Social Exchange Theory: Relationships as Profit and Loss
Think of your relationships like a bank account - you're constantly making deposits (rewards) and withdrawals (costs). Social Exchange Theory, developed by Thibault and Kelley, argues that we judge our relationship satisfaction based on whether we're making a profit (rewards minus costs).
Rewards might include companionship, emotional support, intimacy, or just having someone to binge-watch Netflix with. Costs could be the time you invest, stress from arguments, energy spent compromising, or missing out on other opportunities. The theory suggests we're basically relationship accountants, constantly calculating whether we're getting a good deal.
Your comparison level (CL) acts like your relationship standards - it's what you think you deserve based on past experiences and what you've seen in films, books, and social media. Meanwhile, your comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) is how attractive other options look. If your current relationship profit drops below these levels, you're more likely to jump ship.
Key Insight: The theory predicts we only stay in relationships when they're more rewarding than the alternatives - even if we're currently satisfied!
The theory outlines four stages: sampling (exploring what's out there), bargaining (negotiating early relationship terms), commitment (settling into stability), and institutionalisation (establishing long-term patterns). Each stage involves different calculations of costs and benefits.
Research support comes from Kurdeck's study showing that the most committed partners perceived the most rewards, fewest costs, and found alternatives least attractive. However, critics like Carr and Mills argue this approach is too cold and calculating for romantic relationships, which are based on genuine care rather than profit motives.
The theory faces several limitations: it's reductionist (ignoring emotional complexity), assumes we're always self-interested, and struggles with the direction of cause and effect - Argyle suggests we only start counting costs and benefits after we're already dissatisfied, not before.