Social Exchange Theory - Breakdown

Social Exchange Theory - Breakdown

1. A01

   • based on perceived profitability - costs determine the breakdown e.g. couple habits, financial investment etc. happiness and feeling loved are key rewards to prevent breakdown however stress and worry are key losses.
     • if costs outweigh rewards, relationship is regarded as damaging or too costly to maintain and breakdown may occur. e.g. if a lot of effort is required to gain the same feelings when the effort becomes too much overall outcome would be negative.
   • Females - intimacy and self-growth
     • Males - sex and finance
   • when considering the future and potential breakdown - minimax principle takes place. avoiding breakdown depends on how mutually beneficial the relationship feels.
   • Concept of Investment
     • couples will calculate any investment they have made e.g. time, money, possessions. if the investment is considered minimal then the relationship might breakdown.
   • comparison level
     • standard that all our relationships are judged and this process could be considered in the breakdown. if we judge that profit does not exceed our CL, relationship will have a negative reputation and the other person seen as an unattractive partner.
     • based on past experiences and what we expect from relationships (social norms and personal expectations).
     • CL is linked to self-esteem. High expects highly profitable relationship, meaning they are vulnerable to viewing relationship negatively resulting in breakdown. Low settles for less (or loss).
       • CL for alternatives - the amount of costs/rewards we believe are available from alternatives. A person may weigh up potential rewards from a potential partner, against costs from the current relationship. If potential benefits are better it is likely the current will breakdown.

2. A02

   • Supporting Research
     • couples are consciously aware of costs and rewards within a RR and its implications for a potential breakdown. Mill and Clark - american couples supported the idea. research suggests that SET has predictive validity when considering reasons why a RR should breakdown
   • Gender Bias
     • does not account for gender differences in the perceptions of profit and loss calculations during the breakdown stage. e.g. researchers have found gd in how comfortable a memember of a couple may feeling 'owing' the other partner benefits. females more so than males. suggesting SET has not considered gd in perceptions of economic exchange during the potential breakdown. therefore, SET cannot generalise its conclusions or how or why a RR will breakdown for men and women and to do so would demonstrate gender bias towards a male perception of how RR are ended. SET assumes that males and females view all aspects in the same way.
       • the explanation of breakdown within a homosexual RR may also not be determined by the principles in SET. this raises problems of generalisability .
     • MIlls and Clark - argue some couples are primarily concerned with the needs of their partner contradicting SET. if RR are based on communal ideals. then explanations of breakdown is not explained by economical calculations. other reasons may be more relevant to such couples e.g. Duck argues the SET ignores social aspects that may result in breakdown of a RR like how couples interpret shared events. this undermines SET as an explanation for all types of RR as some appear not to breakdown due to economic principles.
   • Reductionist
     • reduces the complexity of the breakdown stage to simple profit and loss ignoring issues of emotional love. rather mechanical view of how RR might breakdown.
       • however, it allows us to operationalise scientifically the complexity of the breakdown stage in an objective manner.
   • Methodological
     • research has been based of potential breakdown of short-term RR with samples of students. makes us question the generalizability of the findings to breakdown of long-term involving non-students. theory is of limited use as the dynamics of breakdown of long-term RR are different to those tested.
     • cannot state from correlational research that perceived losses will cause the breakdown of a RR. research supporting can only claim that a positive correlation between high losses and breakdown exists.
   • Predictive Value
     • does not predict at what level a RR becomes so unsatisfactory that we decide to leave even if there is not alternative available. therefore the model is descriptive of the breakdown of RR rather than a predictive explanation. e.g. SET is good at describing how costs and rewards may change, but exactly how unrewarding a RR needs to be is unclear; and how much more rewarding an alternative has to be before it is chosen over the current is uncertain.
       • ethically it is socially sensitive to examine the breakdown of RR because of the psychological harm. bring up previous traumas such as abusive RR. Elliot would argue that the advantages to examine the breakdown over rules to sensitive issue. research of this nature have beneficial effects e.g. helping prevent potential breakdown. more generally in forming agencies like 'relate' or marriage counselling which help resolve problems.
   • Deterministic
     • suggesting that breakdown of RR are predominantly determined by our calculation of potential benefits. no research to support, Mills and Clark - argue when some individuals consider breakdown of their RR they also consider the needs of the other person, rather than the potential losses and benefits to them.