Formation- SET

Formation- SET

1. AO1

   • SET assumes that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges. Therefore potential profits ad losses determine whether or to the formation of a rr will take place, as an individual with attempt to maximise their potential benefits when forming a rr. Homans argues that choices about the potential formation of a relationship are rational economic decisions
   • The formation of a romantic relationship is based on perceived profitability. Potential rewards in the formation of a rr can be anything positive, for example, objects, behaviours, support (sex/companionship), and costs to the formation of a potential rr are anything unpleasant, for example: emotional/habits (effort/financial investment).
   • Sedikides stated that happiness and feeling loved are the most important potential rewards when considering the formation of a rr. Stress and worry tend to be significant potential losses in the formation of a rr. Females emphasise the potential for intimacy and self-growth when forming a rr, whereas males emphasis sex and loss of money as a cost to forming a rr. Minimising costs and maximising benefits in the formation of a relationship is referred to as minimax
   • The extent to which a relationship is likely to form and therefore develop, will depend on how mutually beneficial the potential relationship appears. If the formation of a new rr is likely to offer us something that is in short supply for us, we will appreciate it more and it will therefore significantly influence the formation taking place
   • If we are in a position to choose between forming a number of different relationships, we will consider which one will provide us with the largest difference between rewards and costs (the largest and most productive outcome)
   • Thibaut and Kelly believe there are four stages in the development of a relationship, however, only one applies to formation
     • Sampling: when forming a rr an individual will weigh up costs and benefits of forming that rr and compare it to forming other potential rr in terms of its potential profit and losses
   • When considering the formation, SET suggests we may employ comparison for alternatives. In this, we compare the potential relationship with past, or current relationships. A new relationship is likely to form if the current one has a high cost and low benefits, and the new relationship offers the potential for higher rewards and lower costs

2. AO2

   • Rusbult identifies a disadvantage with using SET to explain all stages of romantic relationships, in particular the formation stage. Rusbult (1983) suggests that costs are of little importance during the first few months of a romantic relationship, i.e. the formation stage. Rusbult argues at this stage a cost benefit analysis is inappropriate or irrelevant to couples
   • Rustbult's criticisms of SET's explanation of the formation stage of a rr is supported cross culturally. Levine et al (1995) investigated love as a basis for marriage in 11 countries. They found that rather than calculating costs and benefits during the formation of a rr, individuals consider more romantic issues, like the concept of love. This contradicts the predictions of SET in the formation stage of a rr. For example, the US respondents expresses a reluctance to marry in the absence of love (only 14% said they would marry someone they didn't love). This suggests during the formation stage of a rr, emotional desires or concepts of romantic love are important, above those of rational calculation as outlined by SET
   • However, one could argue that the principles of SET of calculating costs and benefits during the formation stage by the individual themselves or significant others on your behalf make it applicable across all cultures. The idea of 'arranging' the formation f relations for the benefit of each party is common in western and non-western societies. Most people form a relationship through work/friends, which mean they are fairly familiar. Dating agencies in western societies perform much the same function in the formation of relationships as the parents in arranged marriages in non-western societies
     • Furthermore, the decision to form a relationship for a westerner couple has many influences pressures related to social position, religion, wealth and education, which can lead to a quasi-arranged relationship. Therefore, this is all part of the cost benefit analysis of SET at the very formation stage of a relationship, and it is done by the couple or on their behalf by relatives/agencies. This supports SET as it shows that individuals evaluate costs and benefits of all aspects of a potential partner when entering the formation stage of a relationship
   • On the other hand, the problem of reductionism emerges for the SET explanation of formation of RR when we consider the conclusions of Rusbult and Levine. The problem is that SET reducing the complexity of the formation of a rr to a simple profit and loss calculation ignoring issues of love. This is a rather mechanical view of how rr's are formed. In the sense it may be considered deterministic, suggesting that the formation of rr's are predominantly determined by our calculation of potential benefits. This is not supported by research
     • For example, Mills and Clark (1979) argue that when some individuals form rr they consider the needs of the other person, rather than the potential benefits they may receive
       • However, the advantage of SET adopting a rather reductionist approach to explaining the formation of rr, for example the reinforcement-affect model, is that it considers the role of cognitions (i.e. perceptions and judgements) which makes it less deterministic than it may first appear (i.e. perceptions of self-worth influence our level of acceptable costs and benefits
         • Another limitation of SET is that it cannot suggest from supporting research evidence that profit and loss calculations cause the formation of a rr, just that profit and loss calculations are correlated with he formation of rr. This undermines the predictive validity of the SET explanation of the formation stage of a rr
   • Mogbaddam (1993) supports SET's explanation of the formation of rr in western cultures, as they are characterised by a high degree of choice when forming a rr with a greater pool of potential relations than those in non-western cultures. This supports the SET principle that individuals are likely to act in economic terms when forming a relationship.
     • However, he does not support the application of SET and the formation of rr in non-western societies. Western cultures place great importance on the rights and freedoms of the individual, with individual happiness and pleasure seen as fundamentally important. Therefore, individuals are likely to make calculations based on principles predicted by SET when forming a relationship. In non-western cultures, the group tends to be the primary unit of concern and therefore the formation of a rr is not based on narrow individualist concerns, profit and loss as suggested by SET, but more to do with concerns of family members. Therefore, the problem is that SET does not offer a universal explanation of the formation of rr, but is biased towards the formation of western cultures