Social Exchange Theory (SET) is a prominent framework used to explain human interaction and relationship dynamics. The theory suggests that personal relationships are transactions where individuals seek to maximize their personal gain and minimize their expenditure. This perspective views interactions as a form of economic exchange, proposing that people are motivated by a subconscious cost-benefit analysis. SET provides a structured way to understand why individuals initiate, maintain, or dissolve relationships.
The Foundational Premise
The foundational concepts of Social Exchange Theory are rooted in a behavioral economic view of human nature, suggesting people are rational actors seeking the greatest possible return on their social investment. Sociologist George Homans championed early work in the late 1950s, applying behavioral psychology principles to social interactions. Homans defined exchange as any activity, tangible or intangible, that carries a reward or cost, proposing that individuals try to maximize their profit, even for non-material items like approval or prestige.
The most comprehensive development of SET for interpersonal relationships came from social psychologists John Thibaut and Harold Kelley in 1959. They formalized the theory to explain interdependence, suggesting that continuing a relationship is based on the rewards and costs received from it. This framework assumes that humans inherently seek rewards and actively try to avoid punishments, leading them to pursue interactions that offer the most benefits for the least amount of effort. This concept is often referred to as the “minimax principle,” and the theory posits that relationships are maintained only as long as both parties perceive a favorable balance of exchange.
Calculating Relationship Outcomes
The core arithmetic of Social Exchange Theory is based on two fundamental, subjective components: Rewards and Costs. Rewards encompass anything a person gains from a relationship that is positive. These are the positive outcomes that make the relationship feel worthwhile and satisfying to the individual. Examples include:
- Emotional support
- Companionship
- Praise
- A sense of acceptance
- Shared goals
Costs are the elements of the relationship that carry negative value, representing any effort, sacrifice, or negative consequence incurred. This can include time investment, financial expenditures, emotional stress, obligation, or conflict. The calculation of the relationship’s current value, or the Outcome, is determined by subtracting the total Costs from the total Rewards.
A relationship with a high Outcome provides a “net profit,” meaning the individual receives significantly more benefits than they expend in effort or sacrifice. Conversely, a low Outcome or a “net loss” occurs when the costs outweigh the rewards, suggesting the relationship is draining or unprofitable. This internal negotiation influences a person’s continued investment.
Evaluating Satisfaction and Stability
Individuals do not evaluate a relationship’s Outcome in a vacuum; they use two psychological standards to judge its worth: the Comparison Level (CL) and the Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt). The Comparison Level is the standard used to determine satisfaction with the current relationship. It represents what a person expects or feels they deserve from a particular type of relationship, based on their past experiences, societal norms, and media portrayals.
If the relationship’s Outcome exceeds the Comparison Level, the individual perceives the relationship as satisfactory because it meets or surpasses their expectations. If the Outcome falls below the CL, the individual is likely to feel dissatisfied. This benchmark is highly personal and can evolve over time as a person gains new experiences.
The second standard, the Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt), determines the stability and dependence within the relationship. CLalt refers to the lowest level of rewards a person is willing to accept from the current relationship, given the perceived rewards available from the best alternative option (e.g., another partner or being alone). A relationship is considered stable if the current Outcome is better than the CLalt, meaning all other options are less profitable.
It is possible for a person to be satisfied (Outcome > CL) yet leave the relationship if they perceive a far better alternative (CLalt > Outcome). Conversely, an individual might be highly dissatisfied (Outcome < CL) but still stay because they believe there are no better alternatives available (Outcome > CLalt). This distinction explains why people sometimes remain in unhappy relationships; they are dependent on the current situation because the alternative seems worse.
Academic Critiques of the Theory
Despite its utility, Social Exchange Theory has faced several academic critiques concerning its application to the full complexity of human behavior. One criticism is that the theory is too reductionist, simplifying intricate human emotions and motivations into a straightforward, cost-benefit calculation. Critics argue this economic analysis fails to fully capture the nuances of love, compassion, and shared history in long-term relationships.
The theory also struggles to account for selfless or altruistic behavior, where a person acts to benefit another at a clear personal cost without the expectation of an immediate reward. Such actions contradict the core tenet that individuals are always motivated by maximizing their own profit. Furthermore, the abstract nature of many social rewards and costs creates a challenge for empirical testing. Quantifying intangible elements like “emotional support,” “shared laughter,” or “psychological strain” makes it difficult to measure the theoretical constructs with precision.
Some scholars note that the theory lacks sufficient theoretical precision, often using overlapping constructs, which makes a priori predictions about behavior challenging. Although the framework can effectively explain many social phenomena after the fact, its predictive power regarding future relational outcomes is sometimes limited by the subjectivity of its core variables. The evolution of the theory has led to expansions that attempt to incorporate factors like trust, power, and social structure to address these limitations.