SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY — PART 2

1. Principles of Social Exchange Theory

1. Principle of Reward

2. Principle of Experience

3. Principle of Value of Outcome

4. Principle of Diminishing Returns

5. Principle of Distributive Justice

6. Principle of Rationality

7. Principle of Least Interest

2. Principle of Reward

The more often a particular action is rewarded, the more likely a person is to perform that action again.

Simple meaning:

Rewarded behaviour → repeat the behaviour

If something works and you receive a reward from doing it, you're more likely to do it again.

Example:

You answer questions in class.

Your lecturer praises you.

You receive:
→ Praise = reward

Because you liked receiving the praise, you are more likely to participate again.

Exam keywords:

• Reward

• Repeated behaviour

• More reward → more likely to repeat

🧠 Remember:

Reward → Repeat

3. Principle of Experience

If an individual's action was rewarded in the past, they are likely to perform the same action in a similar situation.

Simple meaning:

Past experience affects future behaviour.

You remember:

"I did this before and it worked."

So when a similar situation happens, you do it again.

Example:

Last semester, you studied with a particular friend before an exam.

You got a good grade.

Later, you have another difficult exam.

You may decide:

"I'll study with that person again."

Why?

Because your past experience was positive/rewarding.

🧠 Remember:

Past reward + similar situation = repeat behaviour

4. Principle of Value of Outcome

The more a person values the result of an action, the more likely they are to perform that action.

Simple meaning:

The more you want the result → the more motivated you are to act.

The important thing is how valuable the outcome is to the individual.

Example:

Suppose getting an A in a subject is extremely important to you.

You may be more willing to:

• study

• attend classes

• complete assignments

• revise

because the outcome (A grade) is highly valuable to you.

If the outcome doesn't matter much to someone, they may be less motivated.

🧠 Remember:

More valuable outcome → more likely to act

5. Principle of Diminishing Returns

The more often a person has recently received a particular reward, the less valuable another unit of that reward becomes.

This is also called:

Reward Satiation

If you receive the same reward repeatedly, eventually each additional reward becomes less exciting or valuable.

Example:

Imagine you really like a particular dessert.

First time:

😍 "This is amazing!"

Second time:

"Still good."

Third time:

"Okay."

If you eat it every day, eventually you may not value another serving as much.

That's diminishing returns.

6. Principle of Distributive Justice

This principle is about whether people feel the exchange is fair.

There are two situations to know.

---

Situation 1: Expected reward doesn't happen

If:

• you expect a reward but don't receive it, OR

• you receive an unexpected punishment

you may feel:

Cheated / treated unfairly

This can lead to:

Punitive behaviour

Example:

You work extremely hard on a group assignment.

You expect to receive equal credit.

But another member gets the same credit despite doing almost nothing.

You may feel:

"That's unfair."

You might respond negatively or take punitive action.

---

Situation 2: Unexpected reward

If:

• you receive an unexpected reward, OR

• you don't receive an expected punishment

you may feel:

Ingratiated or obligated

and are likely to behave approvingly.

Simple meaning:

If someone unexpectedly treats you well, you may feel:

"They did something nice for me, so I should respond positively."

Example:

You expect your lecturer to deduct marks because you submitted something late.

But the lecturer doesn't punish you.

You may feel grateful and respond more positively toward them.

7. Principle of Rationality

Definition

In a decision situation, a person chooses the action where:

Value of the result × Probability of getting the result

is the greatest.

Formula: Choice = Value × Probability

---

Simple meaning

People consider TWO things:

1. How much do I want the outcome?

Value

AND

2. How likely am I to actually get it?

Probability

They choose the option that gives them the best combination.

---

Example:

You have two options.

Option A

• Outcome is worth 10

• Chance of getting it = 90%

Option B

• Outcome is worth 20

• Chance of getting it = 20%

The person considers both the value and the likelihood.

So the most attractive choice isn't necessarily the one with the biggest reward.

It is the one with the best perceived value × probability.

🧠 Remember:

Rationality = "How much do I want it?" × "How likely am I to get it?"

8. Principle of Least Interest

The person who has the least interest in continuing a relationship has greater ability to control the relationship and potentially exploit the other partner.

Why?

Because the person who cares less about staying has less to lose.

The person who cares more about maintaining the relationship is in a weaker position.

---

Simple example

Imagine:

Person A:
"I really want this friendship to continue."

Person B:
"I don't really care whether we stay friends."

If there is a disagreement:

Person A may be more willing to compromise because they don't want to lose the relationship.

