To Start…

1. To Start… Summarise what we learned about last lesson… What could be today’s lesson objective? Write an example.

2. Success Criteria How will I know if I am learning?

3. Social Exchange Theory is an ‘economic theory’ - it takes the view that social relationships are run in a similar way to a business – people are haggling and negotiating in order to get the best deal. SET is based on the principles of operant conditioning which suggest we form and maintain relationships because they are rewarding – this means they are profitable because the rewards we receive from the relationship outweigh the costs incurred. This means that if the relationship stops being profitable because the costs outweigh the rewards the relationship will end. Economic Theory 1: Social Exchange Theory (SET) – Thibaut & Kelley (1959)

4. SET suggests relationships are run like a balance sheet - partners are always trying to maximise their rewards and limit their costs. Satisfaction depends on the ‘outcome’ - the balance between rewards and costs - a successful relationship is a profitable one because the rewards outweigh costs, although a state of ‘loss’ will occur if the costs start to outweigh the rewards Economic Theory 1: Social Exchange Theory (SET) - Thibaut & Kelley (1959)

5. Calculate how rewarding a current relationship (or friendship) is by assigning a unitary value to the rewards received and the costs incurred from Activity One

6. The Comparison Level (CL) Economic Theory 1: Social Exchange Theory (SET) - Thibaut & Kelley (1959) We develop a standard which we compare all our relationships against. It is formed based on all of our experiences plus our views of what we might exchange from a particular exchange. If we judge the potential profit of a new relationship to exceed our CL, the relationship will be judged as worthwhile. If the outcome is negative (profit less than CL) we will be dissatisfied in the relationship. Similarly we have a ‘Comparison Level for Alternatives’ where we weigh up a potential increase in rewards from a potential partner, minus any costs involved in ending our current relationship.

7. Comparison Level Current relationship Potential relationship “What have I got now?” “What could I have?” Comparison level New relationship Profit Current relationship Comparison level Profit

8. Calculate and compare the outcome of a current relationship with the expected outcome of a previous and a potential alternative relationship. Activity Two

9. What do you think these mean? Activity Three Once you have an idea of what they mean try and come up with a mnemonic to help you remember them. E.g. Rainbow: Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain.

10. What do you think these mean? Activity Three Analysing the potential costs and rewards of entering into a relationship with someone. A testing phase of giving and receiving rewards to understand whether a deeper relationship is worth forming. Sampling and bargaining is reduced and attraction to the other person will increase if the costs of being in a relationship are also reduced. A relationship is recognised as having been formed and norms are developed that set the expectation of specific rewards and costs for the relationship for continued success.

11. Equity ≠ _____ Equity = _____ Economic Theory 2: Equity Theory: Walster et al (1978) People strive to achieve fairness in their relationship. Inequality has the potential to cause distress. This happens when one person gives a great deal and gets little in return (inequity). However the same is true of those who receive a great deal and give little in return. Equality Person’s perceived inputs and outputs!

12. Equity ≠ _____ Equity = _____ Economic Theory 2: Equity Theory: Walster et al (1978) Perceived ratio of Inputs and Outputs Inequity doesn’t necessarily mean inequality. Two individuals can put in variable amounts and still maintain equity. This is because a person holds subjective views on the relative inputs and outputs of themselves and their partner. If we fear inequity in our relationship we may try and change our input and outputs to restore equity. We may also compare it to our CL. Equality Person’s perceived inputs and outputs!

13. why might people feel dissatisfied in the following examples? Activity Four

14. What do you think these mean? Activity Five Once you have an idea of what they mean try and come up with a mnemonic to help you remember them. E.g. Rainbow: Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain.

15. What do you think these mean? Activity Five Rewards are maximised and costs minimised. Trade-offs and compensations are negotiated to try and gain fairness. The greater the degree of perceived unfairness, the greater the dissatisfaction. If restoring equity is possible, attempts will be made to restore it and the relationship is maintained.

