1
Chapter 9: Social Exchange Theory
Chapter 9
Social Exchange Theory
Chapter Outline
I. Introduction
• Social Exchange Theory (SET) is based on the notion that people think about their
relationships in economic terms.
• People tally up the costs of being in a relationship and compare them to the rewards that
are offered by being in that relationship.
o Costs are the elements of relational life that have negative value to a person, such as
the time and effort one has to put into maintaining a relationship or the negatives one
has to put up with in their partner.
o Rewards are the elements of a relationship that have positive value.
• All relationships require some time and effort on the part of their participants.
• The Social Exchange perspective argues that people calculate the overall worth of a
particular relationship by subtracting its costs from the rewards it provides (Monge &
Contractor, 2003).
• Positive relationships are those whose worth is a positive number; that is, the rewards are
greater than the costs.
o Relationships where the worth is a negative number (the costs exceed the rewards)
tend to be negative for the participants.
• Social Exchange Theory predicts that the worth of a relationship influences its outcome, or
whether people will continue with a relationship or terminate it.
o Positive relationships are expected to endure, whereas negative relationships will
probably terminate.
• Ronald Sabatelli and Constance Shehan (1993) note that the Social Exchange approach
views relationships through the metaphor of the marketplace, where each person acts out of
a self-oriented goal of profit taking.
o However, Laura Stafford (2008) qualifies that economic exchanges and social
exchanges have some differences.
▪ Social exchanges involve a connection with another person
▪ Social exchanges involve trust, not legal obligations
▪ Social exchanges are more flexible
▪ Social exchanges rarely involve explicit bargaining
2
Chapter 9: Social Exchange Theory
II. Assumptions of Social Exchange Theory
• The assumptions that Social Exchange Theory makes about human nature include the
following:
o Humans seek rewards and avoid punishments.
o Humans are rational beings.
o The standards that humans use to evaluate costs and rewards vary over time and from
person to person.
• The assumptions Social Exchange Theory makes about the nature of relationships include
the following:
o Relationships are interdependent.
o Relational life is a process.
• The notion that humans seek rewards and avoid punishment is consistent with the
conceptualization of drive reduction (Roloff, 1981).
o This approach assumes that people’s behaviors are motivated by some internal drive
mechanism.
• The assumption that humans are rational is critical to Social Exchange Theory.
o The theory rests on the notion that within the limits of the information that is
available to them, people will calculate the costs and rewards of a given situation and
guide their behaviors accordingly.
• The assumption that the standards people use to evaluate costs and rewards vary over time
and from person to person suggests that the theory must take diversity into consideration.
o No one standard can be applied to everyone to determine what is a cost and what is a
reward.
• Thibaut and Kelley take the three assumptions about human nature from drive reduction
principles.
o In their approach to relationships, they developed a set of principles that they call
Game Theory.
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
• One of the most interesting parts of Thibaut and Kelley’s theory is their explanation of how
people evaluate their relationships with reference to whether they will stay in them or leave
them.
o Thibaut and Kelley claim that this evaluation rests on two types of comparisons:
comparison level and comparison level for alternatives.
• The comparison level (CL) is a standard representing what people feel they should receive
in the way of rewards and costs from a particular relationship.
o Comparison levels vary among individuals because they are subjective.
o Individuals base their CL, in large part, on past experiences with a specific type of
relationship.
• The comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) refers to “the lowest level of relational
rewards a person is willing to accept given available rewards from alternative relationships
or being alone” (Roloff, 1981, p. 48).
o CLalt provides a measure of stability rather than satisfaction.
o If people see no alternative and fear being alone more than being in the relationship,
Social Exchange Theory predicts they will stay.
• Table 9.1 summarizes six possible combinations among the outcome, the CL, and the
CLalt and the resulting state of the relationship predicted by the theory.
Relative Value of Outcome, CL, CLalt
State of the Relationship
Outcome > CL > CLalt
Satisfying and stable
Outcome > CLalt > CL
Satisfying and stable
CLalt > CL > Outcome
Unsatisfying and unstable
CLalt > Outcome > CL
Satisfying and unstable
CL > CLalt > Outcome
Unsatisfying and unstable
CL > Outcome > CLalt
Unsatisfying and stable
IV. Exchange Patterns: SET in Action
• In addition to studying how people calculate their relational outcomes, Thibaut and Kelley
were interested in how people adjust their behaviors in interaction with their relational
partners.
o Thibaut and Kelley suggest that when people interact, they are goal directed.
