AQA Psychology: social exchange theory of relationships 16 marker
250 views 0 purchase
Course
All modules
Institution
AQA
Book
AQA Psychology for A Level Year 2
This document provides detailed A01 notes and A03 evaluation into SET essay of the relationship's module, these notes are clear, and easy to follow. The A03 contains a deep explanation of both strengths and limitations to the theory/study, along with evidential support or criticism.
Hi! I'm Ben...
Gender and Culture Bias AQA ExamPro Questions by Topic
Holism and Reductionism AQA ExamPro Questions by Topic
All for this textbook (168)
Written for
A/AS Level
AQA
Pscyhology
All modules
All documents for this subject (59)
Seller
Follow
benjamincatling
Content preview
Theories of romantic relationships: Social exchange theory (16)
Proposed by Thibault and Kelley (1959) SET claims that partners act out of self interest in
exchanging rewards and costs, whereby we try to maximise gain and minimise loss (The minimax
principle). We assess our relationship in terms of its ‘profit’.
Costs and rewards are subjective to each couple, whereby someone may see an outcome as a
reward, someone else may see it as unvaluable. E.g., a partner may value praise the other may wish
not to have praise. Rewards could be sex, encouragement, affection. Costs could be energy, less
disposable income, sacrificing hobbies etc.
The comparison level is how we perceive how much reward we deserve from a relationship, this is
based on previous relationships, social norms (shown in books, films) and how high our esteem is. A
relationship is worth pursuing if comparison level is high.
Comparison for alternatives is when we assess if other options, such as a new partner or being
single, will generate more rewards than our current situation. Those alternatives if so, will seem
desirable, whether we act on them depends on our attitude towards them.
SET proposes 4 stages that relationships go through. Sampling stage, bargaining stage, commitment
stage and institutionalised stage.
The assumptions of SET are criticised. Clark and Mills argue that this only explains exchange
relationships, the ones that consistently assess their ‘profit and losses, though does not explain
communal relationships, one in which interaction is governed primarily by consideration of the
other’s needs and wishes regardless of the return. (Developed) Furthermore, when considering
cultural differences, Lott found that women in collectivist cultures were more focussed on giving
than receiving, suggesting SET would be difficult to generalise to other cultures e.g., individualist,
Therefore SET holds cultural relativism.
Concepts discussed within SET are vague and hard to quantify. This is because its definitions of cost
and rewards are often general and imprecise, though in real life terms these costs and rewards are
very subjective to each relationship, and will vary on individual basis’, which makes them harder to
define. For example, a couple’s loyalty is seen as rewarding by many, though fthis is not the case for
everyone. Especially vague is the comparison concepts, as it is unclear what exactly the values of
comparison levels must before dissatisfaction threatens a relationship, and how this may change
depending on age, sexuality, etc. This suggests that SET is hard to test in a valid way.
One strength is that many aspects of SET have been supported by research. Kurdek asked gay,
lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment
and SET variables. Findings show that partners who were most committed also perceived the most
rewards and fewer costs, viewing alternatives as completely unattractive. These findings match the
predictions from SET, strongly confirming the theory of SET and its credibility to be applied to
multiple relationship types.
Counterpoint: SET research ignores the crucial factor that must be considered in romantic
relationships. Equity. This is because it is not only the balance of reward and cost that matters, but
also individual perception into whether their relationship is fair. This is better represented in a
following explanation as ‘equity theory’. This reduces the credibility of SET because its explanation is
limited and cannot account for a large proportion of finding into romantic relationships.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller benjamincatling. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.66. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
