Social Exchange Theory proposes that we evaluate our relationships by way of a cost-benefit analysis. By weighing the potential benefits and risks of our relationships, we are able to maintain relationships where the benefits are high and terminate relationships where the benefits are low.
Three Premises:
1. There are different types of relationships, but all are built on interactions involving benefits and costs.
2. Humans are relational beings who seek rewards and avoid punishments.
3. Standards used to evaluate costs vary over time and across people.
Three Key Comparison Points:
1. Outcomes: May be positive (more benefits than costs) or negative (more costs than benefits).
2. Comparison Level (CL): Do the benefits/costs meet my expectations for this type of relationship?
3. Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt): What alternatives are there for this type of relationship?
A representative equation of this theory is: Outcome = Rewards – Costs.
For example, let’s say Tim and Nancy are dating. Tim takes Nancy out to dinner at least twice a week, buys her nice things, and gives her compliments. Nancy, in turn, helps Tim with his English homework, visits him at work, and babysits his sister’s kids. This appears to be a valuable relationship for both parties since each is getting some benefits or rewards out of it.
However, no relationship is perfect. Tim doesn’t like how Nancy always complains to him about her parents, gives him the silent treatment when she’s mad about something, and nags him to clean up after himself. These would be the costs of the relationship. Likewise, Nancy doesn’t like how Tim drives recklessly, doesn’t remember anniversaries, and rarely cleans up after himself. Neither of them leave the relationship, though, because so far the rewards outweigh the costs for both of them.
By way of illustrating another concept of this theory, let’s say Tim stopped paying for Nancy’s dinners or buying her nice things. For Nancy, the rewards of the relationship would substantially decrease, leaving her to evaluate her satisfaction with the relationship. Because Tim used to buy her dinner and gifts, he set a precedent that she came to expect from him. This is called the Comparison Level (CL), which is the way we judge the value of a relationship based on past experiences. To compound this effect, if Nancy’s ex-boyfriend were a multimillionaire who spoiled her, then Tim’s not buying her dinner or gifts would be even more detrimental to the relationship since her past experiences have heightened what she expects from future boyfriends.
A final concept of this theory is the Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt), which is defined by the best relational outcome available outside of the relationship. Maybe Nancy was okay with Tim not buying her dinner or gifts until her multimillionaire ex became available again and begged her to take him back. Suddenly, her CLalt became more attractive to her than her current relationship. This formula can be used to predict if Nancy will stay in the relationship:
Outcome > CLalt > CL
In other words, if the outcome of Nancy’s relationship with Tim is greater (more valuable) than her outside alternatives, and the outcome of her relationship with Tim is also greater than her comparison level (expectations from her current relationship), then she will most likely stay with Tim. Given the above scenario, I’m not so sure Nancy will stay with Tim. Her formula would look more like this:
Outcome < CLalt < CL
Adios, Tim!
Communication Theories 