• People, according to Thibaut and Kelley, engage in behavioral sequences, or a series of
actions designed to achieve their goal.
o These sequences are the heart of what Thibaut and Kelley conceptualize as social
exchange.
• Power is the degree of dependence a person has on another for outcomes.
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
o There are two types of power in SET: fate control and behavior control.
▪ Fate control is the ability to affect a partner’s outcomes.
▪ Behavioral control is the power to cause another’s behavior to change by
changing one’s own behavior.
• Thibaut and Kelley state that people develop patterns of exchange to cope with power
differentials and to deal with the costs associated with exercising power.
o Thibaut and Kelley describe three different matrices in social exchange to illustrate
the patterns people develop: the given matrix, the effective matrix, and the
dispositional matrix.
▪ The given matrix represents the behavioral choices and outcomes that are
determined by a combination of external factors (the environment) and internal
factors (the specific skills each interactant possesses).
▪ People can transform the give matrix into the effective matrix, “which
represents an expansion of alternative behaviors and/or outcomes which
ultimately determines the behavioral choices in social exchange” (Roloff, 1981,
p. 51).
▪ The final matrix, the dispositional matrix, represents the way two people
believe that rewards ought to be exchanged between them.
V. Exchange Structures
• Exchanges may take several forms within the matrices: direct exchange, generalized
exchange, and productive exchange.
o Direct exchange is an exchange where two people reciprocate costs and rewards.
o Generalized exchange is an exchange where reciprocation involves the social
network and isn’t confined to two individuals.
o Productive exchange is an exchange where both partners incur costs and benefits
simultaneously.
VI. Integration, Critique, and Closing
• Social Exchange Theory has generated a great deal of research and has been called “one of
the major theoretical perspectives in the field of social psychology” (Cook & Rice, 2003, p.
53).
• As one reflects on SET, the criteria of scope, utility, testability, and heurism are important
to address.
A. Scope
5
Chapter 9: Social Exchange Theory
• When examining SET on the basis of scope, some critics comment that it fails to
explain the importance of group solidarity in its emphasis on individual need fulfillment
(England, 1989).
o This critique argues that “the exchange framework can be viewed as valuing the
separative self to the extent that rationality and self-interest are emphasized”
(Sabatelli & Shehan, 1993, p. 397).
o By prioritizing this value, the connected self is overlooked and undervalued.
o In some ways, this objection has ontological considerations as well, but it also
suggests that the scope of the theory is too narrow.
o SET only considers the individual as a unique entity without focusing on the
individual as a member of a group.
B. Utility
• The criterion of utility suggests that if the theory doesn’t present an accurate picture of
people, it will be faulted as not useful.
o SET has been criticized for the conceptualization of human beings it advances.
o Social Exchange assumes a great deal of cognitive awareness and activity, which
several researchers have questioned (Berger & Roloff, 1980).
C. Testability
• A common criticism of Social Exchange Theory is that it’s not testable.
o The difficulty with SET is that its central concepts—costs and rewards—are not
clearly defined.
o When the theory argues that people do what they can to maximize rewards and
then also argues that what people do is rewarding behavior, it is difficult to
disentangle the two concepts.
6
Chapter 9: Social Exchange Theory
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
• People who support SET point out that it has been heuristic.
o Studies in many diverse areas, from corporations (Muthusamy and White, 2005)
to foster care (Timmer, Sedlar, and Urquiza, 2004) have been framed using the
tenets of Social Exchange.
o Researchers have also examined communication in romantic relationships (Frisby,
Sidelinger, & Booth-Butterfield, 2016), theater groups (Kramer, 2005), and
micro-blogging (Liu, Min, Zhai, & Smyth, 2016) using SET.
congruent with many researchers’ notions of interpersonal relationships.
