SOCIAL EXCHANGE

THEORY
Diva Najwa Salsabilla (2206046323)
&
Farida Nazifa
 WHAT IS SET?
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.

Most relationships are made up of a certain amount of give-and-take, but this does not mean
that they are always equal. Social exchange suggests that it is the valuing of the ​b enefits and
costs of each relationship that determine whether or not we choose to continue a social
association.
COSTS
the elements of relational life that have
negative value to a person, such as the effort
put into a relationship and the negatives of a
partner.
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):

REWARDS
the elements of a relationship that have
positive value.

John Thibaut and Harold Kelley say, for

example, that “every individual voluntarily
enters and stays in any relationship only as
long as it is adequately satisfactory in terms
of his [sic] rewards and costs”
 Social Exchange Theory goes even further, predicting that the worth of a
relationship influences its outcome, or whether people will continue with a
relationship or terminate it. Positive relationships are expected to endure,
whereas negative relationships will probably terminate.
EXAMPLE OF SET
Friendship:
Suppose your friend always borrows money or other stuff from you, this means that
your relationship with your friend costs you money. But, you like spending your time
with your friend as he/she is supportive, loyal and fun to be around. When you will
weigh the pros and cons as per the social cognitive theory, you prefer to stay in
the friendship if your friend is bringing support and excitement in your life even if
he/she borrows money from you, but you may terminate the friendship if you feel
that the freeloader behaviour of your friend is resulting in a burden over you.
 ASSUMPTIONS
Thibaut and Kelley base their theory on two conceptualizations: one that focuses on the nature of
individuals and one that describes the relationships between two people.

They look to drive reduction, an internal motivator, to understand individuals, and to gaming principles
to understand relationships between people.

THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE ASSUMPTIONS SOCIAL

SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY EXCHANGE THEORY MAKES ABOUT
MAKES ABOUT HUMAN NATURE THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

• Humans seek rewards and avoid • Relationships are

punishments. interdependent.
• Humans are rational beings. • Relational life is a process.
• The standards that humans use to
evaluate costs and rewards vary
over time and from person to
person.
 THE STANDARDS THAT HUMANS
HUMANS SEEK REWARDS USE TO EVALUATE COSTS AND
REWARDS VARY OVER
AND AVOID PUNISHMENT
TIME AND FROM PERSON TO
PERSON.

This approach assumes that people’s

behaviors are motivated by some
suggests that the theory must take
internal drive mechanism. When
HUMANS ARE RATIONAL diversity into consideration. No one
people feel this drive, they are
motivated to reduce it, and the BEINGS. standard can be applied to
process of doing so is a pleasurable everyone to determine what is a
one. cost and what is a reward.
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.
 RELATIONSHIPS ARE THAT RELATIONAL LIFE
INTERDEPENDENT. IS A PROCESS.

the researchers are acknowledging the

importance of time and change in
relational life. Specifically, time affects
exchanges because past experiences
guide judgments about rewards and
costs, and these judgments impact
subsequent exchanges.

The classic game they developed that illustrates their first assumption
about relationships is called the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the outcome for
them is not completely in their own hands, individually. Instead, each
prisoner’s outcome is a result of the combination of their two
responses.
 EVALUATION OF A
RELATIONSHIP: WHY WE
STAY OR GO
COMPARISON LEVEL (CL) COMPARISON LEVEL FOR ALTERNATIVES
is a standard representing what people feel
(CLALT).
they should receive in the way of rewards and This refers to “the lowest level of relational rewards a person is
costs from a particular relationship. willing to accept given available rewards from alternative
Because individuals have very different past relationships or being alone” (Roloff, 1981, p. 48).
experiences with similar types of relationships, CLalt provides a measure of stability rather than satisfaction
they develop different comparison levels. the worst outcome one will accept and stay in the relationship.
If our current relationship meets or exceeds
our CL, the theory predicts we will be satisfied
with the relationship.

www.reallygreatsite.com
Table 11.1 summarizes six possible
combinations among the outcome, the CL,
and the CLalt and the resulting state of the
relationship predicted by the theory.
EXCHANGE
PATTERNS
 EXCHANGE PATTERNS
There are two types of power in Thibaut and Kelley’s theory:
FATE CONTROL
Fate control is the ability to affect a
partner’s outcomes. For example, if
Meredith withholds her friendship
from LaTasha, she affects LaTasha’s
outcome
BEHAVIOR CONTROL
Behavior control is the power to
cause another’s behavior to change
by changing one’s own behavior. If
Meredith calls LaTasha on the phone,
it is likely that LaTasha will stop
whatever else she is doing and talk
to Meredith
 THE GIVEN THE
MATRIX DISPOSITIONAL
The given matrix represents the MATRIX
behavioral choices and outcomes that
are determined by a combination of
dispositional matrix, represents the
way two people believe that
external factors (the environment) and THE EFFECTIVE
internal factors (the specific skills each rewards ought to be exchanged
interactant possesses) MATRIX between them.
The effective matrix, the
transformations you are able to
make to your given matrix, by
learning a new skill, for example
EXCHANGE STRUCTURE
direct exchange, an exchange where two people
reciprocate costs and rewards, For instance, when Brad
washes his father’s car and then his dad lets him use the
car on Saturday night, the exchange is direct.
generalized exchange, an exchange where
reciprocation involves the social network and isn’t
confined to two individuals. Generalized exchanges
occur, for example, when someone moves away from the
neighbor- hood and friends and neighbors help pack up
the moving van. Because the per- son has moved away,
he or she won’t help any of those neighbors move when
they are ready to relocate.
productive exchange, an exchange where both
partners incur costs and benefits simultaneously. For
example, if LaTasha and Meredith do a project together
for their senior English class, they engage in productive
exchange. Both of them have to do the work, and they
both share equally in the grade they receive.
 CRITIQUES
Scope, 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. SET only considers the
individual as a unique entity without focusing on the
individual as a member of a group. Because of this,
SET can- not account for relationships in cultures
that prioritize connection over individuality, for
example.
Utility, According to the utility criteria, a theory
won't be features if it doesn't accurately represent
people. The conception of humans that SET
proposes has drawn criticism.
Testability, A common criticism of
Social Exchange Theory is that it’s not
testable. The difficulty with social
exchange is that its central concept
costs and rewards are not clearly
defined.
Heurism, Supporters of SET point out
that it has been heuristic in origin. The
focus on interdependence that Thibaut
and Kelley placed is consistent with
how many studies view interpersonal
interactions.
 RESOURCES
West, Richard; Turner, Lynn H.. (2007). Introducing communication theory : analysis and
application / Richard West, Lynn H. Turner. New York :: McGraw-Hill,.
THANK YOU