This looks awfully familiar doesn't it? ...or, at least it will be as you read the material.
Social Exchange Theory (SET) is based on the notion that people think about their relationships in economic terms and that they tally up the costs and compare them to the rewards that are offered. Costs are the elements of relational life that have negative value to a person. Rewards are the elements of a relationship that have positive value. People strive to minimize costs and maximize rewards and then base the likeliness of developing a relationship with someone on the perceived possible outcomes. When these outcomes are perceived to be greater, we disclose more and develop a closer relationship with that person.
The assumptions that Social Exchange Theory makes about human nature include the following:
• Humans seek rewards and avoid punishments.
This approach assumes that people’s behaviors are motivated by some internal drive mechanism. When people feel this drive, they are motivated to reduce it, and the process of satisfying the drive is a pleasurable one. They feel a need for understanding and companionship, and this need (or drive) is fulfilled (or reduced) by spending time together. (This means if you're in a relationship and the other person is coming to you to have their needs met, and you continue to fulfill them, they will continue to come to you and they will try to avoid doing things that may make you stop.)
• Humans are rational beings.
The second assumption—that humans are rational—is critical to Social Exchange Theory. 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. This also includes the possibility that faced with no rewarding choice; people will choose the least costly alternative. (Basically, if a person's choices end in disaster regardless of what they do, they will go with the one that does the least amount of damage.)
• The standards that humans use to evaluate costs and rewards vary over time and from person to person.
The third assumption suggests that the theory must take diversity into consideration. There is no one standard that can be applied to everyone to determine what is a cost and what is a reward. Social Exchange Theory is a law-like theory because SET claims that although individuals may differ in their definition of rewards, the first assumption is still true for all people: We are motivated to maximize our profits and rewards while minimizing our losses and costs. (In other words, one person may think the relationship is more rewarding or costly than the other person does.)
The assumptions Social Exchange Theory makes about the nature of relationships include the following:
• Relationships are interdependent.
A relationship's conditions or outcome is a result of what both people do; not just one. The actions of one person will directly affect the other. Thus, whenever any one member of a relationship acts, both the other and the relationship as a whole are influenced. (Pretty straightforward.)
• Relational life is a process.
In stating this, 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. (What you experience in the past or present can affect the way you relate to similar things in the future. For example, if a man treats a woman like complete crap, she will be wary of the same behavior by similar guys. If she meets a similar guy who shows her respect, her expectations of similar guys will start being shaped by this experience.) This process affects our expectations. Further, the notion of process allows us to see that relationships constantly change and evolve.
Once you understand the assumptions of social exchange theory, it is easier to understand the evaluation of a relationship or why we stay or go.
Comparison Level (CL): A standard representing what people feel they should receive in the way of rewards and costs from a particular relationship. A person has a subjective feeling about what they should give and what they should get, in return, from a relationship. Comparison levels vary among individuals because they are subjective. Individuals base their CL, in large part, on past experiences with a specific type of relationship. Because individuals have very different past experiences with similar types of relationships, they develop different comparison levels.
People sometimes leave satisfactory relationships and stay in ones that are not so satisfying. This seeming inconsistency with their second standard of comparison is called the comparison level for alternatives (CLalt).
Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt): This refers to the lowest level of relational rewards a person is willing to accept given available rewards from alternative relationships or being alone. In other words, the CLalt measures how people evaluate a relationship compared to the realistic alternatives to that relationship. CLalt provides a measure of stability rather than satisfaction—that is, the CLalt suggests how likely it is that a person would leave her relationship, even though it is a satisfying one, for something they thinks would be better. A comparison of CLalt, outcome, and CL creates ratios that suggest why people remain in relationships that are abusive and violent. If people see no alternative and fear being alone more than being in the relationship, Social Exchange Theory predicts they will stay.
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 unstable
West, R. & Turner, L. (2004). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw-Hill
This is the communication theory and associated assumptions that are responsible for allowing us to develop a cost-benefit analysis of relationships.