Have you ever been doubtful of the relationship you're in? Have you thought about what you're getting out of it and compared that to what you were giving into it? Have you ever made a pro and cons list about your partner? If so, there are chances that you have been putting the social exchange theory into practice.
- First, we will talk about the social exchange theory in psychology. We will then explore the assumptions of the social exchange theory.
- Next, we will discuss a real-life application of the social exchange theory in relationships.
- Then, we will discuss an example of social exchange theory in a friendship.
- Further, we will talk about some other psychological explanations for relationships, which are extensions of the social exchange theory.
- Finally, we will evaluate the social exchange theory, talking about its strengths and weaknesses.
Fig. 1 - Social exchange theory explores the costs and benefits of relationships.
Social Exchange Theory: Psychology
Researchers in psychology have long been interested in how relationships develop between humans. Are relationships developed based on mutual gains, or are people more invested if the benefits of maintaining a relationship outweight the costs? Social exchange theory explores the costs versus the benefits of relationships and how people minimise and maximise them respectively.
The social exchange theory suggests that a relationship is a constant negotiation of profits (rewards) and losses (costs). People try to maximise benefits and minimise the costs in a relationship ( a cost-benefit analysis), according to social exchange theory.
Chores, sex, companionship, and compromise are all different types of social exchange. Using these types of social exchange, psychologists Thibaut and Kelley (1959)¹ explained relationships in economic terms.
According to them, partners will strive to maximise profits such as sex, companionship, and emotional support and minimise losses such as compromise, arguments, and commitments; these tend to change over time.
Comparison Level
There are two levels to the social exchange theory: the comparison level and the comparison level for alternatives.
The 'comparison level' measures the rewards a person thinks they are entitled to in a relationship.
Since every individual and every relationship is different, the comparison level varies. Overall, however, it can be affected by a variety of external and internal factors.
Seeing a romantic movie on television, experiencing how relationships function within your family and observing your friendship group are all external factors that can contribute to how you judge your own relationship.
On the other hand, how confident you are, your self-esteem and your self-worth are all internal factors that directly contribute to the comparison level you feel you deserve.
Comparison Level for Alternatives
In certain situations, the comparison level can lead to the comparison level for alternatives. You might be wondering what this means and how it's different.
The comparison level for alternatives is when an individual judge their relationship and identifies that they could be receiving more benefits and fewer costs from an alternative relationship with someone else.
According to Thibaut and Kelly’s theory, people will stay in their current relationship if they find it more profitable than the alternatives.
Let's say you are in a relationship where your partner works out of town. At first, this is fine, because whenever they come home, they bring you gifts, which is a reward. The comparison level in this case would be your judgement of the happiness you are receiving due to the rewards you are getting every time your partner returns.
Imagine that these rewards stop after a while, and it becomes tiresome when they are never around. The costs begin to outweigh the rewards, and you might want to break up with your partner, thinking that a relationship with someone who works in town might be more beneficial for you. This is the comparison level for alternatives.
Every individual wants their relationships and interactions in life to be valuable to them. What is valuable for one individual may not be valuable for another, so this theory does not aim to specify what is beneficial and what isn't. Even so, it relies on a few assumptions.
Fig. 2 - According to social exchange theory, comparisons are made according to a cost and benefit analysis.
Social Exchange Theory Assumptions
The social exchange theory might suggest that a relationship is a constant negotiation of profits and losses, but in order to do that, it makes certain core assumptions about human nature as well as the nature of relationships. The assumptions the social exchange theory makes about human nature are as follows:
- Individuals will always look for what is most profitable to them instead of what is most costly.
- Since is it impossible to know what rewards and costs an interaction actually offers before making that interaction, individuals tend to guide their behaviour by their own expectations of rewards and costs.
- Individuals are rational and are able to weigh the rewards and costs of a relationship, as well as consider other alternatives before making their final decision.
- Since each individual is different and matures through life experiences differently, the manner in which they weigh these costs and benefits will differ from person to person and will also change over time.
Further, it makes assumptions about the nature of relationships as well. These are -
- Any social exchange relies on interdependence. This means that being able to receive benefits from another person is dependent on one's ability to provide others with them as well.
