According to the social exchange theory the rewards that motivate helping are

Are you that friend who's always checking in on others, but they don't check in on you? Perhaps you’re that employee who goes above and beyond to produce top-quality work despite a lack of recognition? How about that partner who's always doing the food shopping, cooking dinner and keeping the house clean, whilst your other half is watching television?

If you nodded along to any of the above, you may feel less than satisfied with the 'exchange' that is occurring in that relationship, and the disproportionate amount of effort you are investing in it compared to the other person or people. Rest assured, that's completely normal, and you're definitely not the only one... 

A weighting game 

Social Exchange Theory is one of the most prominent theories of social interaction, and centres around the idea that how we feel towards a social interaction or relationship is dependent on what we get out of it. We make decisions based on unconscious cost-benefit analyses of a relationship and seek to maximise reward. In short, as much we may not like to admit it, we seek to get more out of an interaction than we put into it. 

For example, according to Social Exchange Theory, we are far more likely to stay in a romantic relationship or stay invested in a social friendship if the rewards of doing so appear high and the costs are comparatively low; however, if we begin to feel that the costs outweigh the rewards, this is when satisfaction in the relationship and its perceived stability diminishes, and it is vulnerable to collapse. 

It's not always quite that simple though. Giving up on a long-term relationship of any kind can be extremely difficult, as we are motivated to retain some value (reward) if we have previously had to give something up (cost). This cost could amount to the years of watching horror films from behind a pillow when you'd rather be relaxing with a wildlife documentary, or time spent planning for a future together - you don't want all that to be for nothing, right?! This is an example of a phenomenon in Behavioural Science known as the Sunk-Cost Fallacy, whereby we are more likely to continue pursuing an activity or endeavour if we have already invested considerable time, energy, or money into it.  

Daring to compare and looking elsewhere 

So, if you've made it this far, hopefully you've got a feel for how Social Exchange Theory proposes we approach relationships much like we do our spending decisions. 'Do I buy this new expensive Alexa device that will wake me up in the morning, read me the weather forecast, and allow me to blast my favourite tunes all around the house... or will it be more hassle than it's worth, because I'll end up shouting at her when she doesn't understand my requests and I'll end up checking my Weather App instead?!' Well, there are a couple of other things that may influence this decision, more than simply impatience with my voice-controlled personal assistant.

Costs and rewards associated with a relationship can be tangible/material (such as money and gifts) or intangible (such as love and affection). The value we associate with certain costs and benefits is, of course, not objective or something we can 'quantify' - instead, it is a subjective judgement. Our constant weighing up of the benefits and drawbacks of a relationship, creates a comparison level that is influenced by our social expectations for the relationship, previous experiences, and even alternatives (what other relationships would offer you compared to the current one).  

For example, a person who has always had a close group of friends that provides plentiful social support usually has a higher comparison level than someone who has experienced bad friendships, prompting that person to end subsequent friendships that do not live up to their greater expectations.  

An imbalance between costs and benefits causes us to adopt a 'grass is greener' outlook and seek alternative relationships or interactions. In some cases, this results in termination of the current relationship and engagement in a new one. In others, the relationship is reassessed with a further cost benefit analysis, and, upon concluding that an alternative relationship would likely not provide greater reward or a lesser cost than the current one, the existing relationship persists. 

Critique of Social Exchange Theory 

No theory would be a theory without its critics, and Social Exchange Theory is considered by some people to be flawed in the assumptions it makes. Some believe it is reductionist in its claims, meaning that it is limited in the range of relationships that it can explain or account for; others criticise it for being determinist in its views, such as assuming all individuals will leave a relationship if the costs outweigh the benefits, despite a large body of evidence suggesting that stay in unfulfilling, or even in some cases, abusive and violent relationships. 

It appears that knowledge of Social Exchange Theory could be useful in understanding certain elements of social interaction, but it is also seen by many to be too simplistic, and that it neglects to consider the complexities and nuance of human relationships. 

What do you think of the theory? Has this blog resonated with you and your life, painting pictures of past friendships and relationships, or does it not accurately reflect them at all? Maybe it's got you interested in finding out more about Behavioural Science? If so, you're in luck, as we've recently launched our NEW 'A Load of BS!' work-break webinar series. 

How does social exchange theory explain helping?

What are the main principles of social exchange theory?

What are the three main components of social exchange theory?

What is social exchange theory and explanation?