As with any other theory, the SET has some criticisms. The theoretical propositions with the theory are consistent with each other. It offers a plausible explanation for the maintenance of relationships because it helps us understand that if an individual is too selfish and maximises the rewards too much, then their partner will become unhappy which will lead to the breakdown of the relationship. Due to this, the theory could potentially generate new hypotheses and therefore expand the range of knowledge on this topic. Psychologists could begin to find out which costs or rewards are more involved in the maintenance of relationships.
The SET is a humanistic theory as it has intuitive credibility as it makes sense so you can relate to it and apply it to other situations. Due to this it helps us understand the costs and rewards of relationships. Furthermore it aids us to predict how to keep and sustain relationships. People will be able to calculate this ratio of costs and rewards, so if an individual realises that they are maximising the rewards and minimising the costs, then they will willingly make a balance in order to maintain their relationship.
The theory assumes that we spend a lot of time monitoring costs and rewards. Argyle (1987) argued that people do this once they are dissatisfied with them and not before. This could be because at the beginning at the relationship individuals tend to be ‘blinded’, for example a particular personality trait may seem very attractive. However as the relationship progresses they start to become annoyed at this trait which is when they start calculating this ratio.
Moreover, the SET views all people as being self-centred and selfish. It ignores individual differences because there is evidence that suggest that some individuals gain pleasure from giving as well as receiving. Some people will be gain happiness through costs. For example, one partner may like satisfying their partner by maybe giving them a gift or other small things. This is a cost for that person; however, because they see how happy their partner has become, the costs become a reward for them to.
The SET is challenged by the Equity Theory (ET). Although it is an extension of the SET as it considers the costs and rewards, it suggests that people expect relationships to be fair and equal. The theory predicts that a couple will only be happy if one partner’s rewards and costs are equal to the others. Therefore, both the male and female will only be happy if they both put in the same amount of effort into the relationship, which will result in the same benefits.
If this balance is unequal, maybe because one partner puts in more effort than the other, then it could lead to the relationship being referred to as ‘inequitable’. This causes the ‘loser’ to feel dissatisfied and the ‘winner’ to feel guilty. The both partners will feel motivated to restore the dynamics of the relationship once ‘inequity’ is experienced. However, if this continues then it is inevitable that the relationship will eventually breakdown.
This is supported from a study with newlyweds. Those who described their relationships as being equitable were most happy, whereas those who put more into the relationship than their partner were dissatisfied. This also supports the SET because if there is an unbalance between the costs and rewards then the partner with more costs will start to calculate this ratio more consciously. This will lead them to become more dissatisfied in their relationship, and thus it will breakdown. However, we can’t generalise these findings because it’s a method of self report. They asked participants and their responses could have an element of social desirability bias. They may have answered by saying the feel guilty not to look selfish. This cannot be proven though, and some participants would have been genuine in their responses so the results should be quite valid.
Furthermore, there is more support from research into homosexuals. Equity was important especially in women, i.e. lesbian couples. This suggests that equity may be more important to women, whereas males are more likely to conform. This could be used as evidence to prove that there are gender differences when it comes to maintaining relationships. If the relationship isn’t balanced then this shows that women are more likely to be the ones that are dissatisfied and will end the relationship. Men on the other hand are more untroubled with inequity so it won’t bother them that much. There is an element of alpha bias as this assumes that there are real differences between males and females. This raises the profile of women as Gilligan’s theory of morality poses that the morality of women is different to that of men but not inferior. This last point contradicts Freud’s vision that femininity is just failed masculinity associated with the absence of a penis.
Both these theories are culturally biased as they only reflect Westernised Individualists because it’s these cultures who believe in a fair and equal relationship. There is an element of ethnocentrism because the research findings from one particular culture have been generalised to all other cultures. You can’t generalise these findings in collectivist societies as people value inter-dependence. There is an inattention to issues of cultural context and cross-cultural variations in the norms and rules that regulate social exchange.
Moreover, they are both reductionist as it explains the breakdown of relationships in terms of profits and losses, so it makes it sound like relationships are an artificial business. It should be explained in terms more like a project because there are factors which need to be overcome, e.g. children, illness, financial issues etc. Furthermore, the ET puts a complex topic, i.e. the happiness of a marriage and deconstructs it into a simple theory. Other factors like jealousy, money and infidelity will put a strain in a marriage regardless if both partners are putting in the same effort into the relationship.