- Social exchanges are controlled by standards of reciprocity and fairness.
- Benefits received via a relationship contribute to an individual's trust, which further strengthens the relationship.
This theory can be applied to different parts of an individual's life - friendships, educational settings and romantic relationships. Let's take a look at some applications of this theory to understand it better.
Application of Social Exchange Theory
Let's talk about how the social exchange theory can apply to real-life relationships.
Social Exchange Theory in Relationships
We've already discussed what the social exchange theory means, but how does it apply to real-world relationships?
Couples’ therapy uses the social exchange theory, such as Integrated Behavioral Couples Therapy (IBCT), in which couples are encouraged to increase positive interactions with their partners (rewards) and decrease negative ones (costs).
Christensen et al. (2006)² found that two-thirds of couples treated with IBCT reported their relationships improved greatly as well as their happiness. This shows SET has positive real-world applications.
Fig. 3 - Couples in therapy are encouraged to work through their problems to maximise rewards.Social Exchange Theory Examples
Since we've discussed an example of the social exchange theory in relationships already, let's try and apply this theory to another aspect of an individual's life.
Imagine you have a friend that you enjoy spending time with, but when it comes to supporting, they only ever seem to seek support from you, rather than reciprocate it.
If you feel that you don't need the support and are happy with how things are going, you may choose to continue the friendship. On the other hand, if you decide that the lack of support from your friend is outweighing the benefits you receive when you spend time with them, you are likely to end the friendship.
Evaluation of the Social Exchange Theory
While the social exchange theory does have its strengths, it has its fair share of weaknesses as well. Let's discuss some of these below.
Strengths
Sprecher (2001)³ found that the comparison level of alternatives was a significant factor in ensuring commitment in relationships. For women especially, he found that rewards were a predictor of satisfaction. This finding shows social exchange theory at work, as people consider rewards and costs and comparison in real relationships.
Brosnan and De Waal’s (2003)4 research suggests an evolutionary need for benefits in a relationship. In their study of capuchin monkeys, they observed monkeys became angry when given unequal reward distributions for playing a game, suggesting an innate need for rewarding relationships.
Do you think an animal study can directly apply to humans?
Weaknesses
Most studies into social exchange theory are game-based research tasks involving strangers, e.g., Emerson and Cook’s (1978)5 study in which partners bargained to get the highest score in a video game. The lab setting, unrealistic tasks, and unknown participants do not mirror real-life relationships, thereby lacking reliability and validity.
The social exchange theory assumes couples keep a tally of positives and negatives throughout their relationship. Clark and Mills (2011)6 argue this is not the case for romantic relationships; these are communal, not exchange relationships, such as your relationship with a colleague or boss. Further, equity theory states that perceived rewards do not keep a relationship afloat, but rather the perceived equity.
Moreover, the social exchange theory attempts to set a universal approach to relationships, but as mentioned above, relationships vary from couple to couple, so the approach cannot be generalised.
Social Exchange Theory - Key takeaways
- The social exchange theory suggests that a relationship is a constant negotiation of profits (rewards) and losses (costs), based on a cost-benefit analysis.
- According to the social exchange theory, people use comparison levels and comparison levels for alternatives to work out how profitable their relationship is.
- The social exchange theory can be applied in real-life couples therapy.
- Psychologists have come up with two other theories that are extensions of the social exchange theory: the social equity theory and Rusbult's investment model.
- While several studies have demonstrated the strengths associated with the social exchange theory, the conditions of these do not necessarily mirror real-life relationships, which makes them lack reliability and validity.
References
- Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley.
- Christensen, A., Atkins, D. C., Yi, J., Baucom, D. H., & George, W. H. (2006). Couple and individual adjustment for 2 years following a randomized clinical trial comparing traditional versus integrative behavioral couple therapy. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 74(6), 1180–1191.
- Sprecher, S. (2001), Equity and Social Exchange in Dating Couples: Associations With Satisfaction, Commitment, and Stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63: 599-613.
- Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425(6955), 297–299.
- Cook, K. S., and R. M. Emerson. 1978. "Power, Equity and Commitment in Exchange Networks." American Sociological Review 43:712-39.
- Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. R. (2012). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 232–250). Sage Publications Ltd.
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
