Theories of Romantic Relationships Social Exchange Theory What

Theories of Romantic Relationships: Social Exchange Theory What the spec says: Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory Describe the main features of Social Exchange Theory of romantic relationships Explain how relationships form, are maintained, and breakdown according to the Social Exchange Theory Evaluate evidence to support and contradict Social Exchange Theory

Social Exchange Theory Relationships • The evolutionary explanations for partner preferences, including the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour. • Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self-disclosure; physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory, including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity. • Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory, equity theory and Rusbult’s investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment. Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases. • Virtual relationships in social media: self-disclosure in virtual relationships; effects of absence of gating on the nature of virtual relationships. • Parasocial relationships: levels of parasocial relationships, the absorption addiction model and the attachment theory explanation.

Economic Theories Many psychologists believe that key to maintaining a relationship is that they are mutually benefiting. Such theories are economic theories because they use economic concepts.

Social Exchange Theory • Social Exchange Theory is an ‘Economic Theory’ • Uses concepts from economics and from operant conditioning • We form a relationship if it is rewarding • We attempt to maximise our rewards and minimise our costs • The rewards minus the costs equals the outcome • We commit to the relationship if the outcome is profitable Rewards – Cost = Outcome

Social exchange theory Thibaut & Kelley (1959) • Assumes that people try to maximise the rewards they obtain from a relationship and Minimax principle minimise the costs. • The exchange comes from the assumption that when people receive rewards from others they feel obliged to reciprocate. Rewards Companionship, sex Costs Missed opportunities Time Money

Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley 1959) This makes the basic assumption that all social behaviours are a series of exchanges in which something is given and something gained It argues that partners wish to maximise rewards from a relationship (eg. love, sex, companionship, support) & minimise costs (time, effort, money spent, opportunities lost, risk involved) The goal is to achieve a situation of profit: where rewards exceed the costs

Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley 1959) • To judge how one partner compares to another potential one on the profitability front, partners use a comparison level – a standard against which all relationships are compared • The comparison level is based on memories of past experiences combined with expectations of what we want and can expect in the future • When we meet a new partner, he/she is compared with the comparison level, and if the profit of this new relationship is thought to exceed the comparison level, a relationship will be formed • Then if the person meets someone else, the comparison level for alternatives is referred to • This is where the potential rewards from the new partner are greater than the costs of ending the existing relationship • If the rewards are greater, the existing relationship may be terminated and a new one formed

Thibaut & Kelley proposed a 4 stage model of long-term relationships TASK: sort the cards into what you think is the right order

Relationship Development 1. Sampling We consider the potential rewards and costs of a relationship and compare it with other relationships available at the time.

Relationship Development 2. Bargaining We give and receive rewards to test whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile.

Relationship Development 3. Commitment The relationship increases in predictability so each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other, which lowers costs.

Relationship Development 4. Institutionalisation The relationship norms are developed which establishes the patterns of rewards and costs for each partner.

Task Calculate how rewarding a current relationship (or friendship) is by assigning a unitary value to the rewards received and the costs incurred. Rewards received Total value rewards = Costs incurred Valu e Total value costs= alue

Task SET also suggests people compare their current relationship with previous and alternative relationships in order to determine how profitable it is to stay in the current one. Calculate and compare the outcome of a current relationship with the expected outcome of a previous and a potential alternative relationship. Previous Relationship Alternative Relationship Costs Rewards Outcome =

They recognised that this model was a little simplistic and factored in two other factors: • Comparison level: –How satisfied individuals are with the reward and costs depends on what they have come to expect from previous relationships. –If the current relationship compares favourably with past relationships we are motivated to stay in the relationship. • Comparison level for alternative s: –The level of satisfaction also depends on the rewards and costs that would be involved if they formed a relationship with someone else

Social exchange example Despicable Me 2 • https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=f. Au. CBph ia. P 8

The Party You came to the party with a lovely quiche that you spent a long time preparing, at the party you ate some lovely sandwiches that your friend Mike bought In practice, for most people, You came to the party profit is less empty handed but didn’t eat or drink anything at important than the party fairness in relationships You came to the party and you bought nothing, you ended up eating half a quiche and drinking some homemade lemonade You came to the party with some homemade lemonade, during the party you didn’t eat or drink anything You came to the party with a whole box of treats you had prepared; at the party you stuffed your face with quiche, sandwiches and lovely lemonade

Challenge 1 - Take a celebrity/fictional couple and write down a list of profit and loss (you can use the same couple you used for Reward/Need satisfaction if you like). 2 -Work out a comparison level based on the celebrities past relationships and what they have to gain from the relationship. 3 -Should they have formed a relationship? Are they still together? Does the SET fit? You have ten minutes.

Celebrity couple examples Met in the Jungle. Peter was a washed up star! Katie was known as a glamour model. They had two children and Peter was a father to her disabled son, Harvey. Katie had bad luck with men, Dwight Yorke, Dane Bowers etc

When you come in… Met at university. Wills wasn’t sure so dumped Kate before realising she was the, ‘one’! Use SET to explain their relationship. What benefits might Kate get from marrying a handsome, rich, caring Prince? What benefits would William get marrying Kate?

Evaluation: SET Provide 3 evaluation points of SET. Remember to use key terms. You have 10 mins

Some evaluation points to help get started! • Cultural bias (ethnocentric) • Gender bias (beta) • Portrays people as selfish & calculating and ignores altruism and meeting needs • Reductionist to argue that exchange only motivating factor • Can explain why people stay in abusive relationships • But doesn’t explain why people leave with no alternative • Clarification needed of the comparison level • May be applicable to other types of relationships e. g. friendships

Evaluation SET Strengths Based on Social/economic approach: so people have free will and choice(takes into account individual differences) unlike in other theories of relationship formation, such as Socio-biological. The Cl-alt helps to explain why somebody would terminate a relationship they were satisfied with (in that the alternative partner can offer even more!) It could help explain why people may stay in an abusive relationship (Rasbults, investment model). As if they have put a lot into the relationship and there is no Cl-alt then they may stay in that relationship.

Evaluation of SET Weaknesses Methodologies used: Most studies investigating it are very artificial and lack ecological validity. It has inconsistent empirical research: Clark and Mills (1979) identified two different styles of couples ( communal and exchange couples). In the communal couple they have positive regard for each other and believe over time each will receive equal costs/benefits. The exchange couple are more about here and now.

Essay Question Outline and evaluate one theory of the maintenance of romantic relationships. (Total 16 marks)

Mark Scheme

Plenary Find your face! Find the picture of your face, and place it on the scale of how confident you feel on the Social Exchange Theory.