wasted.
SET stresses that commitment to a relationship is dependent on the profitability of this outcome. Thibaut and Kelly proposed there are 2 ways we measure profit in a relationship:

A standard against which all our relationships are judged.
Our CL is a product of our experiences in other relationships and our general view of what we might expect from a relationship.
If we judge potential profit to exceed our CL, then the relationship will be judged as worthwhile and the person seen as attractive.

Whether or not we believe we could gain greater rewards from another relationship or from our own.
According to Duck, the CLalt we adopt will depend on the state of our current relationship.
"Grass is greener" hypothesis.

Sampling Stage: We explore the rewards and costs by experimenting with them in our own (not just romantic) relationships or by observing others doing so.
Bargaining Stage: The beginning of a relationship, when partners start exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating, and identifying what's most profitable.
Commitment Stage: The sources of costs and rewards become predictable, and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen.
Institutionalisation Stage: Partners are now settled down because the costs and rewards are established.

Rusbult and Martz's Findings:

Point: Rusbult and Martz provide supporting evidence for Social Exchange Theory (SET).
Evidence: They found that women who had been physically assaulted by their partners were likely to return to the abusive relationship. This was often because they had no better alternatives, due to low levels of education and financial resources.
Conclusion: This supports SET as it suggests that even in abusive relationships, the perceived profits (such as security or financial stability) outweighed the costs, leading the women to continue the relationship.

Gottman and Levenson's Research:

Point: SET has practical applications in relationship therapy.
Evidence: Gottman and Levenson found that in successful marriages, the ratio of positive to negative exchanges was 5:1, compared to 1:1 in unsuccessful marriages. A key goal of Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy (IBCT) is to increase the proportion of positive to negative exchanges.
Conclusion: This demonstrates the influence of SET, as therapy based on the principle of rewards outweighing costs proves effective, lending support to the accuracy of the theory.

Confusion Over Costs and Benefits:

Point: A major issue with SET is the ambiguity in defining what constitutes a cost or benefit within a relationship.
Evidence: What one person finds rewarding, such as constant attention and praise, might be perceived as punishing by another. Additionally, perceptions of costs and benefits can change as a relationship evolves (Littlejohn).
Conclusion: This suggests that it is challenging to classify all relationship events in simple terms of 'costs' and 'benefits,' which undermines the theory's ability to universally apply to all relationships.

Sedikides' Criticism:

Point: Sedikides criticises SET for its assumption that people are inherently selfish in relationships.
Evidence: Sedikides argues that individuals often act selflessly, doing things for their partners without expecting anything in return. For example, people may support their partners through stressful events purely to boost their partner's self-esteem, without anticipating a direct reward.
Conclusion: This criticism challenges the overly negative and mechanistic view of human relationships proposed by SET, suggesting that the theory fails to account for the altruistic aspects of human behaviour.

Walster's Equity Theory:

Point: A significant criticism of SET is that it overlooks the importance of equity in relationships.
Evidence: According to Walster, what matters most in a relationship is not just the balance of rewards and costs, but whether both partners perceive their level of profit as similar. When there is a lack of equity, with one partner over-benefiting and the other under-benefiting, dissatisfaction and unhappiness are likely to arise.
Conclusion: This contradicts SET, as it shows that relationship satisfaction is not solely about rewards outweighing costs or exceeding the comparison level, but also about achieving fairness and equity between partners.