Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory is an example of an 'economic theory' of a relationship. Such theories suggest that people in relationships wish to give and receive something, assuming that people act out in self-interest ultimately.

Thibault and Kelley (1959) suggest that relationship satisfaction is judged by considering the 'rewards' and 'costs' the relationship produces. People seek to minimise the losses and maximise the rewards, leading to 'profit' (the 'minimax principle').

What counts as rewards and costs will vary from person to person and relationship to relationship, and will change over time. They include sex, emotional support, praise (rewards). Also, stress, energy, and having to compromise (costs).

The 'opportunity cost' refers to the investiment in a current relationship preventing a person investing resources elsewhere.

CLat is the second measure of profit. This involves a person considering whether they would get more rewards, and fewer costs, from another relationship, or from being single.

According to the theory, the person will remain in the relationship if they think that the current relationship will give greater profit than the alternatives.

This is affected by the state of the current relationship - if it is satisfying, there is much less need to consider alternatives.

Thibault and Kelley suggest each relationship develops through four stages:

• Sampling Stage: exploring the rewards and costs of relationships (not just romantic relationships) through experimentation.
• Bargaining Stage: the beginning of a relationship, where various costs and rewards are identified through exchange and negotiation.
• Commitment Stage: costs and rewards become more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable - rewards increase, costs lessen.
• Institutionalisation Stage: the norms of the relationship are firmly established.

- It has been argued that economic exchange characterises non-romantic relationships (such as between work colleagues), but do not characterise romantic relationships, as neither partner keeps 'score' of who is ahead and behind on rewards and costs. SET may be based on a faulty assumption, and therefore it is weakened.

- Miller (1997) found that those who rated themselves as being in a committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people, suggesting that dissatisfaction in a relationship is what leads to the costs/rewards being calculated, rather than the calculation leading to dissatisfaction. This weakens the prediction of SET.

- There is evidence that measures of fairness are more important in relationships than calculation of costs and rewards, suggesting that SET is, at best, a limited explanation of romantic relationships.