9.3.1 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 Thibault & 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 equals 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 but which means more personal time to spend as a couple
• Costs can, however, de-stabilise 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

‘What have you done for me lately?...and is the relationship yielding a profit for both of us?’...

• 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; the costs and if these costs proved to be worth the rewards etc.
• 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 whisking me off on surprise holidays’

• 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 relationship, 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 unit rather than as separate individuals
  • Institutionalisation stage - the partnership is properly established and the ‘terms and conditions’ around creating profit are in place

Research which investigates Social Exchange Theory

• Mitchell et al. (2012) - all manner of  interpersonal relationships can be analysed and understood  using SET; but each type of relationship e.g. romantic/business/social requires its own conceptual framework i.e. SET cannot be generalised across all forms 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) has found that couples therapy which includes the increase of rewards and reduction in costs via positive exchanges has a hugely beneficial effect on the couples’ joint satisfaction and happiness in the relationship
• There is some real-world application to SET as common sense would tell us that relationships are bound to be judged according to whether or not the costs outweigh the rewards (and vice versa) though this is not a very robust strength (truth be told that, as a theory, SET can be criticised more than it can be praised)

Weaknesses

• 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 which in turn limits the reliability of the theory
• Human beings are complex, often unpredictable creatures so attempting to apply an artificial construct drawn from economics to the realm of relationships is fraught with difficulty, thus there is a lack of ecological validity to both the theory itself and the research involved in SET

Link to Approaches

SET suggests that people calculate the costs, rewards and profits involved in relationships which means that it falls under the Cognitive Approach with its emphasis on information processing and perception. As such, a researcher can only draw inferences from SET research as the processes involved are not directly observable.