Classroom Activities
1. Win as Much as You Can
Objective: To replicate the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” exercise by providing students with a
situation to analyze the impact of the rewards and costs associated with cooperating or not
cooperating with others
Materials: “Win as Much as You Can” worksheet (see below), one set of two cards for
each group (one card with an “X” printed on it and the other with a “Y” printed on it)
Directions
a. Divide students into four groups.
b. Provide each group with the “Win as Much as You Can” worksheet to explain the
exercise.
“Win as Much as You Can” Worksheet
Directions: As a group, you must decide whether to play your “X” or “Y” card during each
“meeting” with other groups’ representatives. In this meeting, the representatives can
7
Chapter 9: Social Exchange Theory
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
discuss strategies for playing the “X” or “Y” card. After the meeting, representatives will
return to their groups, and each group will decide which card to play during that round.
The team with the most points at the end of ten rounds will be awarded the prize
designated by your instructor.
Point Chart
Number of “X’s”
Number of “Y’s”
Points
1
3
X earns 3 pts
2
2
X earns 2 pts
3
1
X earns 1 pt
4
0
X loses 1 pt
0
4
Y earns 1 pt
Round
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
1
2
3 reps meeting
4
5 reps meeting
6
7
8 reps meeting
9
10 reps meeting
2. Social Exchange in the Media
Objective: To assist students in identifying relationships portrayed in the media (In doing
Materials: None
Directions
a. Form students into groups.
8
Chapter 9: Social Exchange Theory
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
b. Instruct groups to generate a list of ten relationships portrayed in the media that they
feel are “rewarding” relationships and a list of ten relationships that they feel are
“unrewarding.”
c. As a class, discuss the impact these portrayals have on students’ own expectations
about relationships. Focus the discussion on the following questions:
• Are there portrayals of work relationships that have influenced one’s
perceptions about what life in the “real world” is/will be like? Consider the
same question with the following portrayals: (a) classroom relationships, (b)
romantic relationships, and (c) family relationships.
• How much credence should people place on the media portrayal of
relationships? Should people use them as “yardsticks” or as a comparison level
when judging their own relationships? Why, or why not?
3. Is It Worth It? Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Your Relationship
Objective: To assist students in identifying the costs and benefits associated with being
involved in both positive and negative relationships
Materials: “Is It Worth It?” worksheet (see below)
Directions
• The power held by each partner in the relationship
Is It Worth It?” Worksheet
Directions: Identify a positive relationship in which you are currently involved and a
negative relationship in which you are currently involved. These can be romantic
relationships or relationships with friends, co-workers, and so on. Do not identify your
relational partners by name; use fictional names instead. Under each category, list the
rewards and costs associated with your involvement in each of the relationships.
Rewards
Costs
Positive relationship
Negative relationship
4. Social Exchange Theory and The Simpsons
Objective: To help students visualize and apply the major concepts from SET
Materials: Episode 4F04 of The Simpsons, “A Milhouse Divided” (from Season Eight)
Directions
a. Briefly review the theory’s major concepts, and ask students to look for examples of
these concepts, as well as any behaviors that seem inconsistent with the theory, while
watching the episode.
LuAnn’s perceived costs include embarrassment and financial instability, and
Kirk’s costs include not getting good meals and waiting for LuAnn to get
ready, etc.)?
• How do these perceptions lead each to evaluate their CL and CLalt (e.g.,
LuAnn concludes she’d be better off without Kirk because he does not meet
her CL; at first, Kirk tries to convince himself that he, too, would be better off
with an alternative relationship, but he eventually concludes that the costs were
small compared to the rewards)?
• What costs and rewards do Homer and Marge perceive in their relationship
(e.g., Marge gets no help from Homer, Homer perceives going out with friends
as a cost and chooses not to go, Homer eventually realizes just how many costs
Marge puts up with, etc.)?
• How do these perceptions lead each to evaluate their CL and CLalt (e.g.,
Homer fears Marge may leave him because of the costs she tolerates in their
marriage, so Homer attempts to increase the rewards for Marge in order to get
closer to her CL; etc.)?
• What other concepts were evident in this episode (e.g., the rationality of Marge
staying in a costly marriage, LuAnn’s insistence on a divorce illustrating her
fate control over Kirk, the characters’ behavior control over their relational
partner, etc.)?