Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships (16
marks)
The SET, proposed by Thibaut and Kelley (1959) is an economic theory of relationships
centred around the exchange of rewards and costs. It claims that partners in a relationship
strive to maximise rewards (e.g. companionship, praise, emotional support, sex) and
minimise costs (e.g. stress, arguments, compromises, time commitments). If rewards outway
the costs of a relationship, a person will be more motivated to form and maintain the
relationship. The nature of the rewards and costs is subjective and can vary from person to
person, and across the course of the relationship.
People use levels of comparison to assess how profitable their relationship is. Comparison
level is where we compare what we are actually getting to what we believe we should get.
This level is based on previous experiences and social norms and even self esteem levels,
with it varying between individuals. E.g. somebody with low self-esteem and little/bad
experiences of relationships may be satisfied with significantly less profit than someone with
vast high quality experiences. If the comparison level of an individual meets the reality of
what they are experiencing, the relationship is considered worth pursuing.
Comparison level for alternatives (CLait) is when someone's current relationship is
compared with different potential relationships or being single. SET predicts we will stay in
the current relationship given it is more rewarding than alternatives. Which is supported by
Steve Duch, he found that if the costs of a relationship outweigh the rewards, then
alternative relationships are more likely to be attractive. But if we are in a satisfying
relationship you may not even notice other alternatives.
Rusbelt and Martx point out a strength of SET being that it can be used to explain why
women stay in abusive relationships. This is because if their rewards such as: children,
financial security or social status are high compared to the low cost of leaving, e.g. having no
money/home, then they will stay (their rewards outweigh their costs). This understanding
could therefore be valuable in helping victims in abusive relationships by providing higher
rewards (like a place to live etc…) to encourage them to leave their dangerous situation.
SET has useful real-life applications. E.g. Integrated Behavioral Couples Therapy (IBCT),
where 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. 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. This shows that SET can be used to help distressed
couples in real-life, therefore demonstrating its real-world application and benefit for
relationships.
A criticism of SET is that it lacks universality. Research suggests they only apply to western
cultures (individualistic) rather than collectivist ones, specifically short-term relationships
where the individuals have high mobility. Short-term relationships allow little time for the
development of long-term commitment, and therefore result in more concern around profits
and costs. This suggests SET is culturally biassed and cannot be applied to relationships
universally. Furthermore, long term relationships with individuals who are less mobile have
been found to value security more than personal profit. Further supporting the idea of the
theory being imposed etic and suggests further research into subcultural differences
between groups of people is needed.
SET is also criticised by Sedikides who claimed that people are capable of being unselfish.
They said that some people do things for others without expecting anything in return,
especially in relationships with people who are the most emotionally close to us. This could
marks)
The SET, proposed by Thibaut and Kelley (1959) is an economic theory of relationships
centred around the exchange of rewards and costs. It claims that partners in a relationship
strive to maximise rewards (e.g. companionship, praise, emotional support, sex) and
minimise costs (e.g. stress, arguments, compromises, time commitments). If rewards outway
the costs of a relationship, a person will be more motivated to form and maintain the
relationship. The nature of the rewards and costs is subjective and can vary from person to
person, and across the course of the relationship.
People use levels of comparison to assess how profitable their relationship is. Comparison
level is where we compare what we are actually getting to what we believe we should get.
This level is based on previous experiences and social norms and even self esteem levels,
with it varying between individuals. E.g. somebody with low self-esteem and little/bad
experiences of relationships may be satisfied with significantly less profit than someone with
vast high quality experiences. If the comparison level of an individual meets the reality of
what they are experiencing, the relationship is considered worth pursuing.
Comparison level for alternatives (CLait) is when someone's current relationship is
compared with different potential relationships or being single. SET predicts we will stay in
the current relationship given it is more rewarding than alternatives. Which is supported by
Steve Duch, he found that if the costs of a relationship outweigh the rewards, then
alternative relationships are more likely to be attractive. But if we are in a satisfying
relationship you may not even notice other alternatives.
Rusbelt and Martx point out a strength of SET being that it can be used to explain why
women stay in abusive relationships. This is because if their rewards such as: children,
financial security or social status are high compared to the low cost of leaving, e.g. having no
money/home, then they will stay (their rewards outweigh their costs). This understanding
could therefore be valuable in helping victims in abusive relationships by providing higher
rewards (like a place to live etc…) to encourage them to leave their dangerous situation.
SET has useful real-life applications. E.g. Integrated Behavioral Couples Therapy (IBCT),
where 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. 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. This shows that SET can be used to help distressed
couples in real-life, therefore demonstrating its real-world application and benefit for
relationships.
A criticism of SET is that it lacks universality. Research suggests they only apply to western
cultures (individualistic) rather than collectivist ones, specifically short-term relationships
where the individuals have high mobility. Short-term relationships allow little time for the
development of long-term commitment, and therefore result in more concern around profits
and costs. This suggests SET is culturally biassed and cannot be applied to relationships
universally. Furthermore, long term relationships with individuals who are less mobile have
been found to value security more than personal profit. Further supporting the idea of the
theory being imposed etic and suggests further research into subcultural differences
between groups of people is needed.
SET is also criticised by Sedikides who claimed that people are capable of being unselfish.
They said that some people do things for others without expecting anything in return,
especially in relationships with people who are the most emotionally close to us. This could