16. Plenary: What kind of relationships do Economic Theories fail to account for…?

17. Success Criteria How will I know if I am learning?

18. Activity 1) Identify what Rusbult means by the term ‘investment’ and give examples. Activity 2) Describe the procedure, findings & conclusion of the study. Activity 3) Illustrate how abusive relationships are maintained by showing how such a relationship can still be considered profitable to the person being abused. Investment Model Starter e:

19. Around the room are a series of studies on economic theories of relationships. You must choose 4 to make notes on and fill out your grid. What? – What is the study? Describe it. So What? – What does the study suggest? Which theory does it support or challenge? However? – Is there anything wrong with the study? Is it up for debate? Can you evaluate it in terms of AO3 methods? What? So What? However?

20. Mills and Clark (1980) identified two kinds of intimate relationship: (a) the communal couple, where each partner gives out of concern for the other; (b) the exchange couple, where each keeps mental records of who is ‘ ahead’ and who is ‘behind’. This indicates that there are different types of relationships and that SET can be applied to some of them, but not universally to all. Study 1

21. Sedikides (2005) claimed that people are capable of being unselfish – doing things for others without expecting anything in return – most evident in relationships with those emotionally closest to us. Sedikides believed that individuals can bolster their partners’ self-systems when they are faced with failure and other stressful life events. Therefore, the view of humans as being out for what they can get is simplistic and inaccurate. Study 2

22. Hatfield (1989) looked at people who felt over-or under-benefited. The under-benefited felt angry and deprived, while the over-benefited felt guilty and uncomfortable, supporting the theory by suggesting that regardless of whether individuals are benefited, they do not desire to maintain a relationship that is not fair. Study 3

23. Moghaddam (1998) suggests that such ‘economic’ theories only apply to Western relationships and even then only to certain short-term relationships among individuals with high mobility. One group of people who fit this description are students in Western societies. They are typically very mobile and experience many short-term romantic relationships. Where there is little time to develop long-term commitment, it makes sense to be concerned with give-and-take. However, long-term relationships within other less mobile population groups, particularly in non-traditional societies, are more likely to value security than personal profit. Study 4

24. Research suggests that men and women might judge the equity of a relationship differently. For example, Steil and Weltman (1991) found that, among married working couples, husbands who earned more than their wives rates their own careers as more important than their wives’ careers. In such couples the women generally also rated their husbands’ careers as more important than their own. However, in couples where the women’s income exceeded the man’s, neither partner rated their career as more important. Researchers concluded that: ‘wives’ tendency to seek less for themselves than comparable men making comparable contributions… impeded the achievement of equality at home’. Study 5

25. Van Yperen and Buunk (1990) carried out a longitudinal study using 250 couples recruited by way of an advert in a local paper. Eighty-six per cent were married and the remainder were cohabiting. They obtained a score for equity in the relationship using Hatfield’s Global Measurement of Satisfaction (Hatfield etal., 1990) and found that about 65 per cent of men and women felt that their relationship was equitable, about 25 per cent of men felt over-benefited, and about the same number of women felt under-benefited. One year later the couples were asked about satisfaction in their relationship. Those who felt their relationship was equitable at stage 1 were the most satisfied, the over-benefited were next and the under-benefited were least satisfied, supporting the equity theory. Study 6

26. Gottman & Levenson (1992) found that in successful marriages the ratio of positive to negative exchanges was around 5:1, however in unsuccessful marriages this ratio was lower at 1:1. This suggests that relationships should have more positive exchanges and less negative exchanges. Study 7

27. To Bin or not to Bin…? Using your table to help you… Decide how we can evaluate maintenance theories using the different prompts. If you don’t think a prompt is a relevant evaluation point… then BIN it! Make sure you think about why!

28. Individual Differences Mills & Clark – Economic theories cannot explain all relationships. They are not universal to all.

29. Cultural Bias Moghaddam (1998) – Economic theories only apply to westernised cultures. E.g. students with high social mobility.

30. Gender Differences Steil & Weltman (1991) – There are gender differences in what is judged as equity.

31. Deterministic

32. Real Life Application Gottman & Levenson (1992) – Relationships should have more positive exchanges. This has implications for couple therapy. Behavioural Couple’s therapy helps them to break negative patterns.

33. Ethical Issues

34. Reductionism Focuses too much on individual’s perspective rather than social aspects of a relationship such as communication and shared events. Too much focus on selfish nature of people! Are people really that selfish?

35. Individual Differences

36. Cultural Bias

37. Gender Differences

38. Deterministic

39. Real Life Application

40. Ethical Issues

41. Reductionism