Person B has more control because they are less dependent on the relationship continuing.

🧠 Remember:

Who cares less → has more power

---

College dating example from the slides

The slides use a college dating example involving different forms of investment:

• Men → financial and emotional investment for physical affection

• Women → sexual investment to gain attention and commitment

⚠ Important for your exam: This is the specific example given in the lecture slides. Treat it as the lecturer's example of the Principle of Least Interest, not as a universal rule about men and women.

The actual principle you need to remember is:

The person with the least interest in continuing the relationship has greater control.

9. Achieving Balance

Point 1: People may accept high costs for future rewards

People will sometimes tolerate what seems like an extreme cost if they believe there will be a worthwhile payoff in the future.

Simple meaning:

High cost now → acceptable if future reward is worth it.

Example:

A student spends a lot of time studying now.

The cost:

• time

• effort

• less free time

But they expect:

Good grades in the future

So they accept the current cost because of the expected future reward.

10. Ultimate Exchange

Individuals try to create exchanges where:

Both people feel they are gaining a lot while experiencing very little cost.

This is basically the ideal situation.

Example:

Two students work together on an assignment.

Student A is good at:

• research

Student B is good at:

• presentation design

They divide the work according to their strengths.

Both:

• receive a good result

• feel they benefited

• experience manageable costs

→ Balanced and profitable exchange

🧠 Remember:

High benefits + low costs for BOTH = ideal exchange

11. Obligation and Indebtedness

When an exchange is uneven, one person may feel that they owe the other person something.

This creates:

• Obligation

• Indebtedness

Example:

Your friend helps you complete a major assignment.

You feel:

"They really helped me. I should help them next time."

You now feel obligated.

12. Gratitude in Relationships

The slides make an interesting point based on Hochschild (1989).

When couples struggle, the problem is often not simply about who does what.

Instead, it can be about:

Giving and receiving gratitude.

Simple meaning:

The issue may not be:

"I did more work than you."

It may instead be:

"I do so much for you, but you don't appreciate it."

Example:

Person A cooks frequently.

Person B may think:

"I do other things too."

But Person A may feel:

"You never appreciate what I do."

So the conflict may be about recognition and gratitude, rather than simply dividing tasks.

19. Critiques of Social Exchange Theory

1. Too Rational

2. Freedom and Openness

3. Assumes Intimacy is the Ultimate Goal

4. Relationships Are Not Always Linear

Critique 1: Too Rational

Problem:

SET reduces human interaction to a purely rational process based on economic theory.

Why is this a problem?

Humans don't always make decisions logically.

People can act based on:

• emotions

• feelings

• habits

• values

• relationships

rather than simply calculating:

Rewards − Costs

Example:

Someone may continue helping a friend even when they get nothing in return.

Why?

Because they care about the person.

This doesn't fit perfectly with a simple cost-benefit calculation.

Exam point:

SET may oversimplify human behaviour by treating social interaction as rational/economic exchange.

Critique 2: Freedom and Openness

The theory tends to favour ideas such as:

• Freedom

• Openness

But the slides point out:

There may be situations where openness is not the best option in a relationship.

Simple meaning:

Being completely open or free to say/do everything isn't necessarily appropriate in every relationship or situation.

Example:

You may choose not to share every personal thought with someone because privacy or boundaries may be important.

So:

More openness ≠ always better

Exam point:

The theory may place too much value on freedom/openness without considering situations where limits or boundaries are appropriate.

Critique 3: Assumes Intimacy is the Ultimate Goal

SET may assume that the ultimate goal of relationships is:

Intimacy

But this isn't necessarily true.

Why?

Different relationships can exist for different purposes.

For example:

• classmates may mainly interact for academic purposes

• coworkers may interact for work

• teammates may interact to achieve a shared goal

Not every relationship is trying to become highly intimate.

Example:

You can have a classmate who you work well with but don't consider a close friend.

The relationship is still useful and meaningful.

Exam point:

Not every relationship aims for intimacy.

Critique 4: Relationships Are Not Always Linear

SET can place relationships into a linear structure, suggesting relationships develop through stages in a particular direction.

But real relationships don't always work like that.

Relationships may:

• skip stages

• move forward

• move backward

• change in terms of intimacy

Example:

Two people may become close very quickly without slowly progressing through every stage.

Or:

Two close friends may become less close over time.

So relationships don't always follow a straight line.

🧠 Remember:

Real relationships can move forward, skip steps, or go